thought this would be a good topic on here as it will run near to a lot of the posters and affect the lives of quite a few on here by the looks of it.

the route for the northern leg of the project has just been announced though in typical fashion nothing has been set in stone yet. some details [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37981840here[/url

what's everyone's thoughts on this? waste of money or a good investment. will anyone be affected by it either through demolitions or noise etc. do we really need to invest all this money to save less than an hour travel to london from leeds for example. will other services be cut to make this more affordable. will it simply mean more people from the north can go to london to work or will it attract much needed businesses to the north and make the so called northern powerhouse come to fruition.

one of my problems with all of this is that it is assumed we are going to have a super railway where everything runs on time. when built no doubt there will still be leaves on the line, the wrong type of snow and staff shortages meaning the usual lengthy delays. overrunning engineering works and people shoehorned into inadequate length trains. and i dare not even think about ticker prices. just wish we could spend some money on the network where needed such as selby swing bridge which seems the be closed every year for one reason or another

From speaking to lots of people, my view on this is comfortably the less popular one in the North of England.
However, for me, infrastructure stuff is simple, we should have the best, up to date transport system that is available.
Following the logic of the "naysayers", we would still have a bloke with a red flag, walking in front of a train travelling at 7 mph.

Of course there has to be provision for many of the areas that will be disrupted but, like all these things, the objections come from those that are
directly affected and most people would also object if it war routed close to them or causing inconvenience.

At the risk of stoking up the Euro debate, we are well behind other developed nation with our rail system and the HS2 is a step in the right direction.

One thing that I would add, is that, England does seem too London centric in it's overall strategy and there is too much emphasis on centralising many of the country's larger businesses down there and perhaps there should be more effort made, as government policy, to move certain amenities into other parts of the UK.

They do have something called the "Northern Powerhouse" but, quite frankly, this just appears to be some kind of buzz word among politicians and there seems very little evidence of any kind of drive to help the North of England.

(I'll get my tin hat ready)

There was a thread on HS2 a while back.

Whilst continuous improvements in our infrastructure are needed, HS2 is yet another case of a huge investment aimed at benefitting London primarily.

Combine the estimated costs (£55.7bn for HS2), plus Crossrail (£14.8bn), London Gateway (£1.5bn) and the new runway at Heathrow (£18.6bn) - that comes to a total of £90.6bn. That's just 4 projects.

What have we got going on up North? Well, the A64 got some pot holes filled in a couple of years ago.

Investment in infrastructure = great! But make sure that the levels of investment are fair.

Don't forget the Thameslink Programme(£6bn), scheduled for completion 2018, the likely development of Crossrail 2 ( £27–32 billion, at 2014 prices) and the East London Line Extensions completed in 2010 at a cost of £1bn. London and the South East are worth it. The North has , after all, been promised the £0.6bn Northern Hub which is more than a fair share of this capital investment, I'm sure anyone would agree.

Wait until inflation affects those figures.

I'd be less skeptical if work started in the North with HS3. Connect Liverpool to Hull and take in as many major cities in between, a kind of M62 on rails. As I see it the HS2 money will 'run out' once London is connected to Birmingham, essentially making Birmingham London's biggest commuter village and further sucking the life out of the rest of the country.

[url=http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/anger-as-ministers-shelve-yorkshire-rail-upgrade-plans-1-8242509The line from Selby to Hull will not be electrified[/url

Northern [delPower[/delhouse

Northern chugchugchugonthepacertrainwiththebusseatshouse more like

3 years of roadworks on the M1/M62 - to add another lane, which will be just as full of cars and trucks as the other lanes?

But not as full as original lanes would have been without it- correct? But hey let's not consider that. We are the hard done northerners

That remains to be seen - my point is that it's been 3 years and counting since the work started, making South Yorkshire virtually impassible in both directions during both rush hours; and what we'll get when they eventually finish, is an extra lane in place of the hard shoulder, and variable speed limits.

Before HS2, it would seem to make more sense to improve connectivity between Northern cities; that might actually take some cars off the road?

M1 Luton - M25 London, M3 Farnborough to M25, M25 past Heathrow, M25 generally, M6 Bham...............

Its not just happening up North! Smart motorways are coming. Don't feel the pain is just at your front door. Southerners commute is typically longer than that of someone up north.......he pulls the hand grenade pin

The stretch of the M1 between junction 30 and 32 seems to have been in a perpetual state of roadworks for the last 10 years or more. I don't remember a time when it wasn't in some part coned or under 50mph speed restrictions. If it's the same contractor doing the 'work' they must have made billions out of it!

I think you've missed the point.

I would suggest 1 mile of railway would cost less to build than 1 mile of motorway, dual carriageway or even trunk road. It would probably be more environmentally friendly and use less land. When in use , using modern technology it would be more efficient and cost effective moving people and allowing goods to be moved quicker.
It would benefit EVERYONE in the same way roads do.
The fact this is not the case is down to short termism, ignorance, nimbys and political dogma. Perhaps if motorists paid the true cost of travelling,just like rail users, their "views" may change, but somehow I doubt it.
Freedom they cry at others expense.

Have you modelled the movement of people and goods? What goods do you refer to and what % of goods movement nationally does it constitute??

Surely Transport needs to be look at holistically. Trainline development may be cheaper but it is limited in where it goes and how many passengers and tonnes of goods it transports. Similaly cycle lanes, paths, bus routes...

Being able to get from Manchester to London an hour quicker than now will be of benifit to about 0.00001% of the people who travel down the M6 every day

Trains no longer work in this country , they are fine for shifting commuters into cities and shifting bulk materials , that's it

its a good point. we are seeing increasing developments on the edges of major towns and cities - offices, shopping centres, stadia to name just 3, and these are typically connected by road first and foremost. rail connections if they exist at all tend to be on branch lines meaning travellers still have to change in city centre stations taking more time and effort. meadowhall is an exception to this rather than the rule - just look at how awkward it was to get to coventry by rail for the recent match for example

We used to have a very comprehensive network of rail connections, then Dr Beeching took an axe to it; now the rail network is next to useless to many commuters, so they take to the roads - and all the issues that come with that ensue, not least congestion and environmental impact. I have some sympathy with the poster who suggested that motorists don't pay the true cost of using the roads - but I'm not sure how you would levy that in any meaningful way, since we all use them to varying degrees and in a different way. As far as developers go - in terms of housing, retail, employment and leisure - the car is very definitely king, so if you can't afford one, you're screwed.

One thing's for sure - our transport infrastructure is at breaking point, so shaving some time off the journey to London seems, from a Northern perspective, more like a vanity project.

Have you ever considered that trains tend to go both ways?

Quote ="Exiled down south"Have you ever considered that trains tend to go both ways?'" Well of course. They have to come up to Leeds & other places to pick people up to take them to London haven't they? This isn't a network being built, it's a line. A line running to London that will primarily benefit London. I get the Leeds to Kings Cross regularly (and the other way), at various times throughout the day. The train to KC from Leeds in a morning is rammed. The train coming in the opposite direction from KC to Leeds is nice & comfortable and a lot quieter. Do a search on the Trainline website: https://www.thetrainline.com/ Tomorrow, Leeds to KC departing at 8:17, £113. KC to Leeds departing at 8:35, £62.50. Flip those to 5pm when people are returning back North and you see the same: 5:03pm to KC from Leeds, £113. Leeds to KC, 5:17pm, £62.50. That's just one example. It's supply and demand. Yes, of course trains go both ways, but one journey is a lot busier than the other, and ultimately that's why we're saying the HS2 investment will predominantly benefit the city of London. The demand in people coming to Leeds may go up after HS2, but it'll be in proportion to demand also going up for people travelling to London.

Quote ="Exiled down south"Have you ever considered that trains tend to go both ways?'" Well of course. They have to come up to Leeds & other places to pick people up to take them to London haven't they? This isn't a network being built, it's a line. A line running to London that will primarily benefit London. I get the Leeds to Kings Cross regularly (and the other way), at various times throughout the day. The train to KC from Leeds in a morning is rammed. The train coming in the opposite direction from KC to Leeds is nice & comfortable and a lot quieter. Do a search on the Trainline website: https://www.thetrainline.com/ Tomorrow, Leeds to KC departing at 8:17, £113. KC to Leeds departing at 8:35, £62.50. Flip those to 5pm when people are returning back North and you see the same: 5:03pm to KC from Leeds, £113. Leeds to KC, 5:17pm, £62.50. That's just one example. It's supply and demand. Yes, of course trains go both ways, but one journey is a lot busier than the other, and ultimately that's why we're saying the HS2 investment will predominantly benefit the city of London. The demand in people coming to Leeds may go up after HS2, but it'll be in proportion to demand also going up for people travelling to London.

So eventually everyone from Leeds ends up in London.

Isn't the plan to develop the Northern powerhouse and as such get those lost people to come the other way and faster. Or is change not allowed?

I've no idea what you're going on about now, or what point you're trying to make?

Northern Powerhouse plan? What plan?

What HS 2 will achieve is becoming a rich persons commuter train , high flyers will be able to sell or rent their expensive London apartments and move further north working from home 3 days a week , just nipping into ' town ' for a couple of days

As I said earlier a minuscule % of those using the roads currently will ever step foot on a HS 2 train

What should happen is the government should reduce the cost of owning a car , but increase the cost of using it

In a rare moment of congruence, absolutely correct; using it once a year to travel from Leeds to London to gawk at some clocks and bridges is hardly sufficient justification for your average Northern Monkey to get all excited about HS2.

Your next point is nonsensical - the government should not do anything more to increase the cost of using a car; that's just further hammering the average joe trying to get to work. What they should do, is reduce the necessity of using the thing, by investing in a transport network that provides a viable alternative.