UK Green Lights HS2 High Speed Rail Line

An anonymous reader writes "The United Kingdom has given the green light to the first phase of its proposed High Speed Two train line. In response to environmental concerns, the route for HS2 will now include extra tunneling in the first 90 miles, so not to disrupt the natural beauty of the English countryside. The first phase will connect London to Birmingham and could be functional by 2026."

Comments

A good start, but...

[anyanka]

...any chance they'll ever fix the horrible mess they've made of the non-high speed lucky-if-you-get-there-alive train service in the UK?

Re:A good start, but...

[myurr]

Except Labour did effectively renationalise Network Rail when they forced Railtrack into administration and then created Network Rail to take its place paying £500m in the process. However they couldn't call it nationalisation otherwise they would have had to pay an extra £1.5bn to the shareholders, so instead they created a really convoluted management structure but still get to have their say in how it is run due to the government paying for various projects and by being able to appoint a director that other members cannot remove. Network Rails debts (all £20bn) are also underwritten by the government. Network Rail receives something in the region of £5bn a year in taxpayers money on top of the revenue collected from the tain operators.

So the tracks, signalling and numerous stations are all state owned and state run. And yet the regulator says that Network Rail is significantly less efficient than other track operators across Europe (some 30+% less efficient), and we still have massive infrastructure problems in the UK.

The train operators are pretty dire, thanks to privatisation that didn't include competition at the passenger level which makes it a state sanctioned monopoly, but it is laughable to suggest that things were any better when the entire show was publicly run or that Network Rail are doing any better. The UK government, or more rightly the civil service as this spans multiple governments, doesn't exactly have a stellar record in delivering value for money or even just good services let alone large scale projects. Can you name one major project that has come in under budget or ahead of schedule? The vast majority end in failure, massively late, massively over budget, or some combination of all three.

Re:A good start, but...

[Dominic]

Actually, BR was both more efficient and much better for the UK economy. I just happen to have written a piece on this very subject a couple of days ago: http://www.dominictristram.com/2012/01/05/rail-fare-increase.html

Re:A good start, but...

[jo_ham]

Blame that on John Major, breaking up the rail system and selling all the money-making parts off for pennies on the pound to private industry, then rolling up all the complex and expensive stuff into Railtrack.

An ideal way to privatise profit and nationalise risk.

BR needed modernisation badly, but privatisation was not it the answer there - at least not the way it was done.

Re:14 years??

[martin-boundary]

That's because the Germans were involved. When Germans are on the team, things get organized a lot faster.

Yes lots, also lots of rich city types

[fantomas]

Lots of beautiful English countryside south of Manchester. Also lots of stockbrokers / rich city types who don't want their countryside fantasy shattered by noisy development work. A bit like the rich lords and ladies 150 years ago who complained about their views being ruined the first time they put railway lines across the land.

Though to be fair there are ecological concerns to be taken into account this time round seeing as we've got less countryside left.

Re:Yes lots, also lots of rich city types

[delinear]

Generous? Homes will be affected along the entire length, but it's not the Birmingham end of the line that's getting concessions with underground tunnels etc. Imagine you've put everything you have into an even more modest home that backs onto some farmland, and take great pleasure in having your breakfast looking out over the grazing sheep and the thicket of trees on the horizon. Then one day you're told that your view is going to be of a grey concrete wall, behind which there will be a train line. Then you find out that the people with comparatively far less modest homes in a comparatively far richer part of the country had their piece of line buried to preserve their views (partially at your expense as a tax payer). And do you think they'll do this in Manchester or Leeds? You'll be lucky to have even the concrete wall to look at, probably a rusty chainlink fence. This is nothing to do with general pleasantness, it's to do with the Conservatives looking after their own as usual. According to them the public sector is a horrible drain on society, but they have no qualms about raiding it to make their own lives easier at the expense of the rest of the country. They should be leading by example and refusing to let the public pay extra for something that benefits so few.

Re:14 years??

[Totenglocke]

You can thank the exponential growth of bureaucracy over the last 70 years for that. It's the same reason why it took 7 years to build the original World Trade Center and now more than a decade after 9/11, they're "hoping" that it will be almost done by 2020 (19 years after).

Not just railway lines

[Kupfernigk]

Yes, the HS2 tunnels are an expensive sop to rich Conservative donors. But the idea has history. On its way through Bath, the Kennet and Avon Canal is hidden away as much as possible so that the Jane Austen crowd didn't have to look at the grubby people who brought their coal in. The railway followed the same route. And the main road from Bath to the M4 has a hideous cutting which is visible from the city, but was built purely for the benefit of a pair of BBC journalists who lived on the hill opposite. Millions were wasted...

Which is why it is funny in a way that Lord Astor has suggested that HS2 is unnecessary and an improved Internet backbone for better video conferencing would be a more sensible use of the money. The fibre link from London to Birmingham could easily be laid along the existing railway or canal network.

Re:Not just railway lines

[shilly]

As someone else has said, it's 40 minutes, not 20. And obviously, that's far from the only benefit of HS2 -- self-evidently, it's a huge increase in capacity. Capacity is much more important than speed.

The problem with our railways is not speed

[Chrisq]

Its capacity and cost. A return from Leeds to london tomorrow will cost £123 off peak. That's just under 200 miles so its chaper to drive. If you want the chapest travel then you would go by coach for £9.50. It seems to me that for the same or less than HS2 they could have longer platforms, double decker coaches (like in France) and get the cost down. I would rather have a 2 hour service for about £30 that I could actually use than a 50 minute one for £200.

Re:The problem with our railways is not speed

[doghouse41]

Good point but enhancing an existing line to improve capacity and speed is far more problematic than building a new line on a greenfield site. I think they realised that after comparing the success of HS1 (Channel tunnel to London) when compared with the West Coast main line upgrade that was taking place at the same time.

- There is a finite limit to the number of trains you can run down any stretch of track. Once you reach that limit (which is quite close on existing track) You have limited options to increase capacity:-

    > Make the trains/platforms longer. Good in theory, but requires major changes to existing infrastructure. (Demolition of existing buildings in town centres) Changes in track layout, particularly at terminus stations. Changes in signalling (for longer trains).

  > Double decker trains. This requires a change in the loading gauge of the lines. A particular problem in the UK that has a smaller existing track gauge than Europe. This is why double decker trains are widespread in Europe and non-existent in the UK: there simply isn't the room for them. Changing the gauge basically means rebuilding the entire railway, with all the disruption that brings. (i.e. rebuild bridges, overhead lines, all track-side structures, track alignment, platforms....)

Building an entirely new line brings you all of the benefits of longer platforms, double decker trains, and a much higher speed. All without causing any significant disruption to existing lines. It's cheaper in the long run. And it provides a much bigger increase in total capacity and resilience for the money.

Re:The problem with our railways is not speed

[dkf]

It seems to me that for the same or less than HS2 they could have longer platforms, double decker coaches (like in France) and get the cost down.

Longer platforms are coming, where possible and sensible, but double decker coaches aren't. The problem is that the standard size of space for a train (i.e., the size of tunnels and bridges) is enough smaller in the UK that there's not enough room to put a double decker coach through it. Moreover, the UK uses bridges very heavily by comparison with much of the world.

I would rather have a 2 hour service for about £30 that I could actually use than a 50 minute one for £200.

Yes, but if you go two weeks further out (and are willing to travel outside peak times) there's a fare on the same route for £22.60. (I'm not sure if that's a return or a single; the website's interface isn't quite as clear on that as I would want.) Booking at the last minute is costly, but booking well ahead is pretty cheap.

Re:14 years??

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

It took only six years for the greatest mobilization in world history to defeat the Axis.

Yes, well this time you don't have Russians doing the bulk of the dirty work for you.

Re:Natural beauty of the English countryside?

[Bert64]

Yes, transport in general in the UK is a mess...
As was reported recently, trains cost massively more in the UK than in other european countries, and if you live outside of a large city public transport is even worse or may be entirely lacking.

Concorde cut the journey time to new york in half, and yet it's no longer flying... Faster transport isn't whats needed, we need to decrease distances, decrease congestion and most importantly decrease the need to travel.

Encourage home working... Most office jobs can be done from anywhere with an internet connection and phoneline...
Stagger working hours - don't have everyone travel in for 9am, that just causes mass congestion at specific times and creates a horrendously inefficient transport system where the extra capacity to handle peak traffic is simply wasted at other times. Many staff never need to interact directly with third parties and so have no reason to be at work 9-5.
Convince businesses to get over this stupid obsession of having offices in central london (or other large cities), it doesn't make your company look prestigious it just increases costs and hinders your recruitment process because people are put off by the horrendous commute and will usually demand more money for working there. Instead, build your offices in small business parks located outside the centre of cities, not only are these considerably cheaper but there is generally affordable housing within a short distance. I personally have turned down several job offers that required commuting to central london.

Re:14 years??

[anyanka]

Well, you know – if it hadn't been for the US in WW2, the UK would have had decent train service now... :P

Re:14 years??

[Nadir]

Premise: I'm half-Brit half-Italian.
A while ago an Italian newspaper compared the time it took to build the Channel Tunnel compared to the Milan Bypass Railway (6 vs 24 years) poking much fun at our (Italian) slowness. Now that Italy has a full high-speed rail link between Turin-Milan-Rome-Naples (which included digging new tunnels in the Appenini mountains) built in less than 20 years (nearly 1000 Km), someone should write a similar article.
Obviously these times and distances are laughable compared to France and Japan anyway.

Re:14 years??

[Malc]

Conveniently ignoring the fact that the US waited until they knew they were on the winning side. Just like a bunch of Manchester United supporters.

Re:This has nothing to do with rail

[serviscope_minor]

No, really, it's purpose is to spend 32 billion+.

The stretch to bitmingham will cost 15bn and save 40 (not 20) minutes, not to mention increasing capacity. The Full cost is for the full plan is for the extension to Manchester and Leeds which will cost 32bn and save considerably more time and also add capacity.

The mainline is running close to capacity, and only the government has the foresight and funds to spend money on large infrastructure projects.

Since you're likely to troll me with the same assertion as before, what do you propose should be done to increase capacity?

Re:14 years??

[Gordonjcp]

Well yes, of course - once the US stopped handing vast amounts of machinery and oil to Germany, beating them was easy. Glad you guys finally decided to come on side once the difficult bit was done, though.

St Margarets to Buntingford

[Kupfernigk]

Yup. They cut it to save £6000 of loss, and then lost £24000 of income on the main line because the accountants were too stupid to understand that just about every single passenger was going on to London. Now, in 2012, that would be a very profitable line through expensive Hertfordshire villages.

British accountants frequently combine arrogance with ignorance; their inability to understand how businesses really work has been one of the reasons for failure of UK PLC.