UK needs the HS2. If UK wants to spur growth in cities then having a high speed rail system will be a big plus. The only thing that matters at the end of the day is the ticket cost to the consumer. This is the determining factor as to whether this will be a roaring success or a drain on finances from low usage. The mindset of the incumbent government on this is very important - whether they choose to amortise costs over decades or whether they want to take back what they put in asap. If they decide to take back asap and let HS2 be run by the private sector, then I would say it's better that they stop building because I can imagine the cost per ticket looking at the GBP100 billion and more expenditure and it will be only utilised an elite group of people. Lastly if the HS2 doesn't connect to London, don't bother building.
The UK is certainly smaller than France, but way larger than Belgium & Switzerland for example these two small countries are well connected with high speed trains btn cities and regions, that a side they have two way links btn neighbouring countries! Luxembourg , France, Germany, The Euro start connects some major EU cities to London? what exactly is the failure all about??? greed? terrain ? poor plannings and management?
Just lots of bureaucracy - high land costs, devolved governmental matters, lots of business cases, local pushbacks, several redrafts, private contracts, inflation, etc.
We are an international embarrassment, I did the numbers it will take five more minutes longer to get into central London and only cost a ticket twice as much!
The UK needs more rails fullstop, dont matter high speed or not. As the population has increased massively and our governmnets dont want to stop immigration we need to move frieght and people around the country as the roads are full. The only way to run more trains is to increase railways , this guy is a plank. u can upgrade every line but wont increase capacity will it
The main lack of sufficient capacity on the overall system is from London to Rugby on the West Coast Main Line. It is logical to design that to modern standards. HS2 does that but it wasn't necessary to design it to the extremely high speed that has been adopted. It would then have more economical to build. I think improvements to problem areas on the existing network should have been the priority rather than HS2 but now that it's construction is well under way I think it should be completed to Birmingham and just beyond, where it will connect with the WCML, and leave it at that until such time, some considerable time, in the future when further capacity may be needed further north.
@@peterp7063 not really true , the bottleneck into BNS as there are only two lines from Rugby to stafford for the loop to brum wolves etc . There are always delays on that stretch as one failure causes havoc. Most of the wcml from Rugby into London is 4 line up and down fast and slow
@@peterp7063 I don't think you understand how much capacity the current express services take away from existing lines. HS2 is about capacity improvements and it makes sense to build it to a higher standard.
@@nickedwards2904 I'm aware of the capacity problems at New Street station and have long believed that it's complete remodelling is necessary (not just the passenger circulation area above - as was done a few years ago). The East-West and North-South lines needed to be separated, on different levels, and the latter quadrupled right through the conurbation. I think it was a mistake to make Birmingham a branch off the HS2 main line. As in Antwerp, the WCML or HS2 should have gone through the remodelled New Street at low level. Nevertheless the HS2 branch will take some pressure off the WCML through New Street in the meantime.
@@nickedwards2904 The four lines from London to Rugby are also insufficient, for present and future demand, and so a further pair of tracks were needed here. However HS2 will now provide that extra capacity as well as the extra pair of tracks that were also needed for further capacity from Rugby to Birmingham New Street. I don't think the HS2 alignment was the best way to provide that extra capacity but as stage 1 is now well on the way to completion it would be a terrible waste to abandon it now. Doing so would almost certainly then delay provision of the much needed extra capacity on the southern end of the WCML for many years.
I think the money would have been better spent improving what we have. "Capacity" is a reason for HS2, but trains are often overcrowded because there are little 2 and 3 carriage trains instead of 6 or 8 carriages. Trains get delayed because there is a section that could do with 4 tracks instead of 2 so local trains don't interfere. Imagine if we spent the money getting these things right! And the focus always seems to be London to Birmingham. Living near Birmingham and having travelled to Manchester I think that bit is more needed. It currently takes a ridiculous amount of time given the distance.
Capacity in this instance is usually referred to the number of possible trains on a line, not the number of passengers on a train. There had been suggestions to upgrade the mainline once again, but you'd have to look at the bigger picture - the last mainline upgrade took place 20/25 years ago and it only lasted ten years before the increased capacity had swallowed up. HS2 effectively builds that 2 extra tracks without having to be next to the existing railway. Besides, HS2 is also on a straighter alignment than the bending Victorian network there is that results in trains slowing down.
We aren’t even being informed about the damage from sinkholes that thousand £‘S are needed to fix. Or the teeth repairs to the mole machines because they were designed to cut through soft sea bed sediment, not flint of the Children Hills. They also don’t tell us about teams of workers sat on site, being paid for a full day’s work, but barely do half an hours. Then get reprimanded if they try to help someone else, to move their job along quickly, so they can start theirs. What about all the properties and land that HS2 still own and are either empty or being rented, yet aren’t being maintained and are delaying selling. What about the green belt farm fields that have been tarmaced over for car parking and Porta cabins on sites separate from the work sites. There are also flood lights that are up very high and look as bright as if the full moon had fallen to earth and the constant hum, like a van is running, that is noticeable more at night. But at least you can’t really see it all from The Chequers, so the PM doesn’t have to worry.
I agree with privatisation of the railway, however what we have is effectively exclusive government contracts to third party operators. The biggest line, and would-be competitor to HS2, is the historic west coast mainline, and this line is operated solely by the god-awful Avanti, spawn of Virgin. There needs to be real competition for these operating contracts, I don't see why this vital rail passage between london manchester and glasgow can't have several competing operators, Avanti, and say two other companies. Or why this railway can't be modernised instead of HS2 as there are always breakdowns and stopping of service in moderate to high wind. My point is it's privatised, but it's not truly a free market, it's just a proxy nationlised system at the moment. There is only one service you can get between manchester and london and after traveling on it for over a decade and having had so many nightmares, I always opt to take an extra slow but cheaper and less stressful route via birmingham and crewe.
But at the end of the day, we don't want another Concorde or Eurotunnel, I honestly think there just need to be more services per hour provided at a competitive cost. I'm very happy with a 3 hour journey form manchester to London, anything quicker clearly runs into obvious diminishing returns. Because although HS2 will be amazing, I can't imagine it will be very cheap, especially if they award the operating contract to just one company and don't subsidise it enough
I think you identify the core issue here. Railway lines are inherently a natural monopoly and it's not possible to have true competition without breaking economies of scale. Fragmentation of the industry under too many private companies has destroyed efficiency. Ironically, HS2 will provide some degree of competition in the form of a parallel path on the most popular route. Most all other lines can not turn a profit - look how many times the East Coast franchise has collapsed - so it's ludicrous to introduce 'competition' to something that is already heavily reliant on subsidy. It just dilutes the existing inadequate revenues more thinly. For all it's flaws, the centralized system under BR allowed the profitable routes to cross subsidize the commercially nonviable services that are maintained for social reasons. Nowadays that profit is extracted by private business and as a result the government is forced to increase taxpayer subsidy to maintain the other services.
If they improved the existing north rail links east-west similar to south east UK this would be far more useful and cost effective. I can't see that having to travel to Euston to get the train is practical if you live in south of England, West country, East Anglia, Wales - as there are already other trains going the same way so why bother? what levelling up is this rail line really offering? Just profits for those with shares in the companies doing the work - bet there are plenty of government bods clapping their hands and checking their portfolios.
I disagree with some of your points. While I agree that more east-west connectivity should be considered, including bringing back the eastern leg to Leeds, there can exist projects that can work alongside HS2 (East West Rail being one). However, the affects of HS2's capacity relief is going to met across the country, including Cross-country services. Aberystwyth for one would expect to have increased services to Birmingham when HS2 is completed, because before then the limited capacity on the corridor won't allow the Aberystwyth train to fit into the timetable, leaving it to turn around earlier on the line. The same can be said for pretty much most trains going through Birmingham.
No, our allies in the US, Canada and Australia don't have high speed rail. We should be improving the commuter belt around London and the South East where it needs it but really, Tbh, this money could have allowed for us to instill Tax cuts for business and reduced the tax rates (I am not wealthy!) For all stages including the top earners without affecting essential public services, I have no issues with privatisation, I believe in free market economics and our railway has improved vastly since privatisation, it works perfectly and we really don't need any further projects, personally I feel our motorways should be expanded, especially the M25.
Our allies in France, Germany and Italy do, they are the ones I'd listen to more as they have a similar geography and population, as well as having a better reputation than North America when it comes to infrastructure. Australia recently passed a bill to create the High Speed Rail Authority. the USA already has the Amtrak Acela and is building a HSR line in California. Also "It works perfectly" is an embarrassing thing to say about the UK's rail network, or anything for that matter.
@@Emma-cp5re hopefully. Better than them being on benefits and housed in hotels isn't it? Of course they will all have the right to live here, there's the difference.
With an alleged £160 billion, in order to recover the cost, fares will have to be at least £500 each way. This will mean it is hardly used, perhaps having one service each way, twice a day. All this to save a few minutes with a lack of intermediate stations. Upgrading the existing line would cost a fraction!
Except billions were spent on the existing line already. HS2 was designed to take pressure off 3 existing lines. And fares are already subsidised. As are almost all roads.
trees will re grow u know , they are planting a lot more than they are digging up , how do u suggest we move stuff without new lines ? Electric hover boards ??
More than half the route between London and Birmingham is in tunnels, the trees are being replanted and there are far worse road construction schemes. Without HS2 more roads will have to be built.
@@nickedwards2904 those 4 lines from Rugby are also at full capacity - most of the most crowded commuter trains are on that route. That's why HS2 is needed, inter-city trains take up the most capacity. It's building a rail motorway network basically. So commuters from Milton Keynes benefit from HS2 for example.
This is the greenest, most environmentally friendly railway in human history. It is electric for starters so no emissions. It's also very fast so will lead to modal shift from air travel to rail. The true environmental devastation is the current house building over green belt land on the edges of towns and villages.
Massive ignorance the railways are already nationalised! Network Rail belongs to the government and the government also run a lot of the train operating companies.
That's a fair point, there is insufficient capacity between London and Birmingham to accommodate freight. Evidently 75% of all freight could be carried by trains on electrified tracks for a relatively modest investment in electrification and we will have huge amounts of inexpensive electricity from offshore wind, with the excess energy stored in the form of hydrogen, that would give the UK a significant economic advantage. However, there was an alternative route that could have been reinstated to provide extra capacity for a lot less money, I don't understand why the solution needed to be gold plated with trains that will run faster than those in other, much larger, European countries. Also, the prospect of the unions having control of 75% of all freight is not appealing.
@@glynnwright1699 Tell me more about this other route. How many towns and cities would you have to flatten to use it? Why should we not have high speed rail? It's basically a rail motorway. Spain, France, Germany and even Morocco have high speed lines. Our biggest issue with solar and wind is storing unused power. And what to do on cloudy windless days.
@@hairyairey No European trains currently run at the proposed speed of HS2, it is 25mph faster. Both the French and Spanish high speed rail systems consume huge subsidies. Several sections of the Great Central Mainline have been reopened, including one in the last few months. They have no government funding, they are privately funded. Relatively modest amounts of money could add additional freight capacity to the rail network. It is a complete fallacy to suggest that wind energy cannot be stored. The sort of mindless tripe churned out by media outlets such as the Telegraph. The Dutch, Italians and Norwegians are in the process of building offshore hydrogen generators with the ability to store surplus electrical energy in the form of hydrogen. The Dutch are planning to build generation hubs in the North Sea that utilise the existing natural gas infrastructure to move it ashore. All prediction indicate that it will produce energy at lower cost than nuclear or natural gas.
HS2 will not benefit most of the country. Most rail journeys are short & criss cross the country has people go about their day to day activities. HS2 will be one giant railway going through the centre of the country which most of the public will not live anywhere near. I live near The Wash I would have to take an 100 mile plus car journey to catch it. We have already poured billions into the project so it would probably be a mistake to cancel it now.
Does Britain Need a HS Railway... Well to use a Marketing Terminology... IF WE NEEDED ONE WE WOULD HAVE HAD ONE BY NOW, WOULDN'T WE ? WOULDN'T WE...? ? ?
Ridiculous comment. I guess high speed rail is needed and justified in countries like China, Czech Republic, Poland, etc. But in UK, with overcrowded, slow trains it is not needed? Give your head a wobble.
By 2038 (the latest date for the cutting of the ribbon) the hyperloop will have been invented. Nonetheless the contracts are sealed, the land is purchased and construction has begun.
UK needs the HS2. If UK wants to spur growth in cities then having a high speed rail system will be a big plus. The only thing that matters at the end of the day is the ticket cost to the consumer. This is the determining factor as to whether this will be a roaring success or a drain on finances from low usage. The mindset of the incumbent government on this is very important - whether they choose to amortise costs over decades or whether they want to take back what they put in asap. If they decide to take back asap and let HS2 be run by the private sector, then I would say it's better that they stop building because I can imagine the cost per ticket looking at the GBP100 billion and more expenditure and it will be only utilised an elite group of people. Lastly if the HS2 doesn't connect to London, don't bother building.
If it's anything like the trains here, it won't turn up anyway.
And twice as long to build
The UK is certainly smaller than France, but way larger than Belgium & Switzerland for example these two small countries are well connected with high speed trains btn cities and regions, that a side they have two way links btn neighbouring countries! Luxembourg , France, Germany, The Euro start connects some major EU cities to London?
what exactly is the failure all about??? greed? terrain ? poor plannings and management?
Just lots of bureaucracy - high land costs, devolved governmental matters, lots of business cases, local pushbacks, several redrafts, private contracts, inflation, etc.
If you level up the regions you don't need a fast train to London????
We are an international embarrassment, I did the numbers it will take five more minutes longer to get into central London and only cost a ticket twice as much!
Who can afford train travel now…let alone this one?
It's going to be part of the existing rail network - it's not an optional extra like a toll road.
The UK needs more rails fullstop, dont matter high speed or not. As the population has increased massively and our governmnets dont want to stop immigration we need to move frieght and people around the country as the roads are full. The only way to run more trains is to increase railways , this guy is a plank. u can upgrade every line but wont increase capacity will it
The main lack of sufficient capacity on the overall system is from London to Rugby on the West Coast Main Line. It is logical to design that to modern standards. HS2 does that but it wasn't necessary to design it to the extremely high speed that has been adopted. It would then have more economical to build. I think improvements to problem areas on the existing network should have been the priority rather than HS2 but now that it's construction is well under way I think it should be completed to Birmingham and just beyond, where it will connect with the WCML, and leave it at that until such time, some considerable time, in the future when further capacity may be needed further north.
@@peterp7063 not really true , the bottleneck into BNS as there are only two lines from Rugby to stafford for the loop to brum wolves etc . There are always delays on that stretch as one failure causes havoc. Most of the wcml from Rugby into London is 4 line up and down fast and slow
@@peterp7063 I don't think you understand how much capacity the current express services take away from existing lines. HS2 is about capacity improvements and it makes sense to build it to a higher standard.
@@nickedwards2904 I'm aware of the capacity problems at New Street station and have long believed that it's complete remodelling is necessary (not just the passenger circulation area above - as was done a few years ago). The East-West and North-South lines needed to be separated, on different levels, and the latter quadrupled right through the conurbation. I think it was a mistake to make Birmingham a branch off the HS2 main line. As in Antwerp, the WCML or HS2 should have gone through the remodelled New Street at low level. Nevertheless the HS2 branch will take some pressure off the WCML through New Street in the meantime.
@@nickedwards2904 The four lines from London to Rugby are also insufficient, for present and future demand, and so a further pair of tracks were needed here. However HS2 will now provide that extra capacity as well as the extra pair of tracks that were also needed for further capacity from Rugby to Birmingham New Street. I don't think the HS2 alignment was the best way to provide that extra capacity but as stage 1 is now well on the way to completion it would be a terrible waste to abandon it now. Doing so would almost certainly then delay provision of the much needed extra capacity on the southern end of the WCML for many years.
We don’t have job security on the current railway hahahah
The fact you have to ask is embarrassing
It is far worse than under the much maligned British rail
Agreed.
I think the money would have been better spent improving what we have. "Capacity" is a reason for HS2, but trains are often overcrowded because there are little 2 and 3 carriage trains instead of 6 or 8 carriages. Trains get delayed because there is a section that could do with 4 tracks instead of 2 so local trains don't interfere. Imagine if we spent the money getting these things right! And the focus always seems to be London to Birmingham. Living near Birmingham and having travelled to Manchester I think that bit is more needed. It currently takes a ridiculous amount of time given the distance.
Capacity in this instance is usually referred to the number of possible trains on a line, not the number of passengers on a train. There had been suggestions to upgrade the mainline once again, but you'd have to look at the bigger picture - the last mainline upgrade took place 20/25 years ago and it only lasted ten years before the increased capacity had swallowed up. HS2 effectively builds that 2 extra tracks without having to be next to the existing railway. Besides, HS2 is also on a straighter alignment than the bending Victorian network there is that results in trains slowing down.
Hello the demand is between London and Birmingham so that is the sensible place to build more capacity.
We aren’t even being informed about the damage from sinkholes that thousand £‘S are needed to fix. Or the teeth repairs to the mole machines because they were designed to cut through soft sea bed sediment, not flint of the Children Hills.
They also don’t tell us about teams of workers sat on site, being paid for a full day’s work, but barely do half an hours. Then get reprimanded if they try to help someone else, to move their job along quickly, so they can start theirs.
What about all the properties and land that HS2 still own and are either empty or being rented, yet aren’t being maintained and are delaying selling. What about the green belt farm fields that have been tarmaced over for car parking and Porta cabins on sites separate from the work sites.
There are also flood lights that are up very high and look as bright as if the full moon had fallen to earth and the constant hum, like a van is running, that is noticeable more at night. But at least you can’t really see it all from The Chequers, so the PM doesn’t have to worry.
Complete waste of money just look after what we have already
These two blokes seem to really hate each other.
No, just like the millennium dome, wasting money
Remove Alice Band, not a look.
What’s the hurry for?
Can’t we just sit back and enjoy the scenery outside while we ride the trains? 😂
Let the riches to ride helicopters.
How can anyone sit back and enjoy the scenery when it's standing room only on every train due to lack of capacity?
I agree with privatisation of the railway, however what we have is effectively exclusive government contracts to third party operators. The biggest line, and would-be competitor to HS2, is the historic west coast mainline, and this line is operated solely by the god-awful Avanti, spawn of Virgin. There needs to be real competition for these operating contracts, I don't see why this vital rail passage between london manchester and glasgow can't have several competing operators, Avanti, and say two other companies. Or why this railway can't be modernised instead of HS2 as there are always breakdowns and stopping of service in moderate to high wind. My point is it's privatised, but it's not truly a free market, it's just a proxy nationlised system at the moment. There is only one service you can get between manchester and london and after traveling on it for over a decade and having had so many nightmares, I always opt to take an extra slow but cheaper and less stressful route via birmingham and crewe.
But at the end of the day, we don't want another Concorde or Eurotunnel, I honestly think there just need to be more services per hour provided at a competitive cost. I'm very happy with a 3 hour journey form manchester to London, anything quicker clearly runs into obvious diminishing returns. Because although HS2 will be amazing, I can't imagine it will be very cheap, especially if they award the operating contract to just one company and don't subsidise it enough
I think you identify the core issue here. Railway lines are inherently a natural monopoly and it's not possible to have true competition without breaking economies of scale. Fragmentation of the industry under too many private companies has destroyed efficiency. Ironically, HS2 will provide some degree of competition in the form of a parallel path on the most popular route. Most all other lines can not turn a profit - look how many times the East Coast franchise has collapsed - so it's ludicrous to introduce 'competition' to something that is already heavily reliant on subsidy. It just dilutes the existing inadequate revenues more thinly. For all it's flaws, the centralized system under BR allowed the profitable routes to cross subsidize the commercially nonviable services that are maintained for social reasons. Nowadays that profit is extracted by private business and as a result the government is forced to increase taxpayer subsidy to maintain the other services.
If they improved the existing north rail links east-west similar to south east UK this would be far more useful and cost effective. I can't see that having to travel to Euston to get the train is practical if you live in south of England, West country, East Anglia, Wales - as there are already other trains going the same way so why bother? what levelling up is this rail line really offering? Just profits for those with shares in the companies doing the work - bet there are plenty of government bods clapping their hands and checking their portfolios.
HS2 is about increasing capacity. The existing lines are beyond full capacity.
I disagree with some of your points. While I agree that more east-west connectivity should be considered, including bringing back the eastern leg to Leeds, there can exist projects that can work alongside HS2 (East West Rail being one). However, the affects of HS2's capacity relief is going to met across the country, including Cross-country services. Aberystwyth for one would expect to have increased services to Birmingham when HS2 is completed, because before then the limited capacity on the corridor won't allow the Aberystwyth train to fit into the timetable, leaving it to turn around earlier on the line. The same can be said for pretty much most trains going through Birmingham.
No, our allies in the US, Canada and Australia don't have high speed rail. We should be improving the commuter belt around London and the South East where it needs it but really, Tbh, this money could have allowed for us to instill Tax cuts for business and reduced the tax rates (I am not wealthy!) For all stages including the top earners without affecting essential public services, I have no issues with privatisation, I believe in free market economics and our railway has improved vastly since privatisation, it works perfectly and we really don't need any further projects, personally I feel our motorways should be expanded, especially the M25.
Our allies in France, Germany and Italy do, they are the ones I'd listen to more as they have a similar geography and population, as well as having a better reputation than North America when it comes to infrastructure. Australia recently passed a bill to create the High Speed Rail Authority. the USA already has the Amtrak Acela and is building a HSR line in California.
Also "It works perfectly" is an embarrassing thing to say about the UK's rail network, or anything for that matter.
NO
Just a waste of money, sort the Economy out first we are in a right mess
You know this project is employing tens of thousands of people don't you?
@@hairyairey thousands of Foreign people yeah haha
@@Emma-cp5re hopefully. Better than them being on benefits and housed in hotels isn't it? Of course they will all have the right to live here, there's the difference.
What about the thousands of people who are after a job, put the British First
@@Emma-cp5re I am sure there are plenty of skilled British people working on the project.
With an alleged £160 billion, in order to recover the cost, fares will have to be at least £500 each way. This will mean it is hardly used, perhaps having one service each way, twice a day. All this to save a few minutes with a lack of intermediate stations. Upgrading the existing line would cost a fraction!
Except billions were spent on the existing line already. HS2 was designed to take pressure off 3 existing lines.
And fares are already subsidised. As are almost all roads.
Have you read the business case, eg the first paragraph?
My heart breaks for all the devastation to trees and wildlife for no reason.
trees will re grow u know , they are planting a lot more than they are digging up , how do u suggest we move stuff without new lines ? Electric hover boards ??
More than half the route between London and Birmingham is in tunnels, the trees are being replanted and there are far worse road construction schemes. Without HS2 more roads will have to be built.
@@hairyairey from the junc at Rugby down into London its 4 lines, the issue is the 2 line bottleneck from rugby to brum and wolves and onto stafford.
@@nickedwards2904 those 4 lines from Rugby are also at full capacity - most of the most crowded commuter trains are on that route. That's why HS2 is needed, inter-city trains take up the most capacity. It's building a rail motorway network basically. So commuters from Milton Keynes benefit from HS2 for example.
This is the greenest, most environmentally friendly railway in human history. It is electric for starters so no emissions. It's also very fast so will lead to modal shift from air travel to rail. The true environmental devastation is the current house building over green belt land on the edges of towns and villages.
Don't keep askng your opponent questons, they will simply brush them aside and take centre stage
Massive ignorance the railways are already nationalised! Network Rail belongs to the government and the government also run a lot of the train operating companies.
HS2 IS an investment into our rail structure!! It's a third lane modification that will help a 2 lane clogged motorway!!!
Who is going to be traveling on trains when people are being tricked in to doing everything from their house now
So where do these people live then. London I presume hoping for another tube line. Sorry HS2 is here to stay.
Yes, because the alternative is more roads
That's a fair point, there is insufficient capacity between London and Birmingham to accommodate freight. Evidently 75% of all freight could be carried by trains on electrified tracks for a relatively modest investment in electrification and we will have huge amounts of inexpensive electricity from offshore wind, with the excess energy stored in the form of hydrogen, that would give the UK a significant economic advantage.
However, there was an alternative route that could have been reinstated to provide extra capacity for a lot less money, I don't understand why the solution needed to be gold plated with trains that will run faster than those in other, much larger, European countries. Also, the prospect of the unions having control of 75% of all freight is not appealing.
@@glynnwright1699 Tell me more about this other route. How many towns and cities would you have to flatten to use it? Why should we not have high speed rail? It's basically a rail motorway. Spain, France, Germany and even Morocco have high speed lines.
Our biggest issue with solar and wind is storing unused power. And what to do on cloudy windless days.
@@hairyairey No European trains currently run at the proposed speed of HS2, it is 25mph faster. Both the French and Spanish high speed rail systems consume huge subsidies.
Several sections of the Great Central Mainline have been reopened, including one in the last few months. They have no government funding, they are privately funded. Relatively modest amounts of money could add additional freight capacity to the rail network.
It is a complete fallacy to suggest that wind energy cannot be stored. The sort of mindless tripe churned out by media outlets such as the Telegraph. The Dutch, Italians and Norwegians are in the process of building offshore hydrogen generators with the ability to store surplus electrical energy in the form of hydrogen. The Dutch are planning to build generation hubs in the North Sea that utilise the existing natural gas infrastructure to move it ashore. All prediction indicate that it will produce energy at lower cost than nuclear or natural gas.
the old route was /is fine Simply improve it a bit and bingo no need to ruin half the country.
@@wendyadams5232 already had billions spent on the old route, no amount of money will solve the capacity issue.
HS2 will not benefit most of the country. Most rail journeys are short & criss cross the country has people go about their day to day activities. HS2 will be one giant railway going through the centre of the country which most of the public will not live anywhere near. I live near The Wash I would have to take an 100 mile plus car journey to catch it. We have already poured billions into the project so it would probably be a mistake to cancel it now.
👌 sounds good but it won’t grow the economy,
Incorrect, the capacity improvements to the existing network will benefit people who might never use HS2. For example commuters from Milton Keynes.
@@hairyairey but this respondent lives near the Wash not Milton Keynes
Yes it should definitely be nationalised we the tax payers should be able to afford to use it for long journeys
Does Britain Need a HS Railway... Well to use a Marketing Terminology... IF WE NEEDED ONE WE WOULD HAVE HAD ONE BY NOW, WOULDN'T WE ? WOULDN'T WE...? ? ?
Ridiculous comment. I guess high speed rail is needed and justified in countries like China, Czech Republic, Poland, etc. But in UK, with overcrowded, slow trains it is not needed? Give your head a wobble.
It'll get illegal immigrants to every part of the country even quicker
Cognitive dissidence.
Pipedream for a big arrow that points at London which is the only bubble Westminster is interested in
Yes.
It needs two.
North -South
And West-East.
You must have loadsa money…train travel not possible for most people
I have nightmares about B.R. they were even worse than we have today.
Sorry I don’t agree. It was basic but more functional.
By 2038 (the latest date for the cutting of the ribbon) the hyperloop will have been invented. Nonetheless the contracts are sealed, the land is purchased and construction has begun.
The hyperloop will not work for practically the same reasons the atmospheric railway failed.