Do you want to discuss boring politics? (32 Viewers)

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
The day north western took over they reduced the number of carriages they put on.
Avanti relied on the good will of drivers doing overtime to keep their trains running and had to cancel trains left right and centre when that goodwill was withdrawn.

There's easy fixes to some of the issues out there but we seem incapable of implementing them so I'm not sure HS2 will improve our lot.
Where I do agree with shmmeee though is the execution of projects is always late and over budget. Still amazed me how the Italians managed to install high speed rail connections across the whole country years ago but we can’t build even one between Birmingham and London, never mind the other links.

It now won’t even stop at Euston. Time to cut our losses personally.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Where I do agree with shmmeee though is the execution of projects is always late and over budget. Still amazed me how the Italians managed to install high speed rail connections across the whole country years ago but we can’t build even one between Birmingham and London, never mind the other links.

It now won’t even stop at Euston. Time to cut our losses personally.

Yeah, I appreciate Shmmeee is commenting on the value of the project rather than its delivery but its going to be over budget by an eye watering amount, that much is clear.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Where I do agree with shmmeee though is the execution of projects is always late and over budget. Still amazed me how the Italians managed to install high speed rail connections across the whole country years ago but we can’t build even one between Birmingham and London, never mind the other links.

It now won’t even stop at Euston. Time to cut our losses personally.
The fact that it won't link up with the Eurostar line is stupid IMO. It should go to St Pancras. I admit that's not the easiest logistically but given the overall cost of the project and the long term effect they want it to have it's something that needed to be sorted out.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
And this is exactly why we have shit infrastructure in this country. The problem is delivery not the project itself, which is needed for the capacity boost elsewhere.
The way it was sold too. It was sold as this exciting fast way to get to London that would be the envy of the world isn’t Britain great. The free capacity on existing lines is actually the best reason for building it and I think if they’d sold it on that basis in the first place it would be seen as necessity not vanity and more accepting by the public.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
And this is exactly why we have shit infrastructure in this country. The problem is delivery not the project itself, which is needed for the capacity boost elsewhere.
Correct, anybody who is keen on infrastructure spending campaigning for projects to be cancelled is just a turkey voting for Christmas.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
As a local example of how HS2 can help to unlock capacity. There is currently no direct Coventry to Leicester train because there isn't capacity for a train to cross the West Coast Mainline at Nuneaton because of the fast trains to London that come through at fairly high frequency. With HS2 some of those fast trains will be on HS2 potentially leaving some capacity on the WCML.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Fact is if we didn’t have watered down over budget infrastructure we’d have no infrastructure at all.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
The way it was sold too. It was sold as this exciting fast way to get to London that would be the envy of the world isn’t Britain great. The free capacity on existing lines is actually the best reason for building it and I think if they’d sold it on that basis in the first place it would be seen as necessity not vanity and more accepting by the public.
I remember it being sold as a 'levelling up' sort of deal - connecting the north better and so making it more enticing to investment. Personally I thought that was horseshit and it was a way of allowing BHX to be used as extra airport capacity to London. I never expected anything other than Stage 1 to be built. I also expected it to be wildly overbudget (I predicted £80bn from a, I think, £30bn initial expected cost) but even that seems to have been massively optimistic.

It can' be cancelled now as so much work has already been done and money spent. It's not like we cancel this and suddenly the best part of £100bn will become available to upgrade the existing rail infrastructure.

The thing is Britain is quite different to many other countries - it's small and it's destinations are closer together. Plus the tracks tend to be windy*. So the focus should be on acceleration as much as speed.

And it is worth remembering the only reason we got the original railways built was cos people were promised they could make a mint out of it.

*windy as in not straight, not as in are in a gale.
 
Last edited:

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
And as for the cost, the problem is that due to politics more than anything else, the original stated budget is usually optimistic to say the least. It's not a problem in any case, it is literally billions of pounds being paid into the British economy, we need a lot, lot more of it not less.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
It’s all good - forget the traffic and the destruction of land - we got a new village hall

 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Fact is if we didn’t have watered down over budget infrastructure we’d have no infrastructure at all.

The problem is when it's watered down to the extent it doesn't achieve much of what it's supposed to is the huge overspend worth it?
 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
Where I do agree with shmmeee though is the execution of projects is always late and over budget. Still amazed me how the Italians managed to install high speed rail connections across the whole country years ago but we can’t build even one between Birmingham and London, never mind the other links.

It now won’t even stop at Euston. Time to cut our losses personally.
The UK train service is very poor compared to the Italian one, especially when it comes to ticket prices.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
The problem is when it's watered down to the extent it doesn't achieve much of what it's supposed to is the huge overspend worth it?

We need to fix the fact it takes decades and billions to so much as dig a hole in the ground in this country. And the political cowardice that means it gets watered down.

There’s no magic other rail project that’s going to get funded instead. This is just more austerity.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
I know someone who’s a project manager on the section between London and Birmingham. Like the literature on this he is shall we say unconvincing. Public transport in NI is even worse but like most things there we’ve given up trying.

The work done will ultimately just help people get to London quicker from a few select places. I fail to see how that improves capacity in places like Scotland and Wales or even to be honest places nearer to London like East Anglia. I would support something that makes more routes available within these areas, not something that at best makes more carriages available.
Wait until they cut the frequency of services from Coventry, Warwick, Leamington and rugby too, expecting people to first go to Birmingham...
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
We need to fix the fact it takes decades and billions to so much as dig a hole in the ground in this country. And the political cowardice that means it gets watered down.

There’s no magic other rail project that’s going to get funded instead. This is just more austerity.

I 100% agree with your first paragraph.

But costs can't be far off quadruple what they were originally and with stage 2 or whatever it was called cancelled its not going to deliver huge chunks of what it was supposed to, is it right to just carry on because we need more infrastructure spend?
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
I 100% agree with your first paragraph.

But costs can't be far off quadruple what they were originally and with stage 2 or whatever it was called cancelled its not going to deliver huge chunks of what it was supposed to, is it right to just carry on because we need more infrastructure spend?

Yes because we really need infrastructure spend.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
But do we need to spend on infrastructure that doesn't deliver? Seems crazy.

In what way doesn’t it deliver? Is it as good as it could have been? No cos it’s watered down. Is it better than nothing? Surely?

We’ve got no high speed rail compared to most countries our level. We’ve got a rail network that’s one of the oldest in the world. We cancel this and then what? Another 50 years to do the same thing again?
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
In what way doesn’t it deliver? Is it as good as it could have been? No cos it’s watered down. Is it better than nothing? Surely?

We’ve got no high speed rail compared to most countries our level. We’ve got a rail network that’s one of the oldest in the world. We cancel this and then what? Another 50 years to do the same thing again?

I read that the average cost of new rail lines in Europe is 25 million per KM, HS2 is on course to cost 200 million per KM.
It won't deliver much of what it was supposed to and the costs are likely to keep increasing, I can't see the logic in ploughing on regardless.

I've been sceptical since the start but there's something in what you say about the necessity for infrastructure spend but surely it needs to ne done right?

As for having one of the oldest rail networks in the world there are countries with older that still piss all over ours in terms of reliability and pricing.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
I read that the average cost of new rail lines in Europe is 25 million per KM, HS2 is on course to cost 200 million per KM.
It won't deliver much of what it was supposed to and the costs are likely to keep increasing, I can't see the logic in ploughing on regardless.

I've been sceptical since the start but there's something in what you say about the necessity for infrastructure spend but surely it needs to ne done right?

As for having one of the oldest rail networks in the world there are countries with older that still piss all over ours in terms of reliability and pricing.
Was reading an article about light railways and it’s the same in the UK. We’re paying more per km for light railways too, anywhere between £50-75M per km. we only have 9 in the whole of the UK, way below the European average. But then again we’ve invested about 40% less over the last 75 years in transport infrastructure so we’re probably just paying the cost of catch-up.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
A man who would turn up for the opening of a packet of crisps posing as a banking expert.
Even more of these
577a4d6820b383a7ee9160485ed14593.jpg


Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
You got to admire the brazenness. Policy after policy that’s not only a terrible idea but unpopular too. His paymasters really squeezing the value out of Sunak before he goes.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
You got to admire the brazenness. Policy after policy that’s not only a terrible idea but unpopular too. His paymasters really squeezing the value out of Sunak before he goes.
It’s one thing staying in government when you can’t be arsed anymore and just want to keep power, it’s another to just start going full windmill.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top