We should have had high speed rail in the UK decades ago. This project is something that should have been undertaken in the era that Japan was developing the Shinkansen.
@@isnitjustkit That was an attempt at a hack. True high speed rail needs straight track over as much of it's distance as possible. The APT was an answer to the question of how to get trains to travel as quickly as possible on the track available - instead of building new lines. The concept of the APT did result in the Pendalino, offering quicker journeys on the WCML, but then impacting local services along the route.
@@leighduxbury3864 The Japanese also had cost overruns and failed deadlines when they were building the Shinkansen, leading to the resignation of the transportation ministers at the time.
Japan also has a crippling national debt and hasn't seen economic growth or wage growth in real terms for decades in large part due to that national debt. So the Japanese governments over spending has crippled and retarded its economy and economic future. Just because a government builds something especially when it comes from borrowing that doesn't make it a good idea by definition, even if the infrastructure it self delivers benefits.
Another good point is all the ‘Express’ trains on the current lines which will be replaced by HS2 trains will open space for freight trains on the current lines. So a significant amount of the trucks you see on the motorway can be replaced by fright train. One freight train could have the same capacity as 30 HGV’s Motorways would be a lot less congested by trucks which is good for the environment and people commuting on the motorway
In the 60's motorways were built to speed up journey times and take long distance traffic from the A road network, the same thinking should have been applied to the rail network twenty years later.
Beeching did a lot to make sure rail would not compete with road. He ripped out the slow tracks from mainlines massively trashing capacity. He also closed destination stations and soon after their (now unused) lines.
By the time we've finished talking about it, the Chinese will have planned, built and delivered half a dozen HS2 sized infrastructure projects. If we want to continue run with big boys, we need to pull our socks up.
@@cargillmonteque2311 but we're not talking exclusively for long journeys, and I've heard arguments that rail has a sweet spot between road and air travel particularly for journeys between 200 and 500 miles, which have been described as too long to drive, too short to fly
Cargill Monteque . It costs less to ride a train than to travel on an aircraft from London to Liverpool. No need for suitcase checks, no screenings, no additional fuel costs, no need for large tarmacs and airports, etc. All for the same speed and time as an aeroplane (without processing time). The Japanese perfected this mode of travel in the 60’s.
Thanks for covering this topic. As someone who grew up in the north and now studies climate science, HS2 is exactly what the North needs from an economic, and the country as whole from an environmental, point of view. Frankly, it should have been done decades ago. And it annoys me no end to hear middle-class southerners complain that it will mean a lovely old pear tree will be felled .
As a frenchman who lived in the UK for years, it was always bewildering how much the country that invented trains lacks high speed train infrastructure
Because the UK pioneered the railways and had a more complete early infrastructure based on slow trains that happily meandered around obstacles. Then when it came to upgrade the network, the British Rail engineers thought they could save billions by designing a train where the carriages tilted on the existing track. It was designed and built in the 70s and put into operation in 1981. It lasted a couple of weeks before being removed from service and will forever be known as the 'Vomit Comet' as good ol' English engineering didn't do adequate passenger tests. About 30% of riders got nauseous.. This was the beginning of the end for British Rail and our high speed dreams in the 20th century. But the tech was altered and the tilt reduced and was used on many subsequent high speed rails in other countries.
@@GregHighPressure , you may have also missed that since the British pioneered rail transport. They now have a legacy of rail lines with tight clearances build for small rail equipment which does not allow for adaptation to high speed. This high speed thing should have been thoughtout years ago.
The WCML, ECML, MML and GWL are all high-speed, just over the minimum threshold. They can be *much faster* with: faster trains, up to date signalling and removal of bottlenecks.
@Samuel Thornton - what competition? Given how railway franchises are set up ensures that 99% of the time you've only got a single provider for any given destination... That makes them regional monopolies. Monopolies are the least competitive thing going.
Ah, don't be so hard on yourself. Even Germans don't really get the concept, even though we've technically had "high speed rail" for 30 odd years. But since the country is rightfully owned by VW, BMW and Daimler, we've done everything in our power to make it suck as bad as possible.
nurbsi von sirup honestly German’s complaining about DB is as hilarious as rich people moaning about tax breaks. German rail is one of the cheapest , most efficient and fastest services in the world. Please stop with the bellyaching.
@swave158 : Nifty theory, but the South had trains _before_ the war. The first transcontinental kine had been planned by a group of Southerners before the opposition of Southern upper classes to governmental spending & projects scuppered it. There were various things the North did and still does (both intentionally & otherwise) to try to exert control over the South, but the railroads are a weak example at best.
The Shinkansen, you know the hugely successful high speed rail line in japan ended up costing twice as much as originally planned plus the President of the Japanese national railways and chief engineer resigned.
High Speed rails are awesome... If You've ever been on one in China or Japan, then you know they are the best way of travel, and can do so much for the country and economy.
I was in China not so long ago and travelling around is so much easier with a high speed rail. Because of China's size, the distance between cities is much greater than it is here in the UK.
You don't even have to go that far away, France, Italy, Spain and I'm sure many more European countries also have high-speed rail networks. I've only experienced the Italian one and it was very good. Although never on time, the national rail service is well connected and tickets cheap. The high speed rail was more punctual and still competitively priced, much cheaper than a comparable journey in the UK.
China yeah NOT like the one they lost a whole train full of passengers on and hid it by digging a trench next to line and bulldozing entire train w bodies into it. NOT kidding.
Enjoyed the video. As a former railwayman and noting how congested the existing routes are, particularly lines from Euston, this project is essential. Lots of comments, but once done I am sure it will rapidly be accepted. HS1 construction caused problems, but rapidly became the norm once opened.
pretty much, it has always been the role of public works projects to provide direct investment in economic activity. (like even the romans understood this shit)
Meanwhile Chinese build hospital for 800 ppl in 10 days or something. I mean China is far from truly free or ideal country(would not want live there) but it still kinda sucks that it takes forever for anything to happen in UK. Frustrating how there are so many words about so many lovely daydreams but so little action and so little efficiency while China can do all this like 10x faster.. Kinda feels disfunctional and broken.
@@matrixfull : It _is_ diysfunctional & broken, but in the UK's defense, those 10-day hospitals are short-term constructions built using overglorified shipping containers that get abandoned after their epidemic ends (they built one for SARS, and abandoned it once the epidemic passed). HS2 is supposed to endure decades of use, so it needs to be better designed.
@@matrixfull But the reason why China can build things like that much faster, is that they don't have to listen to their citizens' concerns, can decree anything from up above without public involvement, can simply bulldoze over your house or bully you into moving out, can pump massive amounts of money into their projects with little oversight or accountability, and can rely on much cheaper labour than the UK. That's not to say that for some projects, their delays aren't due to ineptitude, corruption, or other valid reasons to be mad about, but generally speaking, these construction projects come at a cost. Either in money and time, or in freedom and participation, or other areas.
Coming from China, my jaw dropped when I saw the construction time estimates. Granted, Chinese construction benefits from a generally lower level of rights standards than the UK, but holy heavens. The routes are both less than 300km as the crow flies, which in China wouldn't get me out of my province, and yet... Update: comparable distances would be Shanghai-Nanjing, Beijing-Qinhuangdao/Beijing-Shijiazhuang, Guangzhou-Lufeng/Guangzhou-Maoming, Shenzhen-Shaoguan, or even Chengdu-Chongqing (Yuzhong Dist.), Wuhan-Changsha/Wuhan-Nanchang, and Qingdao-Jinan. The idea that any of these would take 16-20 years is just 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
Labour is like way way way cheaper in China .. like way. Also they can be pushed to do much longer hours and easily replaced if they don't work hard enough due to the large population.. in the UK this kind of skilled labour is much more expensive and ppl expect certain standards which u would never get in china.
It's do do with our geology. Basically lots of the UK is made of clay. Clay slides, shrinks when dry, is unpredictable when wet. It's taking so long due to all the geological testing of the track sites. Then engineering needs to be done to stop these geological disasters from happening. Same reason why our highways are taking so long to build.
@Jacob L the problem isn't just the budget, going from £30b to £100b is simply ridiculous. If watch the panorama on it, it'll give you a better idea on some of the real problems regarding the costing. Not just paying wages and salaries.
Hopefully if they do build it they make it rustproof.... The A52 in nottingham is a nightmare because some rust was found in the metalwork and they closed it - been 5 days so far that pretty much the whole of nottingham is at a standstill during the rush hour!
I think if it happens it would be to glue the UK together by connecting it all by land so if Scotland left our bridge is interrupted. Probably also to get Scotland back on the side of the Conservatives as we are caring about them
The Scots will get back on side as soon as they realise that leaving the European Union was best for them and they can now afford to buy more cheap cider and heroine with more money in their pocket.
@@TomHood04 there's space on the WCML to run it up to Edinburgh and the North which is current plan. My guess would be as during phase 2 plans will probably be drawn up to extend it anyway. Along with HS3
Bloody hell NO! don't say that...there's already 26% against the project if you add another 20Bln pounds onto that budget the rest of the country will go against it as well
The most frustrating thing about this project is that the whole point of the rail is to improve the north’s economic potential. Then why start is the south, and take an extra decade to finish the northern Y... History tells us their is a particular risk that the government wouldn’t see the point in continuing it after about half of it is done, convenient.
The problem with HS2 is that Phase 1 should always have been London to Manchester, not just to Birmingham. HS2 is definitely necessary but if Phase 1 was to Birmingham AND Manchester it would have released way more capacity on the WCML for commuter and regional traffic which would at least have given a fighting chance to unlocking the economic potential of the north.
The big problems I have with HS2 are: 1. It's essentially going to just turn the midlands into another boro of London, the towns in the area I grew up in (around J25 between Derby and Nottingham) is dying the death, HS2 isn't going to provide the locals any benefits and it is going to price them out of their local areas. House prices will source as London prices migrate outwards, anyone currently renting in the area is going to be forced out, as landlords will prioritize towards Londoners wanting to move out of London but commute in by HS2 every day. 2. The infrastructure to support it just isn't there. The HS2 terminal in that area is supposedly going to squeeze in to between the existing rail lines, the Trent and the A52. The roads in that area are already fit to bursting due to poor access to the M1 from most of the remaining industry and the high volume of traffic in and out of both Derby and Nottingham and then they want to add new commuters from HS2 every day. It's just not feasible. 3. The route is awful. They are trying to hug the M1 as much as possible but that means that they just plan to bulldoze through every country town and listed church in the area. For most of its length through the local area, it won't even be traveling faster than a normal train currently does but they still plan to build it with the wide, sweeping high speed turns as if it were going at full speed. 4. As usual, it's as corrupt as they get. It, of course, doesn't come near the richest areas but plows right through every poor community in its path, and we all know which of the two it's supposed to benefit. So the rich get all the convenience of high-speed rail links to London but the working-class locals get none of that but high rents, broken infrastructure and the bulldozing of whole chunks of their communities. It's all classic Torrie neo-liberalism trickle-down gutting of yet more of the country. And, knowing the Torries and public transport it'll do nothing to affect prices.
Yes, but China would also have bulldozed hundreds of thousands of homes and displaced anyone living along the line of the route, and built it with little consideration of the environmental consequences. If you want to live in an authoritarian country that "gets things done" regardless of the consequences then that's your choice, but don't pretend it's all roses!
@@stevieinselby bulldozed hundreds of thousands of homes and displaced anyone living along the line of the route is often not a problem in China as the government always pay them quite bit of fortune (relatively) to move to other places. I know lots of people actually wish the next infra-project will take place near their homes so they can get an upgrade. But this only happens in developing countries.
Ask yourself this .. 1: Can UK workers accept the pay that Chinese workers currently having, like $400-$550 GBP max ? 2: Will UK accept Chinese workers come to UK can build the HS2 If not, the "Chinese Speed" is not going to work in UK
True, but generally if you live in the UK "the North" is referring to northern England However, im from Leeds myself and ill be VERY surprised if the line actually makes its to Manchester and Leeds, more than likely Westminster will cancel it, they absolutely hate spending money up here, despite much more favourable cost benefit analyses And while I'd love to see it go further to Newcastle and Scotland, the population in Scotland isn't very big only around 5.4mil or dense like England so it makes it much less feasible to justify the extra spending
Maybe the North would believe they actually want to spend money here if they started here, rather than London. Plus the North needs cross country trains!!
tbh the worst part about beeching for me is the fact that no one thought to just mothball lines and preserve the route if it becomes viable again, soo many lines we could have just brought straight back into use if demand was there again, if not for some shortsighted council allowing the construction of 3 houses on an old line. I think part of the reason was that a lot of people in the 60s saw the railways as horses and canals before them, and ultimately to be replaced by cars. Unfortunate for us, this is not the case in the UK.
@@Kpopzoom No, Beeching wasn't the corrupt person. Ernest Marples was. Ernest Marples was the Minister of Transport who ordered Beeching to write his report.
Genuine question: Why don't we just build the second phase first, in order to have the intercity northerners gain some of the benefits of high speed travel, while we wait for the already wealthier south to get connected?
Even for public projects that doesn't seek a financial profitability, return on investment is still important. You do want to connect existing, growing economic centers first, then consider how to improve other areas.
The big problem is the roads are so congested and so journey times are getting longer and longer, the reason for this is the population has gone up too fast and the infrastructure can't cope
After travelling on china's Highspeed network, Hs2 seems like fantasy. They can construct all of hs2 in 5 years at 20mil$/km. That includes the elevated concrete bridge all rail sits on to allow land below to be usable. HS2 is now looking at 182mil$/km.
Ah yes, the perils of actually paying the workers instead of employing near-forced labour in dreadful conditions. + raw material costs? China has a teensy bit more of those
Yeah it's incomparable I'm sorry. They pay their workers pennies, have no regard for ecology, the environment, people's homes and land or scrupulous safety. It's a different world and not a better one either. I mean look at the 3 gorges dam. They flooded millions of acres of people's farmlands.
Of course China is a bad comparison. But even other European countries manage high-speed rail for 20-35 million per km, so I see no good reason why HS2, functionally pretty much identical to any other high speed line, should be so ludicrously expensive.
High speed rail is a good thing. Even though I live in the Netherlands, where there isn't a lot of high speed rail, I can see the benefit of a line like HS2. Fairer rail fairs and more capacity is a good thing. I'm not quite sure about the 400km/h target as it seems a little over the top. A 200-300km/h line would surely achieve these goals (and potentially much better as lower speed probably means higher capacity).
Someone needs to double check every invoice submitted, a culture of “When we run out of. Money we just go back to the government for more “, Fat cat bosses have a gravy train.
Good for the UK to finally join the other european countries and developing a first highspeed-Line. Central europe in general does not go for 400+ kph lines though, as those are extremely expensive. And building them takes a lot of time. For example, after the german reunification a new highspeed line was planned between Berlin and Munich, highspeed in this case means up to 300 kph. It took around 25 years to build and cost in total around 10 billion Euro. And the last few km are actually not completely 300 kph ready so trains have to slow down once they reach Bavaria. Construction to upgrade that line is still ongoing, but travel time between Berlin and Munich via train has decreased to around 4 hours in the fastest variant of train, which is actually quite comparable to a domestic flight as the munich airport is so far outside the city (local railway takes around 45 minutes between city and airport).
As a comparison to get a sense of how expensive this is becoming, the Spanish HSR system, currently the 2nd largest in the world with 3100 km since it's start 25 years ago has had a total cost of 55 billion dollars. Sure, the conditions are different in Spain, and the speed is 300/310kmh but you have to take in mind that that still doesn't negate that it is 10 times as long as HS2
I'm French, we have had a functionning high-speed rail network for nearly 40 years, and we shared it a bit with the neighbours. They also have one in Spain, Italy, Sweden and Germany (sort of).
There are environmental arguments both for and against HS2. On balance from an environmental perspective it seems to me to be a good thing. Not that environMENTALISTS would agree, but they don’t know what the fuck they are talking about. They think that anything not recycled from Greta’s skid ridden panties is bad.
@@chrisj9700 Yeah perhaps it will take that long, but at the same time it's not a motorway with polluting cars after it's finished, it's an electric railway. And the transport link will be so fucking good for the north. Our public transport is pitiful, a 125mph diesel train to London is just last decades technology
The problem is the UK's rail network needs some serious upgrades to bring it up to spec. Those upgrades to track that is basically 100 years old at this point, is going to be expensive. not approving of HS2 and then complaing that trains suck is a oxymoron.
The big issue with HS2 is the same issue with all post Thatcher government policy; the use of private companies whose priority remains profit generation. Infrastructure and public services should not be built for v profit because ultimately they're not, they make running every other industry more profitable and help an economy overall. Scrap the private nonsense and build a proper nationally owned infrastructure company to build for the benefit of the entire population, not for a handful of share holders
The amount of money spent, the amount of land and the demolition of historic property is enough for me to dislike HS2, let alone the fact it only serves as far north as Leeds. What of Durham, Edinburgh and Aberdeen?
Infrastructure costs always end up being way higher than initially estimated. The biggest controversy is how the British public, or anyone for that matter, is even remotely surprised.
Uk have had one of biggest, best operating and affordable railways network until 60s in the world. When every Britons suddenly decides they want a freedom of owning a car. Mostly due huge advertising to boost a sale of cars. Due shortside thinking of both gouverment and nation in 1963 UK irreversibly lost quarter of whole railways network with closing od 2128 stations and loss of 67 700 jobs.
An escalator would be faster. It will take 52 mins, according to the Dept for Transport, from London to Birmingham. That is 116mph on a 250mph railway. Remove bottlenecks on the WCML using faster trains, it will be faster.
I really don't get all the environmental groups opposing rail infrastructure. It's the same thing in Germany, as soon as any investment is greenlit, there are dozens of groups going to court. Meanwhile people are sitting in traffic jams and the rest of the rail network struggles while crucial infrastructure is delayed. Surely the worst thing for the environment is everyone driving to work, not building a rail line that will relieve other lines at capacity and improve the quality of rail service.
Right now, with the effects of COVID-19 on the economy, the government should be throwing money at this project. People and companies will be repairing their savings and balance sheets for years to come. This will severely reduce the amount of money flowing in the real economy, the government doubling the spend, to say getting the project completed three years ahead of schedule, will help in keeping the economy growing.
High Speed 2 cost $100 bilion, Something Not Okay with €100 bilion cost for building 400 km High-speed rail European countries that built 400 km High-speed rail line such as France when built LGV Est over 400 km are cost just €4.3 bilion, The 748 km Madrid-Barcelona HSR in spain cost over €6.4 bilion only
It is sad, that during the time in which Japan, Italy, Germany, France and so many other nations which had far worse rail networks, British Rail just couldn't get its share of the investment. All new high speed lines were a unobtainable fantasy, despite ambitions formalised into plans in the 1950s, many of the core existing main lines remain unelectrified. While Japan gets a lot of buzz around its high speed network, and fairly so, its historic narrow gauge railways received a tonne of investment too, especially as they handle all the freight and most of the commuter services. They were widely electrified, modern radio-based signalling installed decades ago, and this was on top of simply recovering the network to a running state after it was heavily bombed. It's amazing that British railways, which continued to push the envelop in the 1930s, were effectively defunded compared with the rest of the world. Maybe this line can do something to improve the situation, but there needs to be a lot of improvements elsewhere for the whole system to work more effectively.
What *£107bn* buys you; the price of HS2 high-speed rail from London serving only three cities directly: - 200 flagship hospitals similar to Birmingham's Queen Elizabeth. - 1,660,000 new social homes according to Shelter - 25 Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers - to supply & fit 4kw array of solar panels to 15 million homes
Yeah, and what about Wales? HS2 is for England (definite), the Irish Sea bridge is for Scotland and Ireland (possible if unlikely). All the Welsh get is to help pay for it.
Not teaching people in school basic finance is costing us. So many people forget about Return On Investment (ROI). The ROI of HS2 is worth it fo the long term benefits.
Yes, keep arguing about high speed rails. Why do anyone needs them in the first place? Just use more cars and planes, it clearly works in the US... (that was sarcasm, if someone hasn't noticed). While China has what? 30 000km of high speed rails? And flying there over distances like 1300km (Shanghai Beijing) doesn't make much sense, as it's cheaper, almost as fast (including security/boarding) and way more comfortable to just go via train...
@@ruijackson7697 Uh, tell the people of Los Angles that! And the people of Texas. And the people of New York, and the people of Seat- Do you get the point? Congestion is far worse in the United States.
I don't understand why the UK is so bad at big infrastructure projects like train lines, airports, motorways, etc. Where countries like France or Germany (let alone China, who are on a different league) can plan, build, and execute, the UK always overpromises and underdelivers. I think it is inherent to the political system, with armies of quangos, consultants and other entities all making huge profits at the taxpayer's expense.
our government is ridiculous when it comes down to things like this. I do agree with hs2, but of course and as always the construction has to start in the london side of it. itll probably be years until that is finished, nevermind until they get onto the northern part of it, because the government just doesnt care about the north. the north is so many years behind the south it is disgusting that any government would allow such differences to occur in their relatively small country, by land area
Hey, trainspotting nerd here. I’d just like to point out how you were wrong about fast trains on the west coast mainline (wcml) having a problem with catching up with slower trains. Like all other UK mainlines (and other mainlines around the world, I would assume), the WCML has not two lines like you said, but 4, which have the following names: up slow (the line INTO London for SLOW trains) up fast (the line INTO London for FAST trains) down slow (the line AWAY from London for SLOW trains) and finally down fast (the line AWAY from London for FAST trains). **TLDR: Start of video is wrong as there are 4 tracks on the West Coast Mainline not 2, meaning that the point about fast trains catching up to slow ones is false, as there are already designated WCML fast and WCML slow lines.**
Sorry to break it to you, but 4-tracking on the WCML only goes as far as Rugby. It's double track the rest of the way. And just in case you're interested, I actually work on timetabling trains on the WCML, so I know it pretty well.
Why does that just sound so familliar to me, even though I am from Germany? HowevBER you are not alone with thiS21 problem of expensive infrastructure projects in the UK.
Hurrah! At last capacity is mentioned. If you a re building a 21st century railway why would you expect 19th century speeds. Would you expect BMW or Mercedes to re-introduce the Austin 7?
Companies can quote low and then charge a fortune for works that come up that weren't in the original price, Day Works. Also by claiming off of other companies for delays etc.
What would really change people's everyday lives would be a massive upgrade to the branch lines and trains which run on them. Because once you've gone up the mainline you then need to branch off somewhere and those trains are awful and unviable for many people.
Why not get the Japanese on board and buy a complete mag-lev system from them for the route instead? Would probably cost no more in the long run! Also, if we have so much money available to spend wouldn't it be better spent on bringing back British train manufacturing to Britain?
@@miquelcanosasanteularia1678 haven't you had a woman blame you for something you had nothing to do with? better still something you did not even know it existed?
Actually, 4 track on the WCML only goes as far as Rugby. Then it is triple track between Rugby and Rugby Trent Valley Junction, and then double track the rest of the way.
I'm guessing the Pennines between the two would make it significantly more expensive. I've not looked into the terrain the current route goes through, but I wouldn't be surprised if going direct from Manchester to Leeds would require a substantial amount of tunnelling through the Pennines, which is usually a much more expensive option.
@@nekomatafuyu fair point. But as there is already a rail line that goes between the two cites I question how hard or expensive it would be to add a second faster line. Also, we dug the channel tunnel, which is 50 km, it's not that much more between the two cites centers. The London underground covers a longer distances and most of that was built decades ago. If the government wanted it, it would happen. I think it's just another example of the government prioritising money for London over the rest of the country. And I say that as a Londoner. I'd much rather the rest of the country had TfL quality services. It's shocking how far behind much of the country is. It would be better for the whole country if there was better infrastructure outside London. It would encourage growth of other cites, reduce the strain on London and solve a lot of issues surrounding the North South divide. It makes sense and has done for generations.
@@idontwanttopickone I completely agree but seeing as the govt works and lives in London and the vast majority of lobbyists are based in London for the same reason, it will always be the focus of the UK govt. One of the reasons why localisation of governance is a good idea, so individual areas can boost their own economy with the large funds that it requires instead of it getting channeled to wherever the uneducated toffs want it to go. Also a lot of the Northern fleet of trains is still there from the 80's/90's. If anything they should improve the current fleet of trains in the North before attempting a much bigger and more ambitious project like high speed rail.
There is hs3 that will go from Leeds to Newcastle... And it's split because London to Manchester is one of the busiest routes. Making Newcastle/scottish traffic flow through it too would make it even busier which defeats the point of hs2
I would have more confidence in the governments motives if they started phase 2 of the HS2 first followed by the London route. Option A: They do HS2 phase 2A and 2B first and reduce the chances of a government cancelling the project whilst delivering a more meaningful regional shift in the economy quicker. Or Option B: They do HS2 phase 1 first to benefit London and Birmingham; which London doesn’t necessarily need. Followed by years of governments promising they will do the second part, and then never get round to doing it.
What we really need is a high speed service to the South-West. It takes longer to get from Cornwall to Exeter than between London and York. The old Victorian route still exists (it's a cycle path now) so it won't be nearly as expensive and will deliver much needed connections, and regenerate an often-neglected part of the country. It will also take the pressure off the commuter lines
It's do do with our geology. Basically lots of the UK is made of clay. Clay slides, shrinks when dry, is unpredictable when wet. It's taking so long due to all the geological testing of the track sites. Then engineering needs to be done to stop these geological disasters from happening. Same reason why our highways are taking so long to build.
I'm in favor simply because doing nothing is not a viable alternative. Providing modern, efficient infrastructure is a key government task in fostering a prosperous society.
Improving rail links across the north would do more than shaving a bit of time off the train to London. This is just an attempt at making it easier to commute to London from cheaper areas, than having to deal with the spiralling costs of living in the capital.
I remember when CD's first came out. They said the price of music would drop. Nope. It went up. Ok tapes got cheaper but CD prices on new albums stayed high. The same thing will happen with HS2. HS2 prices will be high to cover the costs and lets not forget the profit they all want, and most other rail might get cheaper but as they get cheaper they will get left behind in terms of service and maintenance. I don't think it's worth it for a project that will take twenty years. We don't know what's going to happen next year let alone in twenty. If you want the north to benefit put more business and industry up there. I rather see 106,000,000,000 quid spent on infrastructure in the north than just a link that may or may not do what it's intended to do. Plus. Twenty years to complete. That means a whole generation doesn't get the supposed benefits. HS2 is just more government bollocks which means they themselves get richer. As I said if we don't know what's going to happen next year with brexit who knows what spin the government will put on HS2 at anytime.
hello hello it‘s true we don’t know what’s going to happen, but this is in the “connections network” category. Through history roads have been the foundation of economical wealth. Big infrastructure project always need time, it’s an investment in future. Today this is still true (with “digital roads” becoming more and more relevant). A strong connection network of roads and railway make jobs easier to access and internal trades (couf couf international trade is even more relevant couf couf). Generally speaking having a strong infrastructure create a stronger economy and wealth for the citizen. Of course, GENERALLY. This line could be a project where they sink a lot of money to make everything that is not London more poor (which by consequence will make London too more poor). I don’t know the economics of the UK and I can’t tell (especially post brexit) how the regions are going to react to this infrastructure. But we should not rule out the project because time and cost, nations should work on next generations, currently this is a huge problem, nations are investing on boomers and retirement and not invested on millenials or gen z.
Let's compare the HS2 to the Shinkansen, a same effort of a government to connect it's metropolitan cities via high-speed train links. The initial cost estimates were bogus, public support was wavering due to the advent of aeroplanes and automobiles, and yet they still pulled through. And the initial costs the Japanese took on 1963 in 2020 pounds? £1.3 trillion
Yep. HS1 tickets are more expensive than the "slow" trains. Considering either way I can get to London in less than an hour, the extra high speed fee just isn't worth it.
@@ilianceroni I understand what your saying but why not just spend all that money on infrastructure up in the north and spread the money around that way? £106000000000 could generate a lot of industry and business right on the people's doorstep. They wouldn't have to travel long distances to earn a wage.
hello hello unfortunately I do not know the UK situation well to answer this question. In general UK and France got a historical problem on this matter: both have one single huge political and economical juggernaut city and the others centers are a lot of “tier” behind. Compared to the US, Germany or even Italy, where multiple cities have different specialisations and we see why “it’s easier to put stuff that go to London”. The idea of create jobs and industries in less rich areas makes sense, but it’s not always easy, the region needs a resource or an appeal to bring money and works there. We se this in European country, Ireland changed taxation to be more appealing for big multinational, Estonia is trying to invest in technology, to appeal to that industry and so on. Every region needs is specific things to work and it should be the region itself to create a plan to do so and then ask for money to the central government. If the central government just give money to peripherical regions without a precise plan, it may result in big losses on the long run. Again, this railway plan is not necessary good, it may be the typical investment on London, causing to make poorer the others areas, causing problems in London too, it may also end up being “riches use state money for private interest” and stuff like that. Unfortunately this is a very difficult matter, and it should be discussed mostly by academics (but somehow it’s always discussed by politicians🤔).
1960s Japan built the 515km Tokaido Shinkansen in 5 years. 2020s Britain will build half that distance with Phase 1 and 2a of HS2 in 10-13 years. All of HS2 combined will be only slightly longer than the Tokaido Shinkansen and won't be finished for at least another 15+ years providing that Phase 2 isn't delayed or cancelled.
That’s not what’s being proposed here. A massive investment would be using the money to create jobs, manufacture materials in the U.K. and deliver functional infrastructure. What’s actually being proposed is a huge time and cash sinkhole where most of the taxpayers cash will be spent on land & lease rights, pretty (& unnecessary) architecture and mostly giant profit margins for the business owners who are awarded the contracts because they greased-the-wheels for politicians (just who did pay for Boris’ holiday over Xmas?).
@@supermotherfuckingvillain yes and although im a londoner that benefits from projects like crossrail/overground/ bakerloo line extension this is all primarily serving Londoners and creating unimaginably well paid jobs even at the lower end of the pay spectrum. It's frankly a bit of a disgrace that the 5th richest economy is still muddling through on tech not that much more improved than it was in the 70's. By now all the UK's major cities should be connected by some form of high-speed rail
Maybe use the existing lines for the last few miles into London, either Euston or Paddington, instead of building the new line straight to the centre? Also change the arrangement by building underground through platforms for Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham stations, as well as better connections to the existing network. With a 140mph ECML north of York the Newcastle trains would be improved, and the Edinburgh trains should go via the ECML instead of the WCML.
if u want ZERO emissions economy - you need electrification of transport in order to do that you need to replace airplanes - you need fast trains (slowing down trains is dumb, trains will be the backbone of future economies and REQUIRE us to think,plan,finance BIG projects for future green global economy.) Also the time scale on that proposal is just madning - just call the Chinese, they will build it in a week for £5 and the speed will be 1200km/hr (most importantly without any debates, they'll just fkn do it already)
The Chinese can build this in 5 years at a much lower cost. We lost our industry in the recent past and now can not beat the Chinese building railways and most manufactured products.
China has mostly state-owned land and an authoritarian government that can resettle people (by force if necessary) very easily. You can't do that in Europe or America. We have privately owned land and more rights for people who own land or property.
@@donaldboughton8686 We have weak government swayed by pressure groups. An example of this is the third runway at Heathrow where our governments have allowed pressure groups to stop this long overdue necessity to drag on for over 20 years.
After criticism of the slow speed of HS2, HS2 Ltd stated that the WCML was saturated south of Rugby, so they needed more capacity. They changed angle from speed into capacity. mmmmm *1.* The WCML can have *two extra tracks* into London as the straight Gt.Central trackbed still exists between Rugby and Aylesbury. It is also owned by Network Rail, reducing costs to reopen. Reopened, it can reach over 160mph giving a *fast* route into London. *2.* Euston station has the surrounds demolished. The station needed rebuilding irrespective of HS2 as it is too small. There is space for 12 car 900 passenger trains on the WCML. 12 trains per hour means *10,800 passengers per hour shifted.* This means they would shift twice as many passengers in and out than in 2014. *3.* Birmingham/West Midlands trains can go back onto the Chiltern Line (some still are on it). When the diesel run Chiltern is uprated it can clearly equal 52 minutes in journey time. It will take trains off the WCML onto the more direct Chiltern. So, *CAPACITY* is not a problem on the existing mainline network. We have all we want for the next 100 years.
It is so expensive. A . Over priced. B. Those who gave them the contract aren't paying from their POCKETS. The companies doing the job will make sure they give those people who gave them the job some nice rewards.
A lot of people will use it if it gets them from north to south faster than a car or a plane. The reason why Brits drive cars everywhere is because of the sorry state of the rest of the transport infrastructure. Look at Holland, they're doing things right. They save a lot of money that would have otherwise been spent on foreign cars and foreign oil and they invest it into their own communities. A £2000 per capita one-time investment into trains sounds like a lot but somehow people have no qualms about spending £300/mo on cars for several decades. All this happens while Russia and Saudi-Arabia are laughing their way to the bank.
But its not something that will effect a tiny percentage of people. It will effect motorway congestion, normal road congestion, local railway journeys, long rail journeys, airport capacity, cargo transport options, the economy of all the major cities in England, global warming etc etc etc. Cant bury your head in the sand then complain about not being able to see.
@@weetikissa The problem is that said £2000 per capita is not being invested in the whole country, but only in England. Transportation in NI, Wales and Scotland needs as much an overhaul as England's, and it's getting £0 out of those £100 billion.
All this talk about linking the North of England, forgetting that York, Durham, Newcastle, Sunderland, Carlisle, Middlesborough, Lancaster, Preston (and more) all exist. And that's just England, Wales and Scotland are left out again. When I rode the train from Manchester to London this week (07:00-09:00) it took me 2 hours on the dot, Is it worth over 100,000,000,000 just to shave off 20 mins?
@@domhunt6488 I said plans not a proposed line, it still in early stages and if you watched the vid u would know that hs2 has more benefits than reduced travel time
@@TheFrederation_ I'm well aware of the "benefits". But considering we have crumbling infrastructure all over the UK, particularly outside of the Greater London and South East area I don't see why 100,000 Million pounds to make business travellers times shorter is a worthwhile investment. Why don't you search up the cons of HS2 if you claim to be more informed?
Interesting video! Can you provide links for the 3 CBA you mentioned? Such a big disparity is rare to see. Last time I saw differing results like this was on a trump climate report, who puts carbon emission value at $1 per ton, instead of the 25-46 generally agreed.
We spent so much money developing a high speed train that would work on our current rail lines (but was eventually shit canned bc it gave people motion sickness and ultimately was uncomfortable) that we could've just built a new High Speed rail network anyway...I mean ffs £120 to go from Edinburgh to London on a train that takes 4 and a half hours compared with getting a jet which takes and hour and a half yet costs £30-40??? its disgraceful
Don't think that's true. Price of a return ticket with plane or train is roughly similar - just had a look at ticket sites right now. Cheapest for both is about ~£90 return. True you are on a train for three hours longer...but you will get more-or-less into central London with the train. Unless you land at London city airport, if you fly you need to get another train to get to central London, which adds to the cost and a minimum of at least an hour extra travel. (if you are lucky.) It used to be much cheaper to fly, but them days are long gone.
In smaller, densely populated countries like in Europe anything beyond a top speed of 300 km/h is usually not that useful, as you will either have arrived at the next stop already or face speed-reducing obstacles (curves, slopes, noise-sensitive areas, etc.) before reaching and/or sustaining much higher speeds for significant parts of the journey.
Meanwhile in Japan they’ve built high-speed rail from Hokkaido to Kyushu and are building a second high-speed line between Tokyo and Osaka with MagLev technology. Shinkansen makes travelling in Japan much easier than other countries and rail infrastructure is the foundation of their entire economy. HS2 is a great idea but lack of foresight could mean that it’s obsolete by the time it’s implemented.
We should have had high speed rail in the UK decades ago. This project is something that should have been undertaken in the era that Japan was developing the Shinkansen.
We did try, the Tilting Train for example
@@isnitjustkit That was an attempt at a hack. True high speed rail needs straight track over as much of it's distance as possible. The APT was an answer to the question of how to get trains to travel as quickly as possible on the track available - instead of building new lines.
The concept of the APT did result in the Pendalino, offering quicker journeys on the WCML, but then impacting local services along the route.
Woah careful there, Japan has a heavily privatised rail network. Don't let the BBC hear you!
@@leighduxbury3864 The Japanese also had cost overruns and failed deadlines when they were building the Shinkansen, leading to the resignation of the transportation ministers at the time.
Japan also has a crippling national debt and hasn't seen economic growth or wage growth in real terms for decades in large part due to that national debt. So the Japanese governments over spending has crippled and retarded its economy and economic future.
Just because a government builds something especially when it comes from borrowing that doesn't make it a good idea by definition, even if the infrastructure it self delivers benefits.
Imagine inventing the train and in 2020 you don’t have a proper highspeed infrastructure, despite being the perfect size for one
This comment was made by the german gang.
It's not just size, the UK's geography is awkward. We have lots of hills and forests.
It's already out of date last century technology.
@@leighduxbury3864 Japan's geography is awkward too and on top of that they have earthquakes. Yet that didn't stop them.
@@leighduxbury3864 Japan has mountains and tectonic plate boundaries, yet they've had high-speed rail since the '60s.
HS2 Confirmed to be run by Valve. Refuses to use the number 3.
Goddamit Chad!
Lol
Could've called hsvr?
Are they going to sell custom train skins??
Also they are using Valve Time
!
Another good point is all the ‘Express’ trains on the current lines which will be replaced by HS2 trains will open space for freight trains on the current lines. So a significant amount of the trucks you see on the motorway can be replaced by fright train. One freight train could have the same capacity as 30 HGV’s
Motorways would be a lot less congested by trucks which is good for the environment and people commuting on the motorway
And this would reduce carbon emissions common sense option.
Correction, one freight train could replace as many as 72 HGVs.
In the 60's motorways were built to speed up journey times and take long distance traffic from the A road network, the same thinking should have been applied to the rail network twenty years later.
In the 60's car transport was predicted to be the future of all transport, so the road network got the bulk of the funding.
Beeching did a lot to make sure rail would not compete with road. He ripped out the slow tracks from mainlines massively trashing capacity. He also closed destination stations and soon after their (now unused) lines.
By the time we've finished talking about it, the Chinese will have planned, built and delivered half a dozen HS2 sized infrastructure projects.
If we want to continue run with big boys, we need to pull our socks up.
Chris Brown Agreed
@@AusLegoBoy 😷🤧👎
@@AusLegoBoy Hahahahaha.
Chinese infrastructure is meant to be built fast not well, since there is barely any infrastructure before that project
@@AusLegoBoy also ha ha ha! you realise who we are asking to help us build it? and our nuclear power stations? get over your nonsense stereotypes.
High speed rail is a better alternative to driving and flying.
Yes it is, if we really want to take care of the environment, train travel will have to be prioritised a lot more in the world, that and ship travel.
@@op4000exe that's both stupid and ridiculous flying is a lot more efficient than taking the train for long journeys
@@cargillmonteque2311 but we're not talking exclusively for long journeys, and I've heard arguments that rail has a sweet spot between road and air travel particularly for journeys between 200 and 500 miles, which have been described as too long to drive, too short to fly
Cargill Monteque . It costs less to ride a train than to travel on an aircraft from London to Liverpool. No need for suitcase checks, no screenings, no additional fuel costs, no need for large tarmacs and airports, etc. All for the same speed and time as an aeroplane (without processing time). The Japanese perfected this mode of travel in the 60’s.
Saint Christopher I believe you have your own issues to deal with that are far more minuscule than that of HS2
Thanks for covering this topic. As someone who grew up in the north and now studies climate science, HS2 is exactly what the North needs from an economic, and the country as whole from an environmental, point of view. Frankly, it should have been done decades ago. And it annoys me no end to hear middle-class southerners complain that it will mean a lovely old pear tree will be felled .
As a frenchman who lived in the UK for years, it was always bewildering how much the country that invented trains lacks high speed train infrastructure
@Keyrings Locks thats because we've moved on from industry and to the qautinary and services sectors which are better for the economy
Because the UK pioneered the railways and had a more complete early infrastructure based on slow trains that happily meandered around obstacles. Then when it came to upgrade the network, the British Rail engineers thought they could save billions by designing a train where the carriages tilted on the existing track. It was designed and built in the 70s and put into operation in 1981.
It lasted a couple of weeks before being removed from service and will forever be known as the 'Vomit Comet' as good ol' English engineering didn't do adequate passenger tests. About 30% of riders got nauseous..
This was the beginning of the end for British Rail and our high speed dreams in the 20th century. But the tech was altered and the tilt reduced and was used on many subsequent high speed rails in other countries.
@@GregHighPressure , you may have also missed that since the British pioneered rail transport. They now have a legacy of rail lines with tight clearances build for small rail equipment which does not allow for adaptation to high speed.
This high speed thing should have been thoughtout years ago.
The WCML, ECML, MML and GWL are all high-speed, just over the minimum threshold. They can be *much faster* with: faster trains, up to date signalling and removal of bottlenecks.
Once the country used to be number one at invading pillaging, rape and abuse other countries now it's America's lap dog
Please note that a ‘fare recalibration’ is not synonymous with a ‘fare reduction’.
So ur saying more competition we increase prices?
@@samuelthornton9179 Nah, just "probably going to see a continued price inflation", the usual.
@@morgengabe1 : Worse, finding the best price may require a spreadsheet.
@@absalomdraconis *you said best but I think you mean least offensive increase
@Samuel Thornton - what competition?
Given how railway franchises are set up ensures that 99% of the time you've only got a single provider for any given destination...
That makes them regional monopolies.
Monopolies are the least competitive thing going.
Ah Trains.
I'm American so i don't understand any of this.
All joking aside more high speed trains in service is very helpful
Ah, don't be so hard on yourself. Even Germans don't really get the concept, even though we've technically had "high speed rail" for 30 odd years. But since the country is rightfully owned by VW, BMW and Daimler, we've done everything in our power to make it suck as bad as possible.
Ireland's barely has a train system outside of Dublin. A Cork to Dublin to Belfast high speed rail would be nice to reduce travel times.
nurbsi von sirup honestly German’s complaining about DB is as hilarious as rich people moaning about tax breaks. German rail is one of the cheapest , most efficient and fastest services in the world. Please stop with the bellyaching.
We also don't understand words like 'Ramsar' and 'Conservation'.
@swave158 : Nifty theory, but the South had trains _before_ the war. The first transcontinental kine had been planned by a group of Southerners before the opposition of Southern upper classes to governmental spending & projects scuppered it. There were various things the North did and still does (both intentionally & otherwise) to try to exert control over the South, but the railroads are a weak example at best.
The Shinkansen, you know the hugely successful high speed rail line in japan ended up costing twice as much as originally planned plus the President of the Japanese national railways and chief engineer resigned.
Makes me think of Crossrail. Once it’s open the moaning will be forgotten.
@@eriklakeland3857 when crossrail opens and crossrail 2 starts construction, London will be so much better for commuters.
High Speed rails are awesome... If You've ever been on one in China or Japan, then you know they are the best way of travel, and can do so much for the country and economy.
I was in China not so long ago and travelling around is so much easier with a high speed rail. Because of China's size, the distance between cities is much greater than it is here in the UK.
A great UK example is the HS1. I live in Ashford in Kent and it only takes 30' min. to reach central London while the normal train takes 1,5 hours.
You don't even have to go that far away, France, Italy, Spain and I'm sure many more European countries also have high-speed rail networks.
I've only experienced the Italian one and it was very good. Although never on time, the national rail service is well connected and tickets cheap. The high speed rail was more punctual and still competitively priced, much cheaper than a comparable journey in the UK.
Mike92 How much does it cost though? Trains in the Uk are a rip ofd
China yeah NOT like the one they lost a whole train full of passengers on and hid it by digging a trench next to line and bulldozing entire train w bodies into it. NOT kidding.
Enjoyed the video. As a former railwayman and noting how congested the existing routes are, particularly lines from Euston, this project is essential. Lots of comments, but once done I am sure it will rapidly be accepted. HS1 construction caused problems, but rapidly became the norm once opened.
At least it will provide young engineers with a job for 20+ years.
pretty much, it has always been the role of public works projects to provide direct investment in economic activity. (like even the romans understood this shit)
What young engineers?
@@theother1281 young engineers like me
No it won’t. It’ll be offshores or nearshored.
Lol the Roman's are a bad example
Fast forward to 2060:
"Government has given final approval for HS2, project fully ahead and due for completion on schedule in 2063"
😂😂😂😂
Final costs: €1.6 quadrillion
Will we have a third runway by then too?
Meanwhile Chinese build hospital for 800 ppl in 10 days or something. I mean China is far from truly free or ideal country(would not want live there) but it still kinda sucks that it takes forever for anything to happen in UK. Frustrating how there are so many words about so many lovely daydreams but so little action and so little efficiency while China can do all this like 10x faster.. Kinda feels disfunctional and broken.
@@matrixfull : It _is_ diysfunctional & broken, but in the UK's defense, those 10-day hospitals are short-term constructions built using overglorified shipping containers that get abandoned after their epidemic ends (they built one for SARS, and abandoned it once the epidemic passed). HS2 is supposed to endure decades of use, so it needs to be better designed.
@@matrixfull But the reason why China can build things like that much faster, is that they don't have to listen to their citizens' concerns, can decree anything from up above without public involvement, can simply bulldoze over your house or bully you into moving out, can pump massive amounts of money into their projects with little oversight or accountability, and can rely on much cheaper labour than the UK.
That's not to say that for some projects, their delays aren't due to ineptitude, corruption, or other valid reasons to be mad about, but generally speaking, these construction projects come at a cost. Either in money and time, or in freedom and participation, or other areas.
Coming from China, my jaw dropped when I saw the construction time estimates. Granted, Chinese construction benefits from a generally lower level of rights standards than the UK, but holy heavens. The routes are both less than 300km as the crow flies, which in China wouldn't get me out of my province, and yet...
Update: comparable distances would be Shanghai-Nanjing, Beijing-Qinhuangdao/Beijing-Shijiazhuang, Guangzhou-Lufeng/Guangzhou-Maoming, Shenzhen-Shaoguan, or even Chengdu-Chongqing (Yuzhong Dist.), Wuhan-Changsha/Wuhan-Nanchang, and Qingdao-Jinan. The idea that any of these would take 16-20 years is just 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
Jinjié Tunc , I reckon just get the Chinese to do it at half the time and half of the cost! Haha cheers
Labour is like way way way cheaper in China .. like way. Also they can be pushed to do much longer hours and easily replaced if they don't work hard enough due to the large population.. in the UK this kind of skilled labour is much more expensive and ppl expect certain standards which u would never get in china.
@Nub93 which university was that? I am really intrigued by it...
It's do do with our geology. Basically lots of the UK is made of clay. Clay slides, shrinks when dry, is unpredictable when wet. It's taking so long due to all the geological testing of the track sites.
Then engineering needs to be done to stop these geological disasters from happening.
Same reason why our highways are taking so long to build.
@@antlerman7644 I call BS on that, look at the geology in China. I'd argue that that one is much more challenging to overcome.
Wasn't there a cover-up of HS2's financial mismanagement resulting in the rising costs
I was expecting him to mention this. There was a very interesting and important BBC Panorama investigation on it. Aired 2018.
@Jacob L Let's not build anything then. Sorted.
@Jacob L the problem isn't just the budget, going from £30b to £100b is simply ridiculous.
If watch the panorama on it, it'll give you a better idea on some of the real problems regarding the costing. Not just paying wages and salaries.
I have a spurious and unresearched feeling this train will be handed to private corporations for next to nothing once it's completed.
Of course it will
It would be good move
we will all be under water by the time it's finished.
@@GregHighPressure Exactly. The 130 billion is best spent on flood defenses.
Good, the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen is.
And in the next episode explain BoJo's bridge from Scoutland to NI.
Robert Fletcher well, he could employe some giant, one of them already did the giant’s causeway😄
Ah yes the good ol' land of scouts
Hopefully if they do build it they make it rustproof....
The A52 in nottingham is a nightmare because some rust was found in the metalwork and they closed it - been 5 days so far that pretty much the whole of nottingham is at a standstill during the rush hour!
I think if it happens it would be to glue the UK together by connecting it all by land so if Scotland left our bridge is interrupted. Probably also to get Scotland back on the side of the Conservatives as we are caring about them
The Scots will get back on side as soon as they realise that leaving the European Union was best for them and they can now afford to buy more cheap cider and heroine with more money in their pocket.
The ‘Y’ doesn’t make any sense to me. It should at least go to Edinburgh.
It says it goes to the north, but doesn't even go past Durham
hull-wins city of culture
everyone- lets give hull infrastructure to be proud of
HS2- we're gonna avoid that place like the plague...
@@TomHood04 there's space on the WCML to run it up to Edinburgh and the North which is current plan. My guess would be as during phase 2 plans will probably be drawn up to extend it anyway. Along with HS3
It kinda will, it'll just use the WCML and ECML to run to Scotland because there isn't the same demand for a capacity increase.
Bloody hell NO! don't say that...there's already 26% against the project if you add another 20Bln pounds onto that budget the rest of the country will go against it as well
The most frustrating thing about this project is that the whole point of the rail is to improve the north’s economic potential.
Then why start is the south, and take an extra decade to finish the northern Y...
History tells us their is a particular risk that the government wouldn’t see the point in continuing it after about half of it is done, convenient.
The problem with HS2 is that Phase 1 should always have been London to Manchester, not just to Birmingham. HS2 is definitely necessary but if Phase 1 was to Birmingham AND Manchester it would have released way more capacity on the WCML for commuter and regional traffic which would at least have given a fighting chance to unlocking the economic potential of the north.
The big problems I have with HS2 are:
1. It's essentially going to just turn the midlands into another boro of London, the towns in the area I grew up in (around J25 between Derby and Nottingham) is dying the death, HS2 isn't going to provide the locals any benefits and it is going to price them out of their local areas. House prices will source as London prices migrate outwards, anyone currently renting in the area is going to be forced out, as landlords will prioritize towards Londoners wanting to move out of London but commute in by HS2 every day.
2. The infrastructure to support it just isn't there. The HS2 terminal in that area is supposedly going to squeeze in to between the existing rail lines, the Trent and the A52. The roads in that area are already fit to bursting due to poor access to the M1 from most of the remaining industry and the high volume of traffic in and out of both Derby and Nottingham and then they want to add new commuters from HS2 every day. It's just not feasible.
3. The route is awful. They are trying to hug the M1 as much as possible but that means that they just plan to bulldoze through every country town and listed church in the area. For most of its length through the local area, it won't even be traveling faster than a normal train currently does but they still plan to build it with the wide, sweeping high speed turns as if it were going at full speed.
4. As usual, it's as corrupt as they get. It, of course, doesn't come near the richest areas but plows right through every poor community in its path, and we all know which of the two it's supposed to benefit. So the rich get all the convenience of high-speed rail links to London but the working-class locals get none of that but high rents, broken infrastructure and the bulldozing of whole chunks of their communities.
It's all classic Torrie neo-liberalism trickle-down gutting of yet more of the country. And, knowing the Torries and public transport it'll do nothing to affect prices.
The british are very good at underestimating everything.
HS2 is good. But I'd like to see newer better trains in the southwest. We are very forgotten
In WWII we overestimated the military assets of Germany, somehow we became incompetent.
Probably the current older generation not knowing alot about present issues and costs. Assume everything is cheapish
@@ethmister if you think the south west is forgotten take a trip up north it's even worse.
@@morganwilliams2863 I dont know maybe it houses 'Cornwall' although no map has a wall of corn so I cant pin point on a map to try and even find it.
Chinese govt would have finished HS2 by now...and HS3 and HS4.
By the time HS2 is finished, China will have upgraded all the citizens with robot legs to sprint the distance.
Isn’t it amazing what you can achieve with no minimum pay, no human rights or no health and safety, all these things do is prevent good progress 😂
Yes, but China would also have bulldozed hundreds of thousands of homes and displaced anyone living along the line of the route, and built it with little consideration of the environmental consequences. If you want to live in an authoritarian country that "gets things done" regardless of the consequences then that's your choice, but don't pretend it's all roses!
@@stevieinselby bulldozed hundreds of thousands of homes and displaced anyone living along the line of the route is often not a problem in China as the government always pay them quite bit of fortune (relatively) to move to other places. I know lots of people actually wish the next infra-project will take place near their homes so they can get an upgrade. But this only happens in developing countries.
Ask yourself this ..
1: Can UK workers accept the pay that Chinese workers currently having, like $400-$550 GBP max ?
2: Will UK accept Chinese workers come to UK can build the HS2
If not, the "Chinese Speed" is not going to work in UK
Do a Referendum. Apparently it’s the new British Government hobby.
You mean it would have been if the European Union and its rabid proponents had their way.
We've literally had 3 national referendums in the entire history of the UK. I don't see the issue here.
@@sykessaul123 that is why it is a new hobby, instead of govern, just make a referendum and be a populist.
@@stefanocapparelli4997 You would be happy living under a dictatorship
@@stefanocapparelli4997 what hobby? We haven't had a referendum in almost 4 years.
"linking north and south"
doesn't go north
LOL
True, but generally if you live in the UK "the North" is referring to northern England
However, im from Leeds myself and ill be VERY surprised if the line actually makes its to Manchester and Leeds, more than likely Westminster will cancel it, they absolutely hate spending money up here, despite much more favourable cost benefit analyses
And while I'd love to see it go further to Newcastle and Scotland, the population in Scotland isn't very big only around 5.4mil or dense like England so it makes it much less feasible to justify the extra spending
Yeah its meant to go to Manchester and Leeds but first theyre doing Birmingham-London which doesnt make a whole lot of sense
Maybe the North would believe they actually want to spend money here if they started here, rather than London.
Plus the North needs cross country trains!!
Yes Manchester and Leeds those classic southern cities
Beeching ripped out the second tracks from most of the main lines. At a stroke he trashed the network capacity.
tbh the worst part about beeching for me is the fact that no one thought to just mothball lines and preserve the route if it becomes viable again, soo many lines we could have just brought straight back into use if demand was there again, if not for some shortsighted council allowing the construction of 3 houses on an old line.
I think part of the reason was that a lot of people in the 60s saw the railways as horses and canals before them, and ultimately to be replaced by cars. Unfortunate for us, this is not the case in the UK.
Beeching was corrupted.
Who gained? - the road builders McA....
@@Kpopzoom No, Beeching wasn't the corrupt person. Ernest Marples was. Ernest Marples was the Minister of Transport who ordered Beeching to write his report.
Genuine question:
Why don't we just build the second phase first, in order to have the intercity northerners gain some of the benefits of high speed travel, while we wait for the already wealthier south to get connected?
NNINJA STRIKE because the government has placed higher priority on the London Birmingham line :(
Well California sort of did that. Turns out that it's a disaster.
Even for public projects that doesn't seek a financial profitability, return on investment is still important. You do want to connect existing, growing economic centers first, then consider how to improve other areas.
Genuine answer: London and Birmingham have the 2 biggest populations in the UK.
Outrageous idea - egads!! You'll be suggesting the line is extended to Glasgow next.
The big problem is the roads are so congested and so journey times are getting longer and longer, the reason for this is the population has gone up too fast and the infrastructure can't cope
After travelling on china's Highspeed network, Hs2 seems like fantasy. They can construct all of hs2 in 5 years at 20mil$/km. That includes the elevated concrete bridge all rail sits on to allow land below to be usable. HS2 is now looking at 182mil$/km.
Ah yes, the perils of actually paying the workers instead of employing near-forced labour in dreadful conditions.
+ raw material costs? China has a teensy bit more of those
Yeah it's incomparable I'm sorry. They pay their workers pennies, have no regard for ecology, the environment, people's homes and land or scrupulous safety. It's a different world and not a better one either. I mean look at the 3 gorges dam. They flooded millions of acres of people's farmlands.
Of course China is a bad comparison. But even other European countries manage high-speed rail for 20-35 million per km, so I see no good reason why HS2, functionally pretty much identical to any other high speed line, should be so ludicrously expensive.
I could sure u never been to china，all your information comes from West media
High speed rail is a good thing. Even though I live in the Netherlands, where there isn't a lot of high speed rail, I can see the benefit of a line like HS2. Fairer rail fairs and more capacity is a good thing. I'm not quite sure about the 400km/h target as it seems a little over the top. A 200-300km/h line would surely achieve these goals (and potentially much better as lower speed probably means higher capacity).
Someone needs to double check every invoice submitted, a culture of “When we run out of. Money we just go back to the government for more “, Fat cat bosses have a gravy train.
Good for the UK to finally join the other european countries and developing a first highspeed-Line.
Central europe in general does not go for 400+ kph lines though, as those are extremely expensive. And building them takes a lot of time.
For example, after the german reunification a new highspeed line was planned between Berlin and Munich, highspeed in this case means up to 300 kph. It took around 25 years to build and cost in total around 10 billion Euro. And the last few km are actually not completely 300 kph ready so trains have to slow down once they reach Bavaria. Construction to upgrade that line is still ongoing, but travel time between Berlin and Munich via train has decreased to around 4 hours in the fastest variant of train, which is actually quite comparable to a domestic flight as the munich airport is so far outside the city (local railway takes around 45 minutes between city and airport).
It’s not the first high speed line
There’s HS1 London to Paris
As a comparison to get a sense of how expensive this is becoming, the Spanish HSR system, currently the 2nd largest in the world with 3100 km since it's start 25 years ago has had a total cost of 55 billion dollars.
Sure, the conditions are different in Spain, and the speed is 300/310kmh but you have to take in mind that that still doesn't negate that it is 10 times as long as HS2
I'm French, we have had a functionning high-speed rail network for nearly 40 years, and we shared it a bit with the neighbours. They also have one in Spain, Italy, Sweden and Germany (sort of).
tbh the more I know about HS2 the more I'm for it. Or at least the more I am not against it
There are environmental arguments both for and against HS2.
On balance from an environmental perspective it seems to me to be a good thing.
Not that environMENTALISTS would agree, but they don’t know what the fuck they are talking about. They think that anything not recycled from Greta’s skid ridden panties is bad.
@@F.O.O the currect upgrades of the M25 will thou more areas of special interest than the whole of hs2
@@chrisj9700 Yeah perhaps it will take that long, but at the same time it's not a motorway with polluting cars after it's finished, it's an electric railway. And the transport link will be so fucking good for the north. Our public transport is pitiful, a 125mph diesel train to London is just last decades technology
It's costing something like £300,000 per metre of track, to save 30 mins of travel time to London. Waste of money.
@@leighduxbury3864 30mins is a longtime lol
The problem is the UK's rail network needs some serious upgrades to bring it up to spec. Those upgrades to track that is basically 100 years old at this point, is going to be expensive. not approving of HS2 and then complaing that trains suck is a oxymoron.
The big issue with HS2 is the same issue with all post Thatcher government policy; the use of private companies whose priority remains profit generation. Infrastructure and public services should not be built for v profit because ultimately they're not, they make running every other industry more profitable and help an economy overall. Scrap the private nonsense and build a proper nationally owned infrastructure company to build for the benefit of the entire population, not for a handful of share holders
The amount of money spent, the amount of land and the demolition of historic property is enough for me to dislike HS2, let alone the fact it only serves as far north as Leeds. What of Durham, Edinburgh and Aberdeen?
Infrastructure costs always end up being way higher than initially estimated. The biggest controversy is how the British public, or anyone for that matter, is even remotely surprised.
Uk have had one of biggest, best operating and affordable railways network until 60s in the world. When every Britons suddenly decides they want a freedom of owning a car. Mostly due huge advertising to boost a sale of cars.
Due shortside thinking of both gouverment and nation in 1963 UK irreversibly lost quarter of whole railways network with closing od 2128 stations and loss of 67 700 jobs.
Just build an elevator between London and Birmingham. Problem solved 👍
Trump enters the room...
"Did I hear SPACE ELEVATOR!!!?"
Duran
Or just walk it.
Back in my days we always used to
An escalator would be faster. It will take 52 mins, according to the Dept for Transport, from London to Birmingham. That is 116mph on a 250mph railway. Remove bottlenecks on the WCML using faster trains, it will be faster.
@@Karen-zc8pi *Boomer Karen sounds intensifies*
I really don't get all the environmental groups opposing rail infrastructure. It's the same thing in Germany, as soon as any investment is greenlit, there are dozens of groups going to court. Meanwhile people are sitting in traffic jams and the rest of the rail network struggles while crucial infrastructure is delayed. Surely the worst thing for the environment is everyone driving to work, not building a rail line that will relieve other lines at capacity and improve the quality of rail service.
What font are you using and why the H so freaking wiiiiiiiiide?
It's supposed to look like a train track
l----------l S2
Heard enough excuses for why North should not have decent rail infrastructure, if investment had occurred years ago would not cost so much now.
Right now, with the effects of COVID-19 on the economy, the government should be throwing money at this project. People and companies will be repairing their savings and balance sheets for years to come. This will severely reduce the amount of money flowing in the real economy, the government doubling the spend, to say getting the project completed three years ahead of schedule, will help in keeping the economy growing.
High Speed 2 cost $100 bilion,
Something Not Okay with
€100 bilion cost for building
400 km High-speed rail
European countries that built
400 km High-speed rail line
such as France when built
LGV Est over 400 km are cost
just €4.3 bilion,
The 748 km Madrid-Barcelona
HSR in spain cost over €6.4 bilion
only
It is sad, that during the time in which Japan, Italy, Germany, France and so many other nations which had far worse rail networks, British Rail just couldn't get its share of the investment. All new high speed lines were a unobtainable fantasy, despite ambitions formalised into plans in the 1950s, many of the core existing main lines remain unelectrified. While Japan gets a lot of buzz around its high speed network, and fairly so, its historic narrow gauge railways received a tonne of investment too, especially as they handle all the freight and most of the commuter services. They were widely electrified, modern radio-based signalling installed decades ago, and this was on top of simply recovering the network to a running state after it was heavily bombed. It's amazing that British railways, which continued to push the envelop in the 1930s, were effectively defunded compared with the rest of the world. Maybe this line can do something to improve the situation, but there needs to be a lot of improvements elsewhere for the whole system to work more effectively.
What *£107bn* buys you; the price of HS2 high-speed rail from London serving only three cities directly:
- 200 flagship hospitals similar to Birmingham's Queen Elizabeth.
- 1,660,000 new social homes according to Shelter
- 25 Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers
- to supply & fit 4kw array of solar panels to 15 million homes
Can you do a video on the Northern Ireland-Scotland bridge plan that’s been in the news recently?
Yeah, and what about Wales? HS2 is for England (definite), the Irish Sea bridge is for Scotland and Ireland (possible if unlikely). All the Welsh get is to help pay for it.
Not teaching people in school basic finance is costing us. So many people forget about Return On Investment (ROI). The ROI of HS2 is worth it fo the long term benefits.
Yes, keep arguing about high speed rails. Why do anyone needs them in the first place? Just use more cars and planes, it clearly works in the US... (that was sarcasm, if someone hasn't noticed).
While China has what? 30 000km of high speed rails? And flying there over distances like 1300km (Shanghai Beijing) doesn't make much sense, as it's cheaper, almost as fast (including security/boarding) and way more comfortable to just go via train...
It works in the US because the roads aren't as congested as here.
@@ruijackson7697 Uh, tell the people of Los Angles that! And the people of Texas. And the people of New York, and the people of Seat-
Do you get the point? Congestion is far worse in the United States.
I don't understand why the UK is so bad at big infrastructure projects like train lines, airports, motorways, etc. Where countries like France or Germany (let alone China, who are on a different league) can plan, build, and execute, the UK always overpromises and underdelivers. I think it is inherent to the political system, with armies of quangos, consultants and other entities all making huge profits at the taxpayer's expense.
China builds HS2 worth of high speed train tracks every other month
our government is ridiculous when it comes down to things like this. I do agree with hs2, but of course and as always the construction has to start in the london side of it. itll probably be years until that is finished, nevermind until they get onto the northern part of it, because the government just doesnt care about the north. the north is so many years behind the south it is disgusting that any government would allow such differences to occur in their relatively small country, by land area
Phase 1: Construct highly expensive high speed rail network from London to Birmingham
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit
Oh my god they killed Virgin Trains.
@@thegrandmuftiofwakanda You Bastards!
Those damn nomes
No longer controversial as now most can see it was a colossal waste of money
HS2 is probably going to be needed more than ever seeming petrol and diesel cars are going to be banned.
Hey, trainspotting nerd here. I’d just like to point out how you were wrong about fast trains on the west coast mainline (wcml) having a problem with catching up with slower trains. Like all other UK mainlines (and other mainlines around the world, I would assume), the WCML has not two lines like you said, but 4, which have the following names: up slow (the line INTO London for SLOW trains) up fast (the line INTO London for FAST trains) down slow (the line AWAY from London for SLOW trains) and finally down fast (the line AWAY from London for FAST trains). **TLDR: Start of video is wrong as there are 4 tracks on the West Coast Mainline not 2, meaning that the point about fast trains catching up to slow ones is false, as there are already designated WCML fast and WCML slow lines.**
WCML carries substantial freight though so you're mixing in a third slower speed
Sorry to break it to you, but 4-tracking on the WCML only goes as far as Rugby. It's double track the rest of the way. And just in case you're interested, I actually work on timetabling trains on the WCML, so I know it pretty well.
Why does that just sound so familliar to me, even though I am from Germany?
HowevBER you are not alone with thiS21 problem of expensive infrastructure projects in the UK.
Hurrah! At last capacity is mentioned. If you a re building a 21st century railway why would you expect 19th century speeds. Would you expect BMW or Mercedes to re-introduce the Austin 7?
Companies can quote low and then charge a fortune for works that come up that weren't in the original price, Day Works. Also by claiming off of other companies for delays etc.
What would really change people's everyday lives would be a massive upgrade to the branch lines and trains which run on them. Because once you've gone up the mainline you then need to branch off somewhere and those trains are awful and unviable for many people.
That and build HS2. Otherwise you won't get any extra trains because they wouldn't fit into the hubs (e. g. Birmingham New Street)
Wider capacity OMFG the first report that actually knew somthing about railway engineering 🥳
Why not get the Japanese on board and buy a complete mag-lev system from them for the route instead? Would probably cost no more in the long run!
Also, if we have so much money available to spend wouldn't it be better spent on bringing back British train manufacturing to Britain?
I don't understand how they're going to blame the EU.
it is the same as your wife blaming you for everything, bbuuuuhahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Igy Pop oh you are really funny (note the irony)
@@miquelcanosasanteularia1678 haven't you had a woman blame you for something you had nothing to do with? better still something you did not even know it existed?
I've seen people claim the EU forced the UK to develop HS2, seriously
There is already 6 tracks of rail that connect London and Birmingham. 2 on the Chiltern Line and 4 on the West Coast Mainline.
Actually, 4 track on the WCML only goes as far as Rugby. Then it is triple track between Rugby and Rugby Trent Valley Junction, and then double track the rest of the way.
Why the Y, why didn't they just go straight from Manchester to Leeds and use all that extra money to extend it York, Hull or Newcastle?
I'm guessing the Pennines between the two would make it significantly more expensive. I've not looked into the terrain the current route goes through, but I wouldn't be surprised if going direct from Manchester to Leeds would require a substantial amount of tunnelling through the Pennines, which is usually a much more expensive option.
@@nekomatafuyu fair point. But as there is already a rail line that goes between the two cites I question how hard or expensive it would be to add a second faster line. Also, we dug the channel tunnel, which is 50 km, it's not that much more between the two cites centers. The London underground covers a longer distances and most of that was built decades ago. If the government wanted it, it would happen. I think it's just another example of the government prioritising money for London over the rest of the country. And I say that as a Londoner.
I'd much rather the rest of the country had TfL quality services. It's shocking how far behind much of the country is. It would be better for the whole country if there was better infrastructure outside London. It would encourage growth of other cites, reduce the strain on London and solve a lot of issues surrounding the North South divide. It makes sense and has done for generations.
@@idontwanttopickone I completely agree but seeing as the govt works and lives in London and the vast majority of lobbyists are based in London for the same reason, it will always be the focus of the UK govt. One of the reasons why localisation of governance is a good idea, so individual areas can boost their own economy with the large funds that it requires instead of it getting channeled to wherever the uneducated toffs want it to go. Also a lot of the Northern fleet of trains is still there from the 80's/90's. If anything they should improve the current fleet of trains in the North before attempting a much bigger and more ambitious project like high speed rail.
There is hs3 that will go from Leeds to Newcastle...
And it's split because London to Manchester is one of the busiest routes. Making Newcastle/scottish traffic flow through it too would make it even busier which defeats the point of hs2
WeirdestWolf London to Manchester carries 40% of rail traffic or something. So they're prioritising the busiest route obviously.
People are too scared of progress.
By the time this project is finished, high speed rail will be old technology with other counties adopting Hyperloop.....
I would have more confidence in the governments motives if they started phase 2 of the HS2 first followed by the London route.
Option A: They do HS2 phase 2A and 2B first and reduce the chances of a government cancelling the project whilst delivering a more meaningful regional shift in the economy quicker.
Or
Option B: They do HS2 phase 1 first to benefit London and Birmingham; which London doesn’t necessarily need. Followed by years of governments promising they will do the second part, and then never get round to doing it.
If Ireland had this... Cork to Dublin in less than an hour.
I think the Irish are too laid back for these vanity projects. What's the big rush?
But why would anyone in Cork want to go to Dublin?
@@saddoncarrs6963 HS2 isn't a vanity project you eejit
Honestly, the U.K. just needs a genuine initiative to fix over-centralisation of pretty much most industries from London and the South East.
What we really need is a high speed service to the South-West. It takes longer to get from Cornwall to Exeter than between London and York. The old Victorian route still exists (it's a cycle path now) so it won't be nearly as expensive and will deliver much needed connections, and regenerate an often-neglected part of the country. It will also take the pressure off the commuter lines
It's do do with our geology. Basically lots of the UK is made of clay. Clay slides, shrinks when dry, is unpredictable when wet. It's taking so long due to all the geological testing of the track sites.
Then engineering needs to be done to stop these geological disasters from happening.
Same reason why our highways are taking so long to build.
Geotechnical engineering right?
I'm in favor simply because doing nothing is not a viable alternative. Providing modern, efficient infrastructure is a key government task in fostering a prosperous society.
Improving rail links across the north would do more than shaving a bit of time off the train to London. This is just an attempt at making it easier to commute to London from cheaper areas, than having to deal with the spiralling costs of living in the capital.
I remember when CD's first came out. They said the price of music would drop. Nope. It went up. Ok tapes got cheaper but CD prices on new albums stayed high. The same thing will happen with HS2. HS2 prices will be high to cover the costs and lets not forget the profit they all want, and most other rail might get cheaper but as they get cheaper they will get left behind in terms of service and maintenance.
I don't think it's worth it for a project that will take twenty years. We don't know what's going to happen next year let alone in twenty. If you want the north to benefit put more business and industry up there. I rather see 106,000,000,000 quid spent on infrastructure in the north than just a link that may or may not do what it's intended to do. Plus. Twenty years to complete. That means a whole generation doesn't get the supposed benefits.
HS2 is just more government bollocks which means they themselves get richer. As I said if we don't know what's going to happen next year with brexit who knows what spin the government will put on HS2 at anytime.
hello hello it‘s true we don’t know what’s going to happen, but this is in the “connections network” category. Through history roads have been the foundation of economical wealth. Big infrastructure project always need time, it’s an investment in future. Today this is still true (with “digital roads” becoming more and more relevant). A strong connection network of roads and railway make jobs easier to access and internal trades (couf couf international trade is even more relevant couf couf). Generally speaking having a strong infrastructure create a stronger economy and wealth for the citizen. Of course, GENERALLY.
This line could be a project where they sink a lot of money to make everything that is not London more poor (which by consequence will make London too more poor). I don’t know the economics of the UK and I can’t tell (especially post brexit) how the regions are going to react to this infrastructure. But we should not rule out the project because time and cost, nations should work on next generations, currently this is a huge problem, nations are investing on boomers and retirement and not invested on millenials or gen z.
Let's compare the HS2 to the Shinkansen, a same effort of a government to connect it's metropolitan cities via high-speed train links.
The initial cost estimates were bogus, public support was wavering due to the advent of aeroplanes and automobiles, and yet they still pulled through.
And the initial costs the Japanese took on 1963 in 2020 pounds?
£1.3 trillion
Yep. HS1 tickets are more expensive than the "slow" trains. Considering either way I can get to London in less than an hour, the extra high speed fee just isn't worth it.
@@ilianceroni I understand what your saying but why not just spend all that money on infrastructure up in the north and spread the money around that way? £106000000000 could generate a lot of industry and business right on the people's doorstep. They wouldn't have to travel long distances to earn a wage.
hello hello unfortunately I do not know the UK situation well to answer this question. In general UK and France got a historical problem on this matter: both have one single huge political and economical juggernaut city and the others centers are a lot of “tier” behind. Compared to the US, Germany or even Italy, where multiple cities have different specialisations and we see why “it’s easier to put stuff that go to London”.
The idea of create jobs and industries in less rich areas makes sense, but it’s not always easy, the region needs a resource or an appeal to bring money and works there. We se this in European country, Ireland changed taxation to be more appealing for big multinational, Estonia is trying to invest in technology, to appeal to that industry and so on.
Every region needs is specific things to work and it should be the region itself to create a plan to do so and then ask for money to the central government. If the central government just give money to peripherical regions without a precise plan, it may result in big losses on the long run.
Again, this railway plan is not necessary good, it may be the typical investment on London, causing to make poorer the others areas, causing problems in London too, it may also end up being “riches use state money for private interest” and stuff like that.
Unfortunately this is a very difficult matter, and it should be discussed mostly by academics (but somehow it’s always discussed by politicians🤔).
1960s Japan built the 515km Tokaido Shinkansen in 5 years.
2020s Britain will build half that distance with Phase 1 and 2a of HS2 in 10-13 years.
All of HS2 combined will be only slightly longer than the Tokaido Shinkansen and won't be finished for at least another 15+ years providing that Phase 2 isn't delayed or cancelled.
Bout time this country had some massive infrastructure investment
Sam Zaremba crossrail is a massive infrastructure investment...
That’s not what’s being proposed here. A massive investment would be using the money to create jobs, manufacture materials in the U.K. and deliver functional infrastructure. What’s actually being proposed is a huge time and cash sinkhole where most of the taxpayers cash will be spent on land & lease rights, pretty (& unnecessary) architecture and mostly giant profit margins for the business owners who are awarded the contracts because they greased-the-wheels for politicians (just who did pay for Boris’ holiday over Xmas?).
@@supermotherfuckingvillain yes and although im a londoner that benefits from projects like crossrail/overground/ bakerloo line extension this is all primarily serving Londoners and creating unimaginably well paid jobs even at the lower end of the pay spectrum.
It's frankly a bit of a disgrace that the 5th richest economy is still muddling through on tech not that much more improved than it was in the 70's.
By now all the UK's major cities should be connected by some form of high-speed rail
I'm very sure HS2 ROW will be narrower than a 4 lane motorway. It will be closer to 3 Lanes
SouthWest needs some better rails barely any transport linking from there to main hubs
Maybe use the existing lines for the last few miles into London, either Euston or Paddington, instead of building the new line straight to the centre? Also change the arrangement by building underground through platforms for Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham stations, as well as better connections to the existing network. With a 140mph ECML north of York the Newcastle trains would be improved, and the Edinburgh trains should go via the ECML instead of the WCML.
Wow I can get from Manchester to London an hour quicker! Shame it will still take me 3 hours to travel 30 miles from my town to Manchester.
if u want ZERO emissions economy - you need electrification of transport
in order to do that you need to replace airplanes - you need fast trains (slowing down trains is dumb, trains will be the backbone of future economies and REQUIRE us to think,plan,finance BIG projects for future green global economy.)
Also the time scale on that proposal is just madning - just call the Chinese, they will build it in a week for £5 and the speed will be 1200km/hr (most importantly without any debates, they'll just fkn do it already)
Justin Thyme but you need to protect the environment
The Chinese can build this in 5 years at a much lower cost.
We lost our industry in the recent past and now can not beat the Chinese building railways and most manufactured products.
China has mostly state-owned land and an authoritarian government that can resettle people (by force if necessary) very easily. You can't do that in Europe or America. We have privately owned land and more rights for people who own land or property.
Why not rebuild our Engineering Industry?
called communism mate
@@donaldboughton8686 We have weak government swayed by pressure groups.
An example of this is the third runway at Heathrow where our governments have allowed pressure groups to stop this long overdue necessity to drag on for over 20 years.
After criticism of the slow speed of HS2, HS2 Ltd stated that the WCML was saturated south of Rugby, so they needed more capacity. They changed angle from speed into capacity. mmmmm
*1.* The WCML can have *two extra tracks* into London as the straight Gt.Central trackbed still exists between Rugby and Aylesbury. It is also owned by Network Rail, reducing costs to reopen. Reopened, it can reach over 160mph giving a *fast* route into London.
*2.* Euston station has the surrounds demolished. The station needed rebuilding irrespective of HS2 as it is too small. There is space for 12 car 900 passenger trains on the WCML. 12 trains per hour means *10,800 passengers per hour shifted.* This means they would shift twice as many passengers in and out than in 2014.
*3.* Birmingham/West Midlands trains can go back onto the Chiltern Line (some still are on it). When the diesel run Chiltern is uprated it can clearly equal 52 minutes in journey time. It will take trains off the WCML onto the more direct Chiltern.
So, *CAPACITY* is not a problem on the existing mainline network. We have all we want for the next 100 years.
They should call a referendum on it.
It is so expensive.
A . Over priced.
B. Those who gave them the contract aren't paying from their POCKETS.
The companies doing the job will make sure they give those people who gave them the job some nice rewards.
I've always thought it's a lot of spending for something a tiny percent of the population will use. I'm not sure it will be worth it all in the end.
Yeah but it benefits London so of course it will be made
£300,000 per metre
A lot of people will use it if it gets them from north to south faster than a car or a plane. The reason why Brits drive cars everywhere is because of the sorry state of the rest of the transport infrastructure. Look at Holland, they're doing things right. They save a lot of money that would have otherwise been spent on foreign cars and foreign oil and they invest it into their own communities. A £2000 per capita one-time investment into trains sounds like a lot but somehow people have no qualms about spending £300/mo on cars for several decades. All this happens while Russia and Saudi-Arabia are laughing their way to the bank.
But its not something that will effect a tiny percentage of people. It will effect motorway congestion, normal road congestion, local railway journeys, long rail journeys, airport capacity, cargo transport options, the economy of all the major cities in England, global warming etc etc etc. Cant bury your head in the sand then complain about not being able to see.
@@weetikissa The problem is that said £2000 per capita is not being invested in the whole country, but only in England. Transportation in NI, Wales and Scotland needs as much an overhaul as England's, and it's getting £0 out of those £100 billion.
A high speed link is what’s been needed for many years
I live in Kent and the high speed into London saves a lot of time and is a very good service
Other countries build railways. In the U.K. loads of palms gotta be greased before any infrastructure improvement happen. Corruption rules here.
All this talk about linking the North of England, forgetting that York, Durham, Newcastle, Sunderland, Carlisle, Middlesborough, Lancaster, Preston (and more) all exist. And that's just England, Wales and Scotland are left out again. When I rode the train from Manchester to London this week (07:00-09:00) it took me 2 hours on the dot, Is it worth over 100,000,000,000 just to shave off 20 mins?
u clearly didn't watch the whole vid and also there is plans to extend it to Scotland but the Scottish government are being a pain in the arse
I clearly did. There is no proposed new line from Manchester/Leeds to the north, only HS2 trains on the West Coast Mainline which is a cop out.
@@domhunt6488 I said plans not a proposed line, it still in early stages and if you watched the vid u would know that hs2 has more benefits than reduced travel time
@@TheFrederation_ I'm well aware of the "benefits". But considering we have crumbling infrastructure all over the UK, particularly outside of the Greater London and South East area I don't see why 100,000 Million pounds to make business travellers times shorter is a worthwhile investment. Why don't you search up the cons of HS2 if you claim to be more informed?
Interesting video! Can you provide links for the 3 CBA you mentioned? Such a big disparity is rare to see. Last time I saw differing results like this was on a trump climate report, who puts carbon emission value at $1 per ton, instead of the 25-46 generally agreed.
We spent so much money developing a high speed train that would work on our current rail lines (but was eventually shit canned bc it gave people motion sickness and ultimately was uncomfortable) that we could've just built a new High Speed rail network anyway...I mean ffs £120 to go from Edinburgh to London on a train that takes 4 and a half hours compared with getting a jet which takes and hour and a half yet costs £30-40??? its disgraceful
Don't think that's true. Price of a return ticket with plane or train is roughly similar - just had a look at ticket sites right now. Cheapest for both is about ~£90 return. True you are on a train for three hours longer...but you will get more-or-less into central London with the train. Unless you land at London city airport, if you fly you need to get another train to get to central London, which adds to the cost and a minimum of at least an hour extra travel. (if you are lucky.) It used to be much cheaper to fly, but them days are long gone.
Lol..give this to china and It will be build in a year.
And at half he cost
@Logic Pro For Life 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
To extremely poor standards and paying workers next to nothing. Maybe spread a new virus whilst they’re at it.
It comes with Chinese officers and the virus
@@TT-hd3zi China made express railways in such a short time and for a low cost by a reason. Plus they can claim the land by any means
In smaller, densely populated countries like in Europe anything beyond a top speed of 300 km/h is usually not that useful, as you will either have arrived at the next stop already or face speed-reducing obstacles (curves, slopes, noise-sensitive areas, etc.) before reaching and/or sustaining much higher speeds for significant parts of the journey.
Its gonna be great, will open up job opportunities for loads of people.
Mostly bankers.
Matthew Belcher
Will you be gaining more than you lose?
@@Karen-zc8pi yep
It opens loads of opportunities... for Tory contractors ;)
ye loads of eastern europeans working for illegally low wages.
Meanwhile in Japan they’ve built high-speed rail from Hokkaido to Kyushu and are building a second high-speed line between Tokyo and Osaka with MagLev technology. Shinkansen makes travelling in Japan much easier than other countries and rail infrastructure is the foundation of their entire economy. HS2 is a great idea but lack of foresight could mean that it’s obsolete by the time it’s implemented.