Is there any credible evidence hs2 will benefit northern business??

The busker who gets the gig at the Northern end will probably stand to make a couple of quid.

It's like most things it will be out of date by time it built
Alot of the lines closed under Beecher could/should be reopened(where possible)or new lines built
Some journey times to go 20 miles by public transport is unreal

Open the old lines where possible/needed closed under Beecher
some 20-25 mile journey's by public transport take hours

Posts (yes not interesting i know)have gone missing
then repost and old one shows up.

A vanity project of bewildering proportions, it amazes me what they can waste money on while proclaiming how skint we are. As for saving ten or 15 minutes on a journey to London, wgaf.

Exactly Saddo would the money not be better invested directly in the north.
Maybe offer tax incentives to companies locating there.

The amusing thing is that we are going to spend tens of billions bringing Birmingham twenty minutes closer to London and everyone's moaning about it, but people in London would gladly pay several multiples of that to move Birmingham twenty minutes further away.

No-one actually wants. wanted or needs HS2.
It's like something out of The New Statesman.

I could save the country 60 billion quid with this simple message:
If you want to get to Birmingham 15 minutes earlier...... Leave 15 minutes earlier.

Quite right. And given the ever increasing security risk, it may not be long before we have to go through scanners and searches at railway stations, which would easily negate any time saving on the journey, and then some.

The argument has been that there is no spare capacity on the line between New Street and Euston as the platforms won't accommodate extra carriages. It's true that trains are crowded at peak times. If a second line is needed then the logic is to build a modern high speed line rather than another standard line.
When I travel to London I prefer to take the more leisurely Moor Street to Marylebone trains which are slower, cheaper and less crowded but they do take an extra half hour and sometimes more. If you are travelling by train from the North western cities you don't have that luxury as they are funnelled through the New Street to Euston line.
Overcrowded trains means more traffic on the motorways, should we build another road instead?
How much would that cost?

By the time it's built everybody will be jet-packing to work

We haven't upgraded our infrastructure substantially since motorways were built.

You can't keep patching a leaking roof.

The problem is that it is very expensive to do so because of high land prices, labour costs and regulatory costs e.g. health and safety - as well as the cost of satisfying the green lobby.

When the rail lines and motorways were first built those costs were negligible.

The real requirement has been missed by the 'experts'.

If you speak to the customers, that is the people who used to be called passengers until that term became old-fashioned, they will say that they don't give much preference to arriving fifteen to twenty minutes earlier, but rather that they had at least managed to occupy a seat rather than a position in the corridor or end of coach vestibule area.

It is about capacity, not speed.

Faster trains mean fewer trains as the safety gap between each train has to be made longer to give them time and distance to brake safely.

Why is so much of the UK railway network single track each way, whereas the motorway is three lanes each way which can under certain circumstances be turned into four lanes each way by utilising the hard shoulders as temporary running lanes?

If it was really about keeping the customers happy they would never have even considered higher speeds as the answer. More tracks running parallel to provide extra capacity, and fewer major disruptions when maintenance is required, is what would make more people happier.

House prices up north will soar as cities get 'closer'. The cheap rents will be a thing of the past. Hope they're ready for that nightmare.

Statement at 10pm -- not the government's plan A.

Because it is basically a victorian planned system there are very big issues over where you can place any upgrade to current tracks. If one were to try and 'widen' current tracks, as it were, by adding fresh lines,would be difficult.   Also the speeding up, by providing straighter lines for high speed would be also difficult.   Putting extra lines alongside current track would also be very expensive.
Capacity in London stations is a problem too.

Petraco is spot on.

I would not like to be a planner!!!

The country is full.

There is also the 'rush hour'(hours) when most of the stock is in use.  Staggered start and finish hours for work would help but how do you fix that??

What's the capacity of the U.K Saddo?

only mad  only mad

the supporter of anything none uk

I'll wager a week of dinners that the ticket prices will be extortionate.

email,skype,internet,conference call ,etc,etc all brought in to bring the world together and end the need for face to face meetings,we were told ,saving everyones carbon footprint blah,blah,now in a country in desperate need of new housing ,house to be bulldozed,billions upon billions spent so business can get to meetings that wernt goping to be needed 15 mins early,

About 5 million less than we have now, Bm.

anyone say ' monorail ' ?

1st time poster is on the right track,,,get it?

It's all about big business making money t the tax payers expense...... In 1885 it took 35 minutes on a train to get to Liverpool from Manchester, nowadays, with 2 stops, birch wood and Warrington, it takes 45..

Someone is going to get very rich at your expense

It is not needed- end of

a complete and utter waste of money, it blows my mind they are wasting 60 billion to speed up travel by 20 minutes and they are having to demolish a new housing estate in Yorkshire to make way for it!

how was this ever passed

There'll be some well paid directorships awaiting those involved when they leave government, scandy.

This is a situation where cause and effect isn't being understood. People commute to urban centers to work because that is the only feasible way to run a public transport system, specifically a rail system. In places where public transport isn't much of a factor, like Los Angeles, work and commuting becomes much more distributed.

The reason London can't be like LA is there isn't the room for roads and parking in London. Autonomous vehicles will start to change that by providing a much more flexible public and private transport system, and thus making work and commuting more distributed. The consequence of which will be less need for railways to funnel people into city centres.

Some nice juicy contracts handed out, i'll warrant. As for bulldozing brand new homes, they'll probably be occupied by plebs. Anyway it won't stop leaves on the line.

saves 20 mins

a businessman said easier to schedule the meeting 20 mins later

The decisions are made by morons.