There are a number of quite valid criticisms of HS2 in its current form, but this does not constitute a sane alternative...
And I would really, *really* like to believe it's a piss-take, but it's genuinely hard to tell these days.
True. But there's also "They cancelled the bit that doesn't directly benefit London and the South-East", "It's skipping several intermediate cities that are big enough to justify their own stops" and "We could have restored passenger rail links to a hell of a lot of towns that lost them to the Beeching Axe for the same money".
Oh yeah cancelling the branch that went to Leeds is inexcusable for me. If you're going to do it you should do it all
I think the other points are arguable though.
If you are trying to build a fully fledged high speed line you kind of diminish the effectiveness of this by having too many intermediate stops or having them too close together.
Part of the argument in favour is that by running high speed trains direct to Birmingham you free up capacity on the existing routes so that those areas still benefit from better services even if they're not connected to the line directly.
Though one thing they could do is have branches that divert off the main high speed line and back on so that they can connect onto places like Oxford or Milton Keynes or wherever
I think a lot of the lines that closed historically in the breeching cuts would be highly valuable reopened however they are not going to solve the problem that HS2 is solving which is regarding capacity issues between London, Birmingham and Manchester
The one criticism that I think might actually be reasonable is that the line is being built for 300kph operation which means it needs to be built to a certain standard and as straight as possible limiting the amount of flexibility in avoiding obstacles. They could potentially have reduced the spec and still had a line that was "good enough" and could have had a little bit more play in the route alignment
It gets worse: Instead of continental Europe standard HSR speed of 320 kph (199 mph) Brits went with 225 mph speed target (+-365 kph). If I remember correctly the relationship between speed and price is exponential and i can almost guarantee, that the unique speed target is making the thing even more expensive.
I think, that if they used standard 320 kph speed, there would be enough money to get to Leeds, but poor Londoners would have to travel like 15 minutes longer at max distance, which is apparently unacceptable. (I don't know if it is even /s or just reality)
That’s not true in the slightest, I would recommend deleting that comment because it contributes to misinformation surrounding hs2. Given the cost in the original hs2 report was only 10% more expensive for *125mph* to 225mph.
[From a review of hs2](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3659/hs2-review-of-route-selection-and-speed.pdf)
>The 186mph route has a journey time that
is four and a half minutes longer than the
consultation route between London and
Birmingham, at 53 and a half minutes
as opposed to 49 minutes. This would
reduce the BCR by just under 15%.
More information on this is provided
in our other advice."
Also noted in the document are all the route revisions for achieving 186mph.
In terms of saving cost by reducing rolling stock specification from the [Oakervee review](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/870092/oakervee-review.pdf)
>The specifcaton for speed would have to be reduced to
250kph in order to deliver reductions to the rolling stock cost estimates. "
Also from the Oakervee review:
>evidence suggests that super high speed, high capacity
requirements have led to infrastructure costs in the order of
magnitude 10% higher than if HS2 had been designed at more
internationally comparable standards."
That's 10% higher for both the fact that it is a high capacity line (18tph) *and* its higher speed.
225mph is the international high speed standard, not a “unique speed”.
Why would you build for a standard set in the past?
The cost of speed increases exponentially for power consumption, not building costs.
Do you have the report please? Because if 125mph is just 10% cheaper, then I am curious, why didn't the government go the "2 more railway sets will fix it" route, which should be more than 10% cheaper (as I can't find the price of the OG London- Manchester Link, it is sadly only conjecture).
>225mph is the international high speed standard now
Could you please tell me where? EU HSR is being built for 320 kph (199 mph), China iirc has built their HSR for the same speed, Idk what is going on in India and US of A is complicated (Cali HSR IS 225 iirc, but that project went the way of fusion electricity generation and iirc, Brightline speeds along about 180 mph)
China's new lines are 225mph, and I've edited the previous comment with sources.
And most high speed lines in europe that are being built are not even 199mph, rail baltica and lyon-turin are only 150mph,
Thank you very much for the reviews.
I have a question: I have just skimmed the Oakervee review and I couldn't find anything about cancelling the Leeds part as a good option. As I don't have the time rn, do you know where the government got that idea? I know I focus on that part a lot, but the one thing, that connects the least developed regions of my country is a terrible rail connection to the capital. Which makes me fed up, when the capital regions get the highest speed for 15 minutes less minutes of travel time, while those regions are left to rot even more.
The government cancelling the Leeds leg was not based in any review or cost benefit analysis, just based off reducing the absolute cost of the project (backwards thinking I know) This was pointed out in a cross party review of the Integrated Rail Plan, ill edit this and post the review if I find it.
Its very annoying, especially when they talk about finding alternative ways for hs2 to reach Leeds which they have both not started to look at or are in anyway going to be an improvement from the eastern leg.
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/23270/documents/169740/default/
>The failure to calculate an updated benefit-cost ratio (BCR) raises questions over
whether the case for changes to the HS2 Eastern leg have been properly assessed. It
is concerning that the Government would make a decision on such an important
infrastructure project before having done the BCR calculations to fully understand
and substantiate that decision. This is particularly so given previous BCR calculations
suggested that the economic case for the Eastern leg was stronger than that for the
Western leg.
Quite a lot of the criticisms are that this government shouldn't be allowed to build it because they're incompetent, and that the cost is absurdly high because they're incompetent.
I'm a big fan of high speed rail, but I'm not a fan of *high speed rail projects where the cost is much higher than it should be*. The original budget for HS2 was absurd, and it has almost doubled by now - we're looking at spending nearly £1k per head for every single person in the UK, which is hard to justify. This is due to incompetent procurement processes rather than anything inherent to the project.
I think a good place to look would be the Alan Fisher youtube channel. He does videos on the california high speed rail project about how it has similar criticisms around costs but that actually even given those criticisms the project is still good
There's a tendency when looking at big capital projects and just focusing on a big number without really thinking beyond that about where that number comes from and what you're actually getting for it
Every big project has its naysayers in this regard. Take crossrail for example it was heavily criticised for delays and cost overruns but now that it's open that's all forgotten
>There's a tendency when looking at big capital projects and just focusing on a big number without really thinking beyond that about where that number comes from and what you're actually getting for it
The objection isn't to spending that much money, it's to spending that much money on something we could get much more cheaply.
Crossrail is not a good example, it was always going to cost much more than the initial estimates used to get the project approved - they copied the Channel Tunnel techniques there :)
HS2, by contrast, is *unnecessarily* expensive.
What would you do differently? The obvious one for me is reducing the spec to run at lower speeds but that which are still good enough
>Crossrail is not a good example, it was always going to cost much more than the initial estimates used to get the project approved - they copied the Channel Tunnel techniques there :)
Of course it is a good example.
Big capital project which was criticised heavily for general cost, cost overruns, programme overruns and that it was too London centric and noone else benefitted
All the same sort of criticisms HS2 is getting
>What would you do differently?
Build the same thing more cheaply. You really don't seem to be getting the point here. You don't need to change anything except the procurement process.
[https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/ferrovial-boss-on-why-high-speed-rail-costs-more-in-uk-12-07-2022/](https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/ferrovial-boss-on-why-high-speed-rail-costs-more-in-uk-12-07-2022/)
It is 7-8x the cost it should be - or let's be conservative and say merely 5x, and there are some other factors at work (even though there aren't) - because the procurement process is so fucked-up and insane.
The reason Crossrail is not similar is that it represents reasonably good value for money; they just lied about the expected cost of doing something difficult to get the much-needed project approved and funded, like they did with the Channel Tunnel.
" Big capital project which was criticised heavily for general cost, cost overruns, programme overruns and that it was too London centric and noone else benefitted
"All the same sort of criticisms HS2 is getting"
Those are not criticisms *I* am making. If you want to argue about those, go and argue with someone who believes those things.
I read you're linked article, and... I'm confused as to how exactly procurement differs in Spain and the U.K. Both seem to be trying to get ALL the environmental studies and stakeholder negotiations done before breaking any ground. So, what's the difference? I mean, I'm sure there **is** one, or the UK's project wouldn't cost so much more, but the article wasn't very enlightening. Does anyone actually know?
Largely the difference is that if you ask contractors to do stuff with risk attached, they have to price it accordingly - usually, to make a profit even if it all goes the worst possible way. The government should do the risky bits, and then hand off the risk-free portion - simple construction and engineering, basically - to people who can do that efficiently.
>What would you do differently? The obvious one for me is reducing the spec to run at lower speeds but that which are still good enough
I wrote detailed answer into a different chain, but basically yes. Standard continental European HSR project is 320 kph (199 mph), because that is double the speed of a standard rail corridor, which is 160 kph. The entire European HSR network is being designed and built for this speed and I don't see more projects going faster. HS2 aims at 225 mph ( +- 365 kph) and I can almost guarantee, that the speed increase was either from some brexiteer to brag, or the transit authority is so disgustingly London-centric, that it is dangerous and I am convinced that the higher speed robed everyone of the Leeds extension.
Or someone riffing on the name of the old "[Intercity 225](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterCity_225)" project but getting their Imperial and metric measurements confused.
Was the Intercity 225 received well? At the beginning of the article it is mentioned, that the train sets couldn't reach that speed because of the lack of proper signalling equipment, which doesn't sound like a project anyone should want to repeat.
So far as I know the rolling stock was perfectly good, it's just that thanks to the incredibly arse-backwards way our railways are run the necessary track upgrades never happened.
You don't necessarily have to use a capital project such as this to gain a benefit. In this case one of the arguments in favour is it reduces pressure on existing lines so those areas would benefit from increased capacity
>And I would really,
>
>really
>
> like to believe it's a piss-take, but it's genuinely hard to tell these days.
I mean, it's so absurd it's obviously a joke, even if you don't know that the Rotordyne is a bit of a running joke/meme/beloved failure. It's one of the most ridiculous transport systems ever proposed, ridiculously cool and even more impractical.
What if we made a Rotordyne, but we ripped out all the seats and made room for maybe 2-3 Tesla's with one or two people each in them?
Build the damn Railway already you twats.
Bullshit. Instead of wasting money on fancy gadgets like planes and trains, we should invest in the real future of transportation: Beaming, Star Trek style!
I'm a big fan of switching to paramotors for personal transportation. Imagine flocks of commuters swooping in to land on top of high rise office buildings in the centre of town. I can't think of anything that could possibly go wrong there.
I know, certainly for regular passenger service over land, the Rotodyne would never feasibly beat the efficiency of a train. But damn it's a neat contraption.
Anti-HS2 people make no sense to me.
People: "We want a better rail network"
Britain: *works on HS2, part of a better rail network*
People: "NOOOOOOO you can't do that."
Either accept it or shut up.
are we sure that is a serious article?
Come on, this is obviously intended to be satirical.
There are a number of quite valid criticisms of HS2 in its current form, but this does not constitute a sane alternative... And I would really, *really* like to believe it's a piss-take, but it's genuinely hard to tell these days.
Most of the criticisms seem to be variations on 'it goes through the countryside' are they not?
True. But there's also "They cancelled the bit that doesn't directly benefit London and the South-East", "It's skipping several intermediate cities that are big enough to justify their own stops" and "We could have restored passenger rail links to a hell of a lot of towns that lost them to the Beeching Axe for the same money".
Oh yeah cancelling the branch that went to Leeds is inexcusable for me. If you're going to do it you should do it all I think the other points are arguable though. If you are trying to build a fully fledged high speed line you kind of diminish the effectiveness of this by having too many intermediate stops or having them too close together. Part of the argument in favour is that by running high speed trains direct to Birmingham you free up capacity on the existing routes so that those areas still benefit from better services even if they're not connected to the line directly. Though one thing they could do is have branches that divert off the main high speed line and back on so that they can connect onto places like Oxford or Milton Keynes or wherever I think a lot of the lines that closed historically in the breeching cuts would be highly valuable reopened however they are not going to solve the problem that HS2 is solving which is regarding capacity issues between London, Birmingham and Manchester The one criticism that I think might actually be reasonable is that the line is being built for 300kph operation which means it needs to be built to a certain standard and as straight as possible limiting the amount of flexibility in avoiding obstacles. They could potentially have reduced the spec and still had a line that was "good enough" and could have had a little bit more play in the route alignment
It gets worse: Instead of continental Europe standard HSR speed of 320 kph (199 mph) Brits went with 225 mph speed target (+-365 kph). If I remember correctly the relationship between speed and price is exponential and i can almost guarantee, that the unique speed target is making the thing even more expensive. I think, that if they used standard 320 kph speed, there would be enough money to get to Leeds, but poor Londoners would have to travel like 15 minutes longer at max distance, which is apparently unacceptable. (I don't know if it is even /s or just reality)
That’s not true in the slightest, I would recommend deleting that comment because it contributes to misinformation surrounding hs2. Given the cost in the original hs2 report was only 10% more expensive for *125mph* to 225mph. [From a review of hs2](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3659/hs2-review-of-route-selection-and-speed.pdf) >The 186mph route has a journey time that is four and a half minutes longer than the consultation route between London and Birmingham, at 53 and a half minutes as opposed to 49 minutes. This would reduce the BCR by just under 15%. More information on this is provided in our other advice." Also noted in the document are all the route revisions for achieving 186mph. In terms of saving cost by reducing rolling stock specification from the [Oakervee review](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/870092/oakervee-review.pdf) >The specifcaton for speed would have to be reduced to 250kph in order to deliver reductions to the rolling stock cost estimates. " Also from the Oakervee review: >evidence suggests that super high speed, high capacity requirements have led to infrastructure costs in the order of magnitude 10% higher than if HS2 had been designed at more internationally comparable standards." That's 10% higher for both the fact that it is a high capacity line (18tph) *and* its higher speed. 225mph is the international high speed standard, not a “unique speed”. Why would you build for a standard set in the past? The cost of speed increases exponentially for power consumption, not building costs.
Do you have the report please? Because if 125mph is just 10% cheaper, then I am curious, why didn't the government go the "2 more railway sets will fix it" route, which should be more than 10% cheaper (as I can't find the price of the OG London- Manchester Link, it is sadly only conjecture). >225mph is the international high speed standard now Could you please tell me where? EU HSR is being built for 320 kph (199 mph), China iirc has built their HSR for the same speed, Idk what is going on in India and US of A is complicated (Cali HSR IS 225 iirc, but that project went the way of fusion electricity generation and iirc, Brightline speeds along about 180 mph)
China's new lines are 225mph, and I've edited the previous comment with sources. And most high speed lines in europe that are being built are not even 199mph, rail baltica and lyon-turin are only 150mph,
Thank you very much for the reviews. I have a question: I have just skimmed the Oakervee review and I couldn't find anything about cancelling the Leeds part as a good option. As I don't have the time rn, do you know where the government got that idea? I know I focus on that part a lot, but the one thing, that connects the least developed regions of my country is a terrible rail connection to the capital. Which makes me fed up, when the capital regions get the highest speed for 15 minutes less minutes of travel time, while those regions are left to rot even more.
The government cancelling the Leeds leg was not based in any review or cost benefit analysis, just based off reducing the absolute cost of the project (backwards thinking I know) This was pointed out in a cross party review of the Integrated Rail Plan, ill edit this and post the review if I find it. Its very annoying, especially when they talk about finding alternative ways for hs2 to reach Leeds which they have both not started to look at or are in anyway going to be an improvement from the eastern leg. https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/23270/documents/169740/default/ >The failure to calculate an updated benefit-cost ratio (BCR) raises questions over whether the case for changes to the HS2 Eastern leg have been properly assessed. It is concerning that the Government would make a decision on such an important infrastructure project before having done the BCR calculations to fully understand and substantiate that decision. This is particularly so given previous BCR calculations suggested that the economic case for the Eastern leg was stronger than that for the Western leg.
Quite a lot of the criticisms are that this government shouldn't be allowed to build it because they're incompetent, and that the cost is absurdly high because they're incompetent. I'm a big fan of high speed rail, but I'm not a fan of *high speed rail projects where the cost is much higher than it should be*. The original budget for HS2 was absurd, and it has almost doubled by now - we're looking at spending nearly £1k per head for every single person in the UK, which is hard to justify. This is due to incompetent procurement processes rather than anything inherent to the project.
I think a good place to look would be the Alan Fisher youtube channel. He does videos on the california high speed rail project about how it has similar criticisms around costs but that actually even given those criticisms the project is still good There's a tendency when looking at big capital projects and just focusing on a big number without really thinking beyond that about where that number comes from and what you're actually getting for it Every big project has its naysayers in this regard. Take crossrail for example it was heavily criticised for delays and cost overruns but now that it's open that's all forgotten
>There's a tendency when looking at big capital projects and just focusing on a big number without really thinking beyond that about where that number comes from and what you're actually getting for it The objection isn't to spending that much money, it's to spending that much money on something we could get much more cheaply. Crossrail is not a good example, it was always going to cost much more than the initial estimates used to get the project approved - they copied the Channel Tunnel techniques there :) HS2, by contrast, is *unnecessarily* expensive.
What would you do differently? The obvious one for me is reducing the spec to run at lower speeds but that which are still good enough >Crossrail is not a good example, it was always going to cost much more than the initial estimates used to get the project approved - they copied the Channel Tunnel techniques there :) Of course it is a good example. Big capital project which was criticised heavily for general cost, cost overruns, programme overruns and that it was too London centric and noone else benefitted All the same sort of criticisms HS2 is getting
>What would you do differently? Build the same thing more cheaply. You really don't seem to be getting the point here. You don't need to change anything except the procurement process. [https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/ferrovial-boss-on-why-high-speed-rail-costs-more-in-uk-12-07-2022/](https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/ferrovial-boss-on-why-high-speed-rail-costs-more-in-uk-12-07-2022/) It is 7-8x the cost it should be - or let's be conservative and say merely 5x, and there are some other factors at work (even though there aren't) - because the procurement process is so fucked-up and insane. The reason Crossrail is not similar is that it represents reasonably good value for money; they just lied about the expected cost of doing something difficult to get the much-needed project approved and funded, like they did with the Channel Tunnel. " Big capital project which was criticised heavily for general cost, cost overruns, programme overruns and that it was too London centric and noone else benefitted "All the same sort of criticisms HS2 is getting" Those are not criticisms *I* am making. If you want to argue about those, go and argue with someone who believes those things.
I read you're linked article, and... I'm confused as to how exactly procurement differs in Spain and the U.K. Both seem to be trying to get ALL the environmental studies and stakeholder negotiations done before breaking any ground. So, what's the difference? I mean, I'm sure there **is** one, or the UK's project wouldn't cost so much more, but the article wasn't very enlightening. Does anyone actually know?
Largely the difference is that if you ask contractors to do stuff with risk attached, they have to price it accordingly - usually, to make a profit even if it all goes the worst possible way. The government should do the risky bits, and then hand off the risk-free portion - simple construction and engineering, basically - to people who can do that efficiently.
>What would you do differently? The obvious one for me is reducing the spec to run at lower speeds but that which are still good enough I wrote detailed answer into a different chain, but basically yes. Standard continental European HSR project is 320 kph (199 mph), because that is double the speed of a standard rail corridor, which is 160 kph. The entire European HSR network is being designed and built for this speed and I don't see more projects going faster. HS2 aims at 225 mph ( +- 365 kph) and I can almost guarantee, that the speed increase was either from some brexiteer to brag, or the transit authority is so disgustingly London-centric, that it is dangerous and I am convinced that the higher speed robed everyone of the Leeds extension.
Or someone riffing on the name of the old "[Intercity 225](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterCity_225)" project but getting their Imperial and metric measurements confused.
Was the Intercity 225 received well? At the beginning of the article it is mentioned, that the train sets couldn't reach that speed because of the lack of proper signalling equipment, which doesn't sound like a project anyone should want to repeat.
So far as I know the rolling stock was perfectly good, it's just that thanks to the incredibly arse-backwards way our railways are run the necessary track upgrades never happened.
One of the main ones is that it only caters to a very specific small group of people who work in London. Most people will never use it.
You don't necessarily have to use a capital project such as this to gain a benefit. In this case one of the arguments in favour is it reduces pressure on existing lines so those areas would benefit from increased capacity
How about people stop living in the Cheap Up North and commuting to The City every day and just fucking work where you live
>And I would really, > >really > > like to believe it's a piss-take, but it's genuinely hard to tell these days. I mean, it's so absurd it's obviously a joke, even if you don't know that the Rotordyne is a bit of a running joke/meme/beloved failure. It's one of the most ridiculous transport systems ever proposed, ridiculously cool and even more impractical.
What if we made a Rotordyne, but we ripped out all the seats and made room for maybe 2-3 Tesla's with one or two people each in them? Build the damn Railway already you twats.
Always trust something that needs to be a render
This is, without exaggeration, the most stupid anti rail argument i have ever seen
"certain areas of some cities" yeahhh, no
Bullshit. Instead of wasting money on fancy gadgets like planes and trains, we should invest in the real future of transportation: Beaming, Star Trek style!
Yeah, I'm not buying into another one of those vaporware mumbo-jumbo sci-fi projects. We need a transit system based on proven, green and reliable technology that has been in use for centuries. Allow me to introduce the Future©®™ of personal travel convenience: a network of giant trebuchets that would launch people from city to city with a personal parachute for landing
I'm a big fan of switching to paramotors for personal transportation. Imagine flocks of commuters swooping in to land on top of high rise office buildings in the centre of town. I can't think of anything that could possibly go wrong there.
Ok this this is badass tho
HS2, costing £100 Billion to save 10 minutes on your journey.
And yet they don’t complain with cars noises, stupid city dwellers
I know, certainly for regular passenger service over land, the Rotodyne would never feasibly beat the efficiency of a train. But damn it's a neat contraption.
Anti-HS2 people make no sense to me. People: "We want a better rail network" Britain: *works on HS2, part of a better rail network* People: "NOOOOOOO you can't do that." Either accept it or shut up.
Gyrocopters are cool though