6 ms·

Privatized trains are worse, in the UK they've just given the go ahead for a $140 billion high speed rail project, HS2. A decade ago we build HS1, a 67 mile tr

Privatized trains are worse, in the UK they've just given the go ahead for a $140 billion high speed rail project, HS2. A decade ago we build HS1, a 67 mile track between London and the Channel Tunnel, for a total of $7.6 billion ($112m / mile). HS2 is longer but its 330 miles of tracks will cost $400m / mile. The project costs make absolutely no sense: London is a special weird place in the UK where everything you build is twice as expensive as in the rest of the country. Considering most of HS1 was in London and most of HS2 is outside of London, this budget makes absolutely no sense. What makes the whole thing even more insane is that the endpoints are not connected to the rest of the infrastructure. You have a 30 minute trip between HS1 and HS2. So if you're travelling from Birmingham to Paris you'll have to switch trains in London. For the money they're spending on this it's crazy that you're not getting it.

captainbland 7y ago
My understanding is that basically HS2 is massively over-specced compared to HS1. It wants high throughput and extremely high speed (80-100mph faster than HS1). I guess you could probably shave a few tens of billions off just by slowing the line down a bit - using ballast rather than concrete slab and such. See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51415590 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51415590 The only other thing I'd add is that Euston is easily within walking distance of St Pancras. But given all this already extraordinary cost it seems like you might as well connect St Pancras and Euston HS lines and have the odd Eurostar service run from Birmingham.
- radicalbyte 7y ago
  The Euston - St Pancras thing is OK if you're commuting for work distance wise - it's just adding 15 mins to your journey when it should be 30 seconds. For travellers who don't know London, who have to lug around baggage and small children it's a massive pain. It's well worth the effort to connect it. It would already be way better even if you had to switch train in one station.
prennert 7y ago
From what I understand HS2 was planned to become very similar to the tube with 18 trains per hour. This is more that one every 4 minutes. The trains would also run very fast. This allows for caring lots of passengers, but it also is very complex to achieve and accounts for a lot of the costs (as well as buying property). Also inflation had to be taken into account when comparing projects that are decades apart. So without knowing much about the details, it might well be that the costs are plausible to what was proposed.
- 45ure 7y ago
  >From what I understand HS2 was planned to become very similar to the tube with 18 trains per hour. The comparison of HS2 with 18 paths per hour in each direction, on an overground rail system stretching over 320 miles, running at high speed (theoretical uppper speed limit of 250mph), with the London Underground, is laughable. I could not find any references to your claim in the official documents. The project was never about speed, but rather about increasing capacity. It was packaged and sold to the voters as shaving off some time to get from A to B, largely due to politrickery. The aim is to free up commuter, regional and freight capacity on existing lines ─ which will also have an overall impact on roads and motorway nework used by freight carriers. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480646/supplement-to-strategic-case.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
  - prennert 7y ago
    I meant to compare mainly from a user perspective. If a train runs every 4 mins and takes a bit more than an hour to get to it's destination that's very similar to the tube experience. Very different to a typical train experience where you have to turn up exactly in time or wait another 30 mins for the next train. The point I was trying to make was that a comparison to HS1 without accounting for the train frequency is probably not fair.
Camas 7y ago
What does HS2 have to do with private rail?
- radicalbyte 7y ago
  Trains are privatized in the UK. Maybe this project is being built with public money but it will eventually be privatized.
  - Camas 7y ago
    Trains are privatised, not the tracks.

captainbland 7y ago

My understanding is that basically HS2 is massively over-specced compared to HS1. It wants high throughput and extremely high speed (80-100mph faster than HS1). I guess you could probably shave a few tens of billions off just by slowing the line down a bit - using ballast rather than concrete slab and such. See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51415590 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51415590 The only other thing I'd add is that Euston is easily within walking distance of St Pancras. But given all this already extraordinary cost it seems like you might as well connect St Pancras and Euston HS lines and have the odd Eurostar service run from Birmingham.

radicalbyte 7y ago
The Euston - St Pancras thing is OK if you're commuting for work distance wise - it's just adding 15 mins to your journey when it should be 30 seconds. For travellers who don't know London, who have to lug around baggage and small children it's a massive pain. It's well worth the effort to connect it. It would already be way better even if you had to switch train in one station.

prennert 7y ago

From what I understand HS2 was planned to become very similar to the tube with 18 trains per hour. This is more that one every 4 minutes. The trains would also run very fast. This allows for caring lots of passengers, but it also is very complex to achieve and accounts for a lot of the costs (as well as buying property). Also inflation had to be taken into account when comparing projects that are decades apart. So without knowing much about the details, it might well be that the costs are plausible to what was proposed.

45ure 7y ago
>From what I understand HS2 was planned to become very similar to the tube with 18 trains per hour. The comparison of HS2 with 18 paths per hour in each direction, on an overground rail system stretching over 320 miles, running at high speed (theoretical uppper speed limit of 250mph), with the London Underground, is laughable. I could not find any references to your claim in the official documents. The project was never about speed, but rather about increasing capacity. It was packaged and sold to the voters as shaving off some time to get from A to B, largely due to politrickery. The aim is to free up commuter, regional and freight capacity on existing lines ─ which will also have an overall impact on roads and motorway nework used by freight carriers. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480646/supplement-to-strategic-case.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- prennert 7y ago
  I meant to compare mainly from a user perspective. If a train runs every 4 mins and takes a bit more than an hour to get to it's destination that's very similar to the tube experience. Very different to a typical train experience where you have to turn up exactly in time or wait another 30 mins for the next train. The point I was trying to make was that a comparison to HS1 without accounting for the train frequency is probably not fair.

Camas 7y ago

What does HS2 have to do with private rail?

radicalbyte 7y ago
Trains are privatized in the UK. Maybe this project is being built with public money but it will eventually be privatized.
- Camas 7y ago
  Trains are privatised, not the tracks.