Why is the UK the only country that can&#x27;t afford high speed rail?

We can afford it. The question is if spending on that is the best use of resources.

A more pertinent question is, is the cost of providing a fast and reliable service higher for the UK government than it is for some foreign governments, and if it is, then what is different about our transport system and the way the markets work.

Reply 2

Original post by Phipp91

Yes I know about all the hassle with HS2...

But how the hell are the French and Japanese able to afford these systems, yet we are so reluctant to invest in such a project?

Is our public debt really any worse than those countries? Or is it just our apathy as a nation?

I'm comparing the UK to developed countries btw...

No trolling please :smile:

The UK has near enough £700bn in tax revenue, it's not a money problem.

We have a culture and NIMBY problem.

Reply 3

Jammy Duel

You also have to consider that the UK isn't exactly great for high speed travel because you ideally want to travel in a straight line on flat ground. Fair enough Japan is worse, but that doesn't mean we have good terrain for it. Also consider that continental Europe had it's infrastructure heavily damaged in WWII so it was able to rebuild it in a way that would be good for high speed, we didn't quite have that luxury, if you can call it a luxury.
Also, there isn't really the demand, we're a small country and most of the main routes are fairly short.

Reply 4

Original post by Jammy Duel

You also have to consider that the UK isn't exactly great for high speed travel because you ideally want to travel in a straight line on flat ground. Fair enough Japan is worse, but that doesn't mean we have good terrain for it. Also consider that continental Europe had it's infrastructure heavily damaged in WWII so it was able to rebuild it in a way that would be good for high speed, we didn't quite have that luxury, if you can call it a luxury.
Also, there isn't really the demand, we're a small country and most of the main routes are fairly short.

Evidence that the demand does not exist?

Reply 5

Jammy Duel

Original post by Rakas21

Evidence that the demand does not exist?

Maybe poorly worded :tongue:

Given how short they are, and where it would be practical to put the HS lines, there is logically only so much demand and the cost associated with it doesn't necessarily make it worth it; I can't see the point of HS3, not that it's actually HS, it's just pulling that line up to standards so actually that's irrelevant, but upgrading the East coast main I can see the point of (and not just because I would be making use of it). HS1 sorta made sense, HS2, not so much. On the matter of HS2 and our airport needs, I kinda agree with my dad in that surely a not too ludicrous suggestion would be a large hub airport in the midlands, instead of Boris Island (and I am aware that was thrown out) because it meets our needs and actually gives good reason for HS2.

Reply 6

illegaltobepoor

19

Original post by Phipp91

Yes I know about all the hassle with HS2...

But how the hell are the French and Japanese able to afford these systems, yet we are so reluctant to invest in such a project?

Is our public debt really any worse than those countries? Or is it just our apathy as a nation?

I'm comparing the UK to developed countries btw...

No trolling please :smile:

The reason is that Japan uses quantitative easing money for infrastructure and the UK just gives it to the banks. France on the other hand is more Socialist and recognizes the need of public assets.

Reply 7

Original post by Jammy Duel

Maybe poorly worded :tongue:

Given how short they are, and where it would be practical to put the HS lines, there is logically only so much demand and the cost associated with it doesn't necessarily make it worth it;

That's a valid point but even if they short compared to our peers, there's still enough time to reach peak speed. We are also constrained by current infrastructure.

I can't see the point of HS3, not that it's actually HS, it's just pulling that line up to standards so actually that's irrelevant

Well the York-Leeds-Manchester stretch is chock a block so decreasing journey times will allow more round services, make it a more competitive option versus the M62 and from businesses reaction should be very good for business.

, but upgrading the East coast main I can see the point of (and not just because I would be making use of it).

Infrastructure constraints are again a factor here, we can't even get to 140mph until 2030 because of signal constraints.

HS1 sorta made sense, HS2, not so much.

Well the purpose of HS2 is to connect the 4 largest city economies in the UK. Here in Leeds it will close to halve the Leeds-London journey time, it will reduce the Leeds-Nottingham journey time by 66% (granted that's because the current line is not even electrified) and it will reduce the journey to Birmingham to less than an hour which in addition to HS3 makes Leeds quite an attractive prospect in terms of transport.

There are better ways to spend the money nationally but there's sufficient benefits that for the four cities of London, Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds there is probably no greater project to benefit just them.

On the matter of HS2 and our airport needs, I kinda agree with my dad in that surely a not too ludicrous suggestion would be a large hub airport in the midlands, instead of Boris Island (and I am aware that was thrown out) because it meets our needs and actually gives good reason for HS2.

Well right now airports are purely privately owned rather than franchised or anything so the government can't just dictate where it wants one built unless the private sector will back it. Demand for increased capacity right now is primarily in London.

Original post by illegaltobepoor

The reason is that Japan uses quantitative easing money for infrastructure and the UK just gives it to the banks. France on the other hand is more Socialist and recognizes the need of public assets.

The UK uses it to keep debt interest costs down benefiting taxpayers, Japan funds its infrastructure through deficit spending on a large scale and has previously defaulted. France paid itself, yes.

Reply 8

nulli tertius

Original post by Phipp91

Yes I know about all the hassle with HS2...

But how the hell are the French and Japanese able to afford these systems, yet we are so reluctant to invest in such a project?

Is our public debt really any worse than those countries? Or is it just our apathy as a nation?

I'm comparing the UK to developed countries btw...

No trolling please :smile:

It really is a judgement call whether money is best spent on high speed trains or on other railway options.

At present the Great Northern Great Eastern Joint Railway between Doncaster and Peterborough is being upgraded.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/improvements/Great-Northern-Great-Eastern/

The line speed is being increased from 60 mph to 75 mph. That will enable shoppers in Sleaford to get to Lincoln 5 minutes quicker.

However the real benefit of this upgrade is that this line enables freight to be diverted off the East Coast Main Line. As a result many more trains will be able to be run between Edinburgh, Newcastle, York and Leeds and King's Cross.

The slowest part of a railway is the platform. Platforms travel at zero miles per hour. The more trains there are, the less time people spend waiting for trains. If you had a train traveling at 75 mph every 5 minutes and one traveling at 150 mph every two hours, on average a 100 mile journey will take 21/2 minutes+ 60 mins + 20 mins = 82 1/2 mins by the slow train and 60 mins + 40 mins = 100 mins by the fast train once you add in the average time delay between ideal start time for the journey and actual departure to the time between departure and arriving at its destination.

For practical purposes line speed doesn't matter so much as journey frequency.

Reply 9

miwlover87

5

Because our government are reluctant to spend money on anything beneficial to the people

Reply 10

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by nulli tertius

It really is a judgement call whether money is best spent on high speed trains or on other railway options.

At present the Great Northern Great Eastern Joint Railway between Doncaster and Peterborough is being upgraded.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/improvements/Great-Northern-Great-Eastern/

The line speed is being increased from 60 mph to 75 mph. That will enable shoppers in Sleaford to get to Lincoln 5 minutes quicker.

However the real benefit of this upgrade is that this line enables freight to be diverted off the East Coast Main Line. As a result many more trains will be able to be run between Edinburgh, Newcastle, York and Leeds and King's Cross.

The slowest part of a railway is the platform. Platforms travel at zero miles per hour. The more trains there are, the less time people spend waiting for trains. If you had a train traveling at 75 mph every 5 minutes and one traveling at 150 mph every two hours, on average a 100 mile journey will take 21/2 minutes+ 60 mins + 20 mins = 82 1/2 mins by the slow train and 60 mins + 40 mins = 100 mins by the fast train once you add in the average time delay between ideal start time for the journey and actual departure to the time between departure and arriving at its destination.

For practical purposes line speed doesn't matter so much as journey frequency.

Agreed. But trains on a line can only go as quickly as the slowest one.

Capacity is a huge problem especially in the south if the UK.

More train lines are needed for sure, but as HS2 links to HS1 which in turn links to the European high speed train network, hopefully we'll see some real benefits .

Reply 11

nulli tertius

Original post by MatureStudent36

Agreed. But trains on a line can only go as quickly as the slowest one.

Capacity is a huge problem especially in the south if the UK.

More train lines are needed for sure, but as HS2 links to HS1 which in turn links to the European high speed train network, hopefully we'll see some real benefits .

I have some concerns whether these are ministers vanity projects.

If you take the rail equivalent of the M62 corridor:-

The Woodhead route (one of the earliest electrified lines) was closed in the late 1960s. If re-opened it would more than double capacity (much of it was 4 track) across the southern Pennines.

The real problems are at the Manchester end. Steps are being taken to enable trains from the overfull Piccadilly Station to be diverted into the underused Victoria. Howver the key problem is that the city of Manchester effectively only has two through platforms. All non-terminating trains have to use two platforms at Piccadilly.

Most of the demand is commuter demand. HS3 will not help with this.

As you say, many of the most pressing problems concern the commuter network south of the Thames. There what is needed is a comprehensive station rebuilding policy to get platforms onto loops off the main running lines. The failing towns in southern England are almost all towns with very low average line speeds into the capital. You can see how Margate and Ramsgate have been rediscovered through HS1. Upgrading the Waterloo Exeter line would help enormously.

One issue is that local and national politicians' and officials' travel is atypical. They go from city centre meeting to city centre meeting. Most would be travellers don;t.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 12

RF_PineMarten

18

Original post by Rakas21

We have a culture and NIMBY problem.

I think I've explained several times why the use of "NIMBY" in the context of discussing HS2 is inappropriate. Legitimate environmental concerns simply cannot be dismissed in that way, no matter how hard certain people wish they could.

A lot of environmentalist opposition to HS2 comes from people who are not personally affected by it - doesn't that kind of shoot the "nimby" arguments right out of the sky?

Reply 13

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by nulli tertius

I have some concerns whether these are ministers vanity projects.

If you take the rail equivalent of the M62 corridor:-

The Woodhead route (one of the earliest electrified lines) was closed in the late 1960s. If re-opened it would more than double capacity (much of it was 4 track) across the southern Pennines.

The real problems are at the Manchester end. Steps are being taken to enable trains from the overfull Piccadilly Station to be diverted into the underused Victoria. Howver the key problem is that the city of Manchester effectively only has two through platforms. All non-terminating trains have to use two platforms at Piccadilly.

Most of the demand is commuter demand. HS3 will not help with this.

As you say, many of the most pressing problems concern the commuter network south of the Thames. There what is needed is a comprehensive station rebuilding policy to get platforms onto loops off the main running lines. The failing towns in southern England are almost all towns with very low average line speeds into the capital. You can see how Margate and Ramsgate have been rediscovered through HS1. Upgrading the Waterloo Exeter line would help enormously.

One issue is that local and national politicians' and officials' travel is atypical. They go from city centre meeting to city centre meeting. Most would be travellers don;t.

I don't think rail investment are ego driven. There is a need for them. The Lord Mayor of Liverpool and Manchester were driving forces behind the HS3 move.

Reply 14

SecretDuck

19

Train projects like HS2, Crossrail and the Thameslink Programme are going to be beneficial - but they're taking a long time. Why does it take long for the GN routes to be linked to the core Thameslink route?

Reply 15

Quady

Original post by nulli tertius

Howver the key problem is that the city of Manchester effectively only has two through platforms. All non-terminating trains have to use two platforms at Piccadilly.

That and they stop at Oxford Rd too which is an utterly pointless station, you could 5mins off the journey between Piccadilly and Deansgate.

Reply 16

Original post by RFowler

I think I've explained several times why the use of "NIMBY" in the context of discussing HS2 is inappropriate. Legitimate environmental concerns simply cannot be dismissed in that way, no matter how hard certain people wish they could.

A lot of environmentalist opposition to HS2 comes from people who are not personally affected by it - doesn't that kind of shoot the "nimby" arguments right out of the sky?

It is a bit broad brush for me to put you all under the NIMBY roof but there are plenty of NIMBY's, plenty of people who don't understand that it's not been built to benefit the country as a whole, just the 4 major centers and then environmentalists. Easier just to put them all under one roof even if your concerns are relatively more valid.

Original post by MatureStudent36

I don't think rail investment are ego driven. There is a need for them. The Lord Mayor of Liverpool and Manchester were driving forces behind the HS3 move.

Aye, it's a great project that will benefit five of the 9 most important cities to the UK economy and most importantly from a IMBY point of view, solidify Leeds and Manchester's position as the third and fourth richest cities in the country.

Original post by Quady

That and they stop at Oxford Rd too which is an utterly pointless station, you could 5mins off the journey between Piccadilly and Deansgate.

Well the plan at the moment seems to be for Victoria to have all E-W traffic and Piccadilly to have all N-S traffic from 2016.

Reply 17

Joinedup

Original post by Quady

That and they stop at Oxford Rd too which is an utterly pointless station, you could 5mins off the journey between Piccadilly and Deansgate.

I haven't used it recently... Everything seemed to stop there for a ridiculously long time and require a man to come out and blow a whistle before it can move again... Even commuter trains which seem to manage to get tjemselves out of suburban stations unassisted.

Reply 18

Quady

Original post by Rakas21

Well the plan at the moment seems to be for Victoria to have all E-W traffic and Piccadilly to have all N-S traffic from 2016.

So Oxford Rd would be entirely redundent...?

Overall its probably a good thing, but it would somewhat hit Birchwood as a business park. At least it would have made my journeies from there to Leeds/Newcastle a real headache.

Reply 19