Trouble down the track for HS2?

[LosOjos]

Still a new route though. It isn't going over the top of existing tracks. It has miles of new tunnels, bridges, cuttings etc...

 

Yeah but that was kind of my point - rather than spending billions laying a new track, spend a bit more time and money increasing the loading gauge of the existing track from London to Manchester (through Birmingham)

[superatticman]

If you are going to go down the route of enhancing the loading gauge, then you may as well go the full distance and implement the Western USA gauge. True double decker and enhanced width.

 

Of course this would mean having to expand a 4 track mainline by about 12 foot sideways, of which would require nearby properties to be bulldozed and bridges and tunnels modified for starters.

[localzuk]

Yeah but that was kind of my point - rather than spending billions laying a new track, spend a bit more time and money increasing the loading gauge of the existing track from London to Manchester (through Birmingham)

 

That'd cost a heck of a lot. The routes are heavily built up around existing lines. Not to mention, there are numerous 'historic' bridges and the like, which wouldn't legally be allowed to be touched, so the lines would have to be redirected at those points to new routes with new bridges/tunnels.

 

Not to mention the disruption to the busiest route on the rail network.

[LosOjos]

If you are going to go down the route of enhancing the loading gauge, then you may as well go the full distance and implement the Western USA gauge. True double decker and enhanced width.

 

Of course this would mean having to expand a 4 track mainline by about 12 foot sideways, of which would require nearby properties to be bulldozed and bridges and tunnels modified for starters.

 

Like I said, not quick or cheap, but increasing the gauge enough to allow for European style double decker trains would surely be a better option in the long run?

 

EDIT: OK hadn't considered the historic buildings problem. Surely something better than ploughing through the countryside with a new track could be done though. How about looking at using the canals again for freight?

Edited September 10, 2013 by LosOjos

[zag]

I've recently had my local train station redeveloped and it needed 2 new small viaducts about a mile down the tracks.

 

The total cost was over 1 billion pounds and it took 4 years!! Hopefully that shows you just how much it costs to upgrade existing lines!!

 

HS2 is a far cheaper option. 50 billion over 20 years is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

[LosOjos]

I've recently had my local train station redeveloped and it needed 2 new small viaducts about a mile down the tracks.

 

The total cost was over 1 billion pounds and it took 4 years!! Hopefully that shows you just how much it costs to upgrade existing lines!!

 

HS2 is a far cheaper option. 50 billion over 20 years is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

 

I don't believe for a second it's going to come in a £50 billion - when was the last time a UK Government managed to do anything on time and within budget?!

 

I just don't think HS2 is going to solve any problems - if it's more expensive than existing rail options, I doubt it'll make enough money to keep going.

[localzuk]

I don't believe for a second it's going to come in a £50 billion - when was the last time a UK Government managed to do anything on time and within budget?!

 

I just don't think HS2 is going to solve any problems - if it's more expensive than existing rail options, I doubt it'll make enough money to keep going.

 

It'll survive, there's no question about that. Its going to take 20 years to build! Our lines are near enough full now, so imagine how needed it'll be in 20 years!

[zag]

I don't believe for a second it's going to come in a £50 billion - when was the last time a UK Government managed to do anything on time and within budget?!

 

People were just as critical of the Olympics when it was proposed.

 

To me we should be ambitious as a country and not always put ourselves down when big infrastructure projects are proposed.

[sparkeh]

To be fair a lot of people scoffed at the value of building the Chunnel, but that seems to be doing pretty well right?

[zag]

To be fair a lot of people scoffed at the value of building the Chunnel, but that seems to be doing pretty well right?

 

Yep, took a lot of money to do but I'd rather have it than not!

 

Actually Labour cancelled the channel tunnel project in the 70s and it took another 30 years of dithering to get it back on track.

 

One wonders how much the costs increased in that time.....

[LosOjos]

People were just as critical of the Olympics when it was proposed.

 

Yeah, and that was way under budget. Oh hang on, it was under the final budget, which was nearly 4 times more than the original budget

 

To me we should be ambitious as a country and not always put ourselves down when big infrastructure projects are proposed.

 

For me it's not about putting us down as a country, it's about spending money where it's needed. As someone said earlier, social housing seems higher priority to me thanks to it all being sold off [NOTE: that's not a sly jab at Conservatives, I distrust all government equally]

 

Of course I can see the need for an improved rail network, but helping high fliers get to work seems of less importance than giving homes to those who have no chance of entering the housing market which, let's face it, is the vast majority of those not already on it as our population keeps growing, increasing demand for housing, increasing house price