11 ms·

More delays for Euston's HS2 station

63 points by edward 2y ago

Yeul 2y ago
I was reading the newspaper a few weeks ago and there were two articles that amused me: The first one was about Dutch high speed trains having to reduce speed to 80kph because the construction company fucked up the bridge construction. The second article was about the new high speed train in Indonesia. Every once in a while you're reminded that this is Asia's century.
- zarzavat 2y ago
  Unlike HS2, the Indonesian high speed train does not attempt to go to the city center. Instead, there is a slow feeder train to get to the terminal on the outskirts of Bandung that takes almost as long as the high speed train itself. So, Asia has not solved this particular problem either. The main problem with HS2 is that it goes underground through rural areas for political reasons.
  - f_allwein 2y ago
    High speed trains in France, Germany, Italy, ... all usually go to the city centres as well.
    - fransje26 2y ago
      > in France Not really. They can, but mostly only do so at end stations. The network is built with excentered, specific stations meant to avoid the slow-down caused by merging into normal train traffic, with slow, crowded track sections.
      - brnt 2y ago
        If you are talking about the stations at Lyon Exupery or Disney: what I really like about the SNCF is that they offer you the choice. There definitely are trains that go through the center of Lyon (Part Dieu) if you want, but if you want to pass around (and then take the tram/bus), you can too. I never had to choose one of those out-of-town stations if I didn't want to. If you are talking about Ouigo, yes, but you get a low price in return. And it's not your only option.
    - panick21_ 2y ago
      In Germany usually they go to the normal network, they don't have a direct high speed connection to the city center.
    - KingOfCoders 2y ago
      The downside here in Germany, the trains are very fast but then slow down to go to the city center (Munich, Leipzig, Hamburg + also too many stops in general for political reasons) - so it still takes a working day to travel around. As Amdahl's law applies here, newer high speed trains in Germany are no longer as fast, because if you have these slow passages / many stops, there is no difference between 250 and 300 (there are some prestige 300km/h lines).
    - chgs 2y ago
      I couldn’t believe how slow trains in Germany were last month, even before the inevitable delays. Berlin to geneva averaged 70mph. Brussels to Leipzig was scheduled even slower and ended up 2 hours late. Even the train I took from Geneva to Paris crawled for the first hour.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- brnt 2y ago
  Indonesia's HSR stations are so far out of Jakarta/Bandung, the trips there and back are almost certainly going to be the majority of your trip. People complained about Euston not linking up well, imagine if you'd have to first go to Milton Keynes. The Netherlands are having to build track over bog. It can't sink, it can't vibrate too much. It's hard to get right. The Chinese can build track through your living room if they want to. Plus, they have accidents and structural failures all the time too.
  - kalleboo 2y ago
    > The Chinese can build track through your living room if they want to They actually can't, leading to some pretty hilarious situations of lone houses in the middle of roads https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2014/apr/15/china-nail-houses-in-pictures-property-development https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2014/apr/15/china...
    - brnt 2y ago
      There the infra is only technically not through their living rooms, for all practical purposes those buildings are no longer usable.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- crote 2y ago
  If we're talking Dutch high-speed rails, don't forget the Fyra! It was a high-speed train plagued with so many issues it was returned to the manufacturer. To give an example: one day 85% of the trips had to be cancelled due to defective trains, with one of those which did run losing parts(!) at high speed; the train wasn't water-tight; the brakes were designed for 160km/h despite the train itself going 250 km/h; a train horn which couldn't handle snow; batteries in the passenger compartment catching fire; doors opening at full speed; and of course software issues. Mind you, this is just some of the issues - the full list is a lot longer. They were returned to maker AnsaldoBreda, and now seem to be operating well enough in Italy and Greece.
- ak_111 2y ago
  Note that Indonesia's high speed rail is being built by China, so it is more accurate to remind everyone that this is China's century. On the other hand, for the sake of balance it is also important to remember that the grass is always greener on the other side, and in particular the famous saying about fascists (more accurately Mussolini) "they made the trains run on time."
  - willyt 2y ago
    They didn’t make the trains run on time they just said they had made them run on time and they controlled the media so it was impossible to know otherwise.
- jojobas 2y ago
  Related https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/whither-tartaria https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/whither-tartaria
te_chris 2y ago
They could not have fucked thus up more, really.
- dazc 2y ago
  Given more time, the may well do so.
  - tuukkah 2y ago
    With the new government, it's not the same they anymore.
panick21_ 2y ago
Laber needs to get off its ass and reorganize this. The way the whole HS2 thing is organised is braindead. Throwing all the costs for everything from stations to trains into the same semi-private company. Not learning best practices from Japan rail station operation. Building way to many tunnels because of a few braindead Nimbys. Simply recreate BritishRail, make the railroad public, including things like rolling stock as well. Put HS2 into BritishRail. Then create a long term rail 2050 plan. HS2 should be fully done, with the original route. This will allow a massive reorganisation of the rest of the network. Common labor, this are the 5 years to prove yourself.
- esskay 2y ago
  In fairness to them they've only just taken control, and have already said they are reforming British Rail, and are reviewing HS2. It's not a click of the fingers thing to fix.
- Angostura 2y ago
  One problem that Labour face is that the contracts are already signed. So, for example - a report just out from the Audit Commission says it will be cheaper to build platforms in Birmingham that will never be used, than to not use them.
  - Ylpertnodi 2y ago
    Source?
    - Litost 2y ago
      It might be this [1] which says "According to the report, the decision was made by officials to continue to build the Birmingham Curzon Street Station to its full specification because it was cheaper than trying to cancel part of the scheme. " "that the project will plough ahead with building a seven-platform station at Curzon Street, despite just three being required for the reduced HS2 line." Unfortunately inews doesn't seem to quote the original NAO report, just linking to a list of NAO news items on inews :(? [1] https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/hs2-waste-new-birmingham-station-unused-3184804 https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/hs2-waste-new-birmingham-s... [EDIT] So the ft does actually link to the report [2] from this page [3] saying "The watchdog said scrapping the northern leg of the flagship high speed rail link would take three years and cost up to £100mn, and that some platforms would still be built even though they would never be used." [2] https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/hs2-update-following-cancellation-of-phase-2.pdf https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/hs2-update... [3] https://www.ft.com/content/ecde4265-0269-4169-ac0e-179938667a21 https://www.ft.com/content/ecde4265-0269-4169-ac0e-179938667...
stirlo 2y ago
"Currently, all the costs fall on HS2, whereas the profits from the oversite development go to the Treasury. So although both are effectively arms of the government, the Treausry’s desire for a larger oversite development piled costs onto HS2 that it is not able to offset from the extra property sales." Remarkable how rules accounting rules like this can derail a project. Clearly any foundational costs for commercial development should be billed out of the profits coming from said developments. It's beaurocratic bullshit like this that results in short term thinking with any attempt to build a better more profitable staion being expressed as a project overun and resulting in cancellations or scale backs of critical features.
- goodcanadian 2y ago
  Remarkable how rules accounting rules like this can derail a project. Almost as though it was done on purpose in order to derail the project . . .
- bananapub 2y ago
  > Remarkable how rules accounting rules like this can derail a project. it's only remarkable in the sense that British politicians allow government to be like this. the PM can tell the Treasury and Chancellor to fuck off and account for things in a more useful way, but they simply don't.
alias_neo 2y ago
I read an article[0] just this morning (dated yesterday), that due to reduced seats on HS2, passengers may need to be "encouraged" to NOT travel by train at certain times "if at all". With the war on drivers, and years of trying to convince us to travel by train, despite ludicrous prices and appalling service, they're now going to tell us _not_ to travel by train? Complete and utter insanity, I mean seriously, the plot has thoroughly been lost. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c725k6ynw7go https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c725k6ynw7go
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - madaxe_again 2y ago
    It’s not insane if your desired outcome is to stir up hatred against immigrants, and to use them as a political pawn for electioneering and personal gain. Ship ‘em in, simultaneously cut services, policing, remove initiatives aimed to aid integration, and all the while loot the country while blaming the “swarm” - or was it “tidal wave”? I forget. “Stop the boats!”, they howl, while opening the floodgates. I mean, net immigration absolutely soared under the Tories, while they incessantly railed against immigration in the media - it’s hard to see any other explanation.
    - inglor_cz 2y ago
      "It’s not insane if your desired outcome is to stir up hatred against immigrants" That sort-of violates the principle that you don't attribute to malice what can be explained by plain incompetence. People who really dislike immigrants won't vote Tory anyway, Reform UK is there to catch their vote (and sink the Tories in the process of doing so). Most of the immigration influx is legal anyway, not boat travellers.
      - grues-dinner 2y ago
        [dead]
SilverBirch 2y ago
To be honest I think with a lot of policy issues in the UK at the moment you need to just give the government a bit of time to breath. Sunak's decision making on HS2 was bizarre bad long term/short term/pragmatic/polcitical. It was just one of those bizarre moments where he had sort of a correct aim and then changed that aim into "How can I cause as much damage as possible". So the current policy is extremely expensive, makes rail infrastructure worse and leaves even the things that remain in plan, largely poorly planned. But we don't seriously beleive the labour government agree with this plan. We know it's going to change. So at some point in the next 12 months you can pretty much guarantee that a new rail strategy is going to be unveiled, and until that point there isn't really a whole lot worth talking about with the current strategy. The only thing to say is that I doubt HS2 is going to be a core part of the strategy going forward, you're more likely to see some big plans for regional rail and the details on HS2 will likely be "Well let's just tidy up this mess and draw it to a close".
- goodcanadian 2y ago
  I would love to see HS2 reinstated, but I agree that it is not likely at this time. There are likely higher priority projects that should go ahead first (some form of Northern Powerhouse, for example). At a minimum, though, I do hope that they protect the route for HS2 north of Birmingham even if construction is indefinitely deferred. It is going to be needed eventually.
  - panick21_ 2y ago
    HS2 is by far the most important transportation project, it massively impacts the whole rail system. HS2 connects North and South like never before. And it massively improves what you can do with regional and local trains on the rest of the network. And its pretty much ready to go. Work is lined up and planed. All it needs is political support and funding. Other projects should be done, but they should be planned in the understanding of how the whole network is reworked with HS2.
    - michaelt 2y ago
      > And its pretty much ready to go. Work is lined up and planed. Is it? Or does the plan need a bunch of revisions, to restore the link to Euston and address the cost over-runs? We all know there's not much money left. And politically speaking, Labour needs to give the north of england a fair deal on infrastructure spending, to shore up wavering support in red wall seats. HS2 is an exciting project that a lot of work has already been done on, it'd be totally cool if it did go ahead - but I'm not holding my breath.
iamacyborg 2y ago
I run past the building works at Old Oak Common quite frequently, it’s been quite incredible seeing such a large infrastructure project happening that’ll have such a limited impact.
ionwake 2y ago
I dont understand how HS2 is not the number 1 priority to link the dying cities of the north to london, its important to have good communications, its such a tiny island anyway. Get a grip, and make the line extend to the northern territories, that was literally the whole point.
- graemep 2y ago
  Britain is not a tiny island. its the ninth largest in the word and is a lot bigger than Java (population of 156m BTW) and is only a little smaller than Honshu. The cities of the north are not dying. Some are doing badly, some are doing well. its not a given that what they need most is better links to London- better links between northern cities might do more.
  - rwmj 2y ago
    It's good that you compared us to Honshu because the Japanese have managed to build a high speed line connecting both ends of that island, with a lot less drama. Whereas we have a high speed line that doesn't even go to the centre of our capital city.
    - ionwake 2y ago
      lmao
  - ionwake 2y ago
    Interesting points thanks, I still disagree on your final point, however I agree more train links needed.
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    Several of the better links between Northern cities were dependent on HS2 — either directly, by providing rail links where none currently exist, or indirectly, by freeing up space on existing lines to allow more local and regional services.
    - 2y ago
Animats 2y ago
Well, looks like the rebuild of the Euston Arch will be delayed again.
surfingdino 2y ago
Yeah, there is not much appetite to connect the North to London.
andy_ppp 2y ago
I always wonder about why infrastructure like rail isn’t delivered in a much more agile way. You could easily have useful stretches of rail working around the north of England by now, proving out the technology and adding and upgrading stations much later. Why we think of projects like this as you open all the stations at once is mad - for example with crossrail you could have aimed to open Liverpool Street to Whitechapel, then add in Tottenham Court Road, etc. etc. until you finish the whole line but 80% of it was opened at once which seems very high risk. As much as I love the Elizabeth line I’m pretty sure it is crazy over specified, the stations and tunnels are all gargantuan and they probably could have made everything 20% smaller IMO which would have saved them quite bit. I often think the politicians egos are the biggest pitfall for most infrastructure projects.
- danpalmer 2y ago
  I'd argue that the Elizabeth Line was delivered in an Agile way, at least as far as is possible for a project of that size. "TfL Rail" ran the line from Liverpool Street through Stratford out to the East, and I believe parts of the line out from West London to Reading. The first iteration of this was with old rolling stock, and then they even started running the new Elizabeth Line trains on the routes before the Elizabeth Line itself opened. This meant that by the actual opening they had proven out the trains, a bunch of stations, and a large portion of the line (by distance, not complexity), as well as trained many staff and operated it as an a separate group that ended up becoming the Elizabeth Line. Now they did still have to open 6-8(?) new stations, change the signalling, change the timetables, all on day 1 of opening, but there are still other ways in which they did an incremental approach. Trains didn't run end to end on day 1, they would run shorter, simplified routes, they decoupled Bond Street as an emergency exit from Bond Street as a station, etc. I'm not sure what more they could have done. Personally I felt the incremental "agile" approach worked here, kept them on target, and got value early on (I used TfL Rail for years!).
- lmm 2y ago
  > You could easily have useful stretches of rail working around the north of England by now, proving out the technology and adding and upgrading stations much later. Upgrading stations in-place is extremely expensive, far more so than building them in the first place. (In theory opening the railway without the station and then closing it for months to add the station might be better all round, but in practice passengers throw a fit if you try to do that). > for example with crossrail you could have aimed to open Liverpool Street to Whitechapel, then add in Tottenham Court Road, etc. etc. So you'd have to build a bunch of extra turnback facilities, resignal everything repeatedly, use those expensive TBMs for longer, and to what benefit? They did build one station early to prove things out and understand any problems (Canary Wharf). Not a lot of value in doing more than that. > As much as I love the Elizabeth line I’m pretty sure it is crazy over specified, the stations and tunnels are all gargantuan and they probably could have made everything 20% smaller IMO which would have saved them quite bit. No it wouldn't, that's exactly the sort of backwards shortsighted thinking that messed up HS2 (if we make the charitable assumption that Sunak wasn't just deliberately wrecking it). The most expensive part of building the Elizabeth line was demolishing and digging up a bunch of buildings in central London. Rebuilding an existing underground railway in London to be bigger is literally impossible to do economically, the size they built it was the size it will be forever, and even if building it to tube size had been a good idea (it isn't) it would have been illegal under accessibility regulations. Making the stations 20% smaller would have been penny-wise and pound-foolish in the extreme. > I often think the politicians egos are the biggest pitfall for most infrastructure projects. Well, yes, but the way that manifests is politicians thinking they can tell the people building it to just do x y and z and that will save money, rather than accepting that actually the experts know what they're doing. The same thinking as your comment, in other words.
switch007 2y ago
A lot of good people left the project when it looked like they might be sacked due to the uncertainty (after making some people redundant). They aren't coming back. That's not going to help!
zzbn00 2y ago
Big rail supporter here, but the HS2 project execution lost all sense of cost. For context the, the total receipts from all passenger rail in UK are around £10b (https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/passenger-rail-usage/ https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/passenger-rai...). For a single new line to require a £100bn investment, i.e., 10x of total gross receipts of the entire industry, is just disproportionate.

63 points by edward 2y ago

Yeul 2y ago

I was reading the newspaper a few weeks ago and there were two articles that amused me: The first one was about Dutch high speed trains having to reduce speed to 80kph because the construction company fucked up the bridge construction. The second article was about the new high speed train in Indonesia. Every once in a while you're reminded that this is Asia's century.

zarzavat 2y ago
Unlike HS2, the Indonesian high speed train does not attempt to go to the city center. Instead, there is a slow feeder train to get to the terminal on the outskirts of Bandung that takes almost as long as the high speed train itself. So, Asia has not solved this particular problem either. The main problem with HS2 is that it goes underground through rural areas for political reasons.
- f_allwein 2y ago
  High speed trains in France, Germany, Italy, ... all usually go to the city centres as well.
  - fransje26 2y ago
    > in France Not really. They can, but mostly only do so at end stations. The network is built with excentered, specific stations meant to avoid the slow-down caused by merging into normal train traffic, with slow, crowded track sections.
    - brnt 2y ago
      If you are talking about the stations at Lyon Exupery or Disney: what I really like about the SNCF is that they offer you the choice. There definitely are trains that go through the center of Lyon (Part Dieu) if you want, but if you want to pass around (and then take the tram/bus), you can too. I never had to choose one of those out-of-town stations if I didn't want to. If you are talking about Ouigo, yes, but you get a low price in return. And it's not your only option.
  - panick21_ 2y ago
    In Germany usually they go to the normal network, they don't have a direct high speed connection to the city center.
  - KingOfCoders 2y ago
    The downside here in Germany, the trains are very fast but then slow down to go to the city center (Munich, Leipzig, Hamburg + also too many stops in general for political reasons) - so it still takes a working day to travel around. As Amdahl's law applies here, newer high speed trains in Germany are no longer as fast, because if you have these slow passages / many stops, there is no difference between 250 and 300 (there are some prestige 300km/h lines).
  - chgs 2y ago
    I couldn’t believe how slow trains in Germany were last month, even before the inevitable delays. Berlin to geneva averaged 70mph. Brussels to Leipzig was scheduled even slower and ended up 2 hours late. Even the train I took from Geneva to Paris crawled for the first hour.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
brnt 2y ago
Indonesia's HSR stations are so far out of Jakarta/Bandung, the trips there and back are almost certainly going to be the majority of your trip. People complained about Euston not linking up well, imagine if you'd have to first go to Milton Keynes. The Netherlands are having to build track over bog. It can't sink, it can't vibrate too much. It's hard to get right. The Chinese can build track through your living room if they want to. Plus, they have accidents and structural failures all the time too.
- kalleboo 2y ago
  > The Chinese can build track through your living room if they want to They actually can't, leading to some pretty hilarious situations of lone houses in the middle of roads https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2014/apr/15/china-nail-houses-in-pictures-property-development https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2014/apr/15/china...
  - brnt 2y ago
    There the infra is only technically not through their living rooms, for all practical purposes those buildings are no longer usable.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
crote 2y ago
If we're talking Dutch high-speed rails, don't forget the Fyra! It was a high-speed train plagued with so many issues it was returned to the manufacturer. To give an example: one day 85% of the trips had to be cancelled due to defective trains, with one of those which did run losing parts(!) at high speed; the train wasn't water-tight; the brakes were designed for 160km/h despite the train itself going 250 km/h; a train horn which couldn't handle snow; batteries in the passenger compartment catching fire; doors opening at full speed; and of course software issues. Mind you, this is just some of the issues - the full list is a lot longer. They were returned to maker AnsaldoBreda, and now seem to be operating well enough in Italy and Greece.
ak_111 2y ago
Note that Indonesia's high speed rail is being built by China, so it is more accurate to remind everyone that this is China's century. On the other hand, for the sake of balance it is also important to remember that the grass is always greener on the other side, and in particular the famous saying about fascists (more accurately Mussolini) "they made the trains run on time."
- willyt 2y ago
  They didn’t make the trains run on time they just said they had made them run on time and they controlled the media so it was impossible to know otherwise.
jojobas 2y ago
Related https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/whither-tartaria https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/whither-tartaria

te_chris 2y ago

They could not have fucked thus up more, really.

dazc 2y ago
Given more time, the may well do so.
- tuukkah 2y ago
  With the new government, it's not the same they anymore.

panick21_ 2y ago

Laber needs to get off its ass and reorganize this. The way the whole HS2 thing is organised is braindead. Throwing all the costs for everything from stations to trains into the same semi-private company. Not learning best practices from Japan rail station operation. Building way to many tunnels because of a few braindead Nimbys. Simply recreate BritishRail, make the railroad public, including things like rolling stock as well. Put HS2 into BritishRail. Then create a long term rail 2050 plan. HS2 should be fully done, with the original route. This will allow a massive reorganisation of the rest of the network. Common labor, this are the 5 years to prove yourself.

esskay 2y ago
In fairness to them they've only just taken control, and have already said they are reforming British Rail, and are reviewing HS2. It's not a click of the fingers thing to fix.
Angostura 2y ago
One problem that Labour face is that the contracts are already signed. So, for example - a report just out from the Audit Commission says it will be cheaper to build platforms in Birmingham that will never be used, than to not use them.
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  Source?
  - Litost 2y ago
    It might be this [1] which says "According to the report, the decision was made by officials to continue to build the Birmingham Curzon Street Station to its full specification because it was cheaper than trying to cancel part of the scheme. " "that the project will plough ahead with building a seven-platform station at Curzon Street, despite just three being required for the reduced HS2 line." Unfortunately inews doesn't seem to quote the original NAO report, just linking to a list of NAO news items on inews :(? [1] https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/hs2-waste-new-birmingham-station-unused-3184804 https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/hs2-waste-new-birmingham-s... [EDIT] So the ft does actually link to the report [2] from this page [3] saying "The watchdog said scrapping the northern leg of the flagship high speed rail link would take three years and cost up to £100mn, and that some platforms would still be built even though they would never be used." [2] https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/hs2-update-following-cancellation-of-phase-2.pdf https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/hs2-update... [3] https://www.ft.com/content/ecde4265-0269-4169-ac0e-179938667a21 https://www.ft.com/content/ecde4265-0269-4169-ac0e-179938667...

stirlo 2y ago

"Currently, all the costs fall on HS2, whereas the profits from the oversite development go to the Treasury. So although both are effectively arms of the government, the Treausry’s desire for a larger oversite development piled costs onto HS2 that it is not able to offset from the extra property sales." Remarkable how rules accounting rules like this can derail a project. Clearly any foundational costs for commercial development should be billed out of the profits coming from said developments. It's beaurocratic bullshit like this that results in short term thinking with any attempt to build a better more profitable staion being expressed as a project overun and resulting in cancellations or scale backs of critical features.

goodcanadian 2y ago
Remarkable how rules accounting rules like this can derail a project. Almost as though it was done on purpose in order to derail the project . . .
bananapub 2y ago
> Remarkable how rules accounting rules like this can derail a project. it's only remarkable in the sense that British politicians allow government to be like this. the PM can tell the Treasury and Chancellor to fuck off and account for things in a more useful way, but they simply don't.

alias_neo 2y ago

I read an article[0] just this morning (dated yesterday), that due to reduced seats on HS2, passengers may need to be "encouraged" to NOT travel by train at certain times "if at all". With the war on drivers, and years of trying to convince us to travel by train, despite ludicrous prices and appalling service, they're now going to tell us _not_ to travel by train? Complete and utter insanity, I mean seriously, the plot has thoroughly been lost. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c725k6ynw7go https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c725k6ynw7go

inglor_cz 2y ago
[flagged]
- madaxe_again 2y ago
  It’s not insane if your desired outcome is to stir up hatred against immigrants, and to use them as a political pawn for electioneering and personal gain. Ship ‘em in, simultaneously cut services, policing, remove initiatives aimed to aid integration, and all the while loot the country while blaming the “swarm” - or was it “tidal wave”? I forget. “Stop the boats!”, they howl, while opening the floodgates. I mean, net immigration absolutely soared under the Tories, while they incessantly railed against immigration in the media - it’s hard to see any other explanation.
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    "It’s not insane if your desired outcome is to stir up hatred against immigrants" That sort-of violates the principle that you don't attribute to malice what can be explained by plain incompetence. People who really dislike immigrants won't vote Tory anyway, Reform UK is there to catch their vote (and sink the Tories in the process of doing so). Most of the immigration influx is legal anyway, not boat travellers.
    - grues-dinner 2y ago
      [dead]

SilverBirch 2y ago

To be honest I think with a lot of policy issues in the UK at the moment you need to just give the government a bit of time to breath. Sunak's decision making on HS2 was bizarre bad long term/short term/pragmatic/polcitical. It was just one of those bizarre moments where he had sort of a correct aim and then changed that aim into "How can I cause as much damage as possible". So the current policy is extremely expensive, makes rail infrastructure worse and leaves even the things that remain in plan, largely poorly planned. But we don't seriously beleive the labour government agree with this plan. We know it's going to change. So at some point in the next 12 months you can pretty much guarantee that a new rail strategy is going to be unveiled, and until that point there isn't really a whole lot worth talking about with the current strategy. The only thing to say is that I doubt HS2 is going to be a core part of the strategy going forward, you're more likely to see some big plans for regional rail and the details on HS2 will likely be "Well let's just tidy up this mess and draw it to a close".

goodcanadian 2y ago
I would love to see HS2 reinstated, but I agree that it is not likely at this time. There are likely higher priority projects that should go ahead first (some form of Northern Powerhouse, for example). At a minimum, though, I do hope that they protect the route for HS2 north of Birmingham even if construction is indefinitely deferred. It is going to be needed eventually.
- panick21_ 2y ago
  HS2 is by far the most important transportation project, it massively impacts the whole rail system. HS2 connects North and South like never before. And it massively improves what you can do with regional and local trains on the rest of the network. And its pretty much ready to go. Work is lined up and planed. All it needs is political support and funding. Other projects should be done, but they should be planned in the understanding of how the whole network is reworked with HS2.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    > And its pretty much ready to go. Work is lined up and planed. Is it? Or does the plan need a bunch of revisions, to restore the link to Euston and address the cost over-runs? We all know there's not much money left. And politically speaking, Labour needs to give the north of england a fair deal on infrastructure spending, to shore up wavering support in red wall seats. HS2 is an exciting project that a lot of work has already been done on, it'd be totally cool if it did go ahead - but I'm not holding my breath.

iamacyborg 2y ago

I run past the building works at Old Oak Common quite frequently, it’s been quite incredible seeing such a large infrastructure project happening that’ll have such a limited impact.

ionwake 2y ago

I dont understand how HS2 is not the number 1 priority to link the dying cities of the north to london, its important to have good communications, its such a tiny island anyway. Get a grip, and make the line extend to the northern territories, that was literally the whole point.

graemep 2y ago
Britain is not a tiny island. its the ninth largest in the word and is a lot bigger than Java (population of 156m BTW) and is only a little smaller than Honshu. The cities of the north are not dying. Some are doing badly, some are doing well. its not a given that what they need most is better links to London- better links between northern cities might do more.
- rwmj 2y ago
  It's good that you compared us to Honshu because the Japanese have managed to build a high speed line connecting both ends of that island, with a lot less drama. Whereas we have a high speed line that doesn't even go to the centre of our capital city.
  - ionwake 2y ago
    lmao
- ionwake 2y ago
  Interesting points thanks, I still disagree on your final point, however I agree more train links needed.
- Symbiote 2y ago
  Several of the better links between Northern cities were dependent on HS2 — either directly, by providing rail links where none currently exist, or indirectly, by freeing up space on existing lines to allow more local and regional services.
  - 2y ago

Animats 2y ago

Well, looks like the rebuild of the Euston Arch will be delayed again.

surfingdino 2y ago

Yeah, there is not much appetite to connect the North to London.

andy_ppp 2y ago

I always wonder about why infrastructure like rail isn’t delivered in a much more agile way. You could easily have useful stretches of rail working around the north of England by now, proving out the technology and adding and upgrading stations much later. Why we think of projects like this as you open all the stations at once is mad - for example with crossrail you could have aimed to open Liverpool Street to Whitechapel, then add in Tottenham Court Road, etc. etc. until you finish the whole line but 80% of it was opened at once which seems very high risk. As much as I love the Elizabeth line I’m pretty sure it is crazy over specified, the stations and tunnels are all gargantuan and they probably could have made everything 20% smaller IMO which would have saved them quite bit. I often think the politicians egos are the biggest pitfall for most infrastructure projects.

danpalmer 2y ago
I'd argue that the Elizabeth Line was delivered in an Agile way, at least as far as is possible for a project of that size. "TfL Rail" ran the line from Liverpool Street through Stratford out to the East, and I believe parts of the line out from West London to Reading. The first iteration of this was with old rolling stock, and then they even started running the new Elizabeth Line trains on the routes before the Elizabeth Line itself opened. This meant that by the actual opening they had proven out the trains, a bunch of stations, and a large portion of the line (by distance, not complexity), as well as trained many staff and operated it as an a separate group that ended up becoming the Elizabeth Line. Now they did still have to open 6-8(?) new stations, change the signalling, change the timetables, all on day 1 of opening, but there are still other ways in which they did an incremental approach. Trains didn't run end to end on day 1, they would run shorter, simplified routes, they decoupled Bond Street as an emergency exit from Bond Street as a station, etc. I'm not sure what more they could have done. Personally I felt the incremental "agile" approach worked here, kept them on target, and got value early on (I used TfL Rail for years!).
lmm 2y ago
> You could easily have useful stretches of rail working around the north of England by now, proving out the technology and adding and upgrading stations much later. Upgrading stations in-place is extremely expensive, far more so than building them in the first place. (In theory opening the railway without the station and then closing it for months to add the station might be better all round, but in practice passengers throw a fit if you try to do that). > for example with crossrail you could have aimed to open Liverpool Street to Whitechapel, then add in Tottenham Court Road, etc. etc. So you'd have to build a bunch of extra turnback facilities, resignal everything repeatedly, use those expensive TBMs for longer, and to what benefit? They did build one station early to prove things out and understand any problems (Canary Wharf). Not a lot of value in doing more than that. > As much as I love the Elizabeth line I’m pretty sure it is crazy over specified, the stations and tunnels are all gargantuan and they probably could have made everything 20% smaller IMO which would have saved them quite bit. No it wouldn't, that's exactly the sort of backwards shortsighted thinking that messed up HS2 (if we make the charitable assumption that Sunak wasn't just deliberately wrecking it). The most expensive part of building the Elizabeth line was demolishing and digging up a bunch of buildings in central London. Rebuilding an existing underground railway in London to be bigger is literally impossible to do economically, the size they built it was the size it will be forever, and even if building it to tube size had been a good idea (it isn't) it would have been illegal under accessibility regulations. Making the stations 20% smaller would have been penny-wise and pound-foolish in the extreme. > I often think the politicians egos are the biggest pitfall for most infrastructure projects. Well, yes, but the way that manifests is politicians thinking they can tell the people building it to just do x y and z and that will save money, rather than accepting that actually the experts know what they're doing. The same thinking as your comment, in other words.

switch007 2y ago

A lot of good people left the project when it looked like they might be sacked due to the uncertainty (after making some people redundant). They aren't coming back. That's not going to help!

zzbn00 2y ago

Big rail supporter here, but the HS2 project execution lost all sense of cost. For context the, the total receipts from all passenger rail in UK are around £10b (https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/passenger-rail-usage/ https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/passenger-rai...). For a single new line to require a £100bn investment, i.e., 10x of total gross receipts of the entire industry, is just disproportionate.