Timestamps Overview: 00:00 Map of HS2: 00:55 Comparison to other countries: 02:20 Costs to other UK Projects: 03:43 Phase 1: 05:09 Phase 2: 09:20 The Trains: 10:44
Great balanced video. I'm getting tired of other videos with bias only for or only against the project, so this is some relief. Ultimately, the project is absolutely needed for capacity reasons. In fact, I'd personally say it doesn't even go far enough and its network should extend even further. On the other hand, the prices are getting astronomical and definitely need to be controlled better. Loving your videos, keep them coming!
A shame about the click-bait title, given that HS2 costs less per mile than: the Forth Bridge; the Channel Tunnel; Chūō Shinkansen; Crossrail; the Severn Tunnel; Manchester Metrolink 2CC; and the Lötschberg Base Tunnel (to name a few)...
@@OnTheRailwayOfficial also with a high speed line, all the express trains that run at 125mph can use hs2 as well because they can have a clearer track build for modern capacity. After hs2, we need to use London like a central hub like France does with Paris. The biggest downside is that knowing the uk, we won’t look after it, it will slowly become unusable because of bad treatment and the costs of using this new train will be more expensive than driving.
Is it unsurprising that 300 miles of new top-of-the-line railway designed to last at least 100 years costs a lot more than much shorter schemes? The Lower Thames Crossing costs more per mile (about 400-500 million, rather than ~300 million) and destroys more ancient woodland than the whole of HS2 despite being about 5% of the length!
Thank you!!!! The people who claim to be pro-eco are thrashing on an electric rail project that is promising to spend billions on a green corridor, tunnels, cuttings, and viaducts to reduce its impact, despite the alternative being motorways that are far worse for the environment to build, in addition to the emmitting cars and lorries that use it. I thought i was the only voice of reason.
It needs scrapping, waste of money.....we need to bring commuter links in SE up to 100mph. In the north, they mainly travel by car so there is no case for train travel in the north. Increase coach routes and invest in green air travel. That's what the u.k. really wants.
@@JacobOhlssonBudinger motorways are the way forward.....we could easily enlarge these to 12 lanes and it would have little to no impact on the environment. Absolutely agreed with you!
@@nickmagee-brown739 are you from the 60s. Motorways are not the way forward. The fact that you want to enlarge them as a solution to upping capacity on them goes to show how little you know about transportation planning. Google “induced demand” for more. For a green future we need to keep longer distance travel to a minimum with as much walking and biking as possible. Where you do have to go longer distance, we need public transportation for a more energy efficient and environmentally friendly way of travel. You also said that there isn’t a case for rail travel in the north, but there is as people do use the trains in the north of England. It’s just a shite network there at the moment so it’s not being utilised to it’s full potential. More electrification, investment, and HS3 will hopefully solve this and give the north a railway to once again be proud of. You basically have no idea what you’re talking about
Woah, woah, woah! Did I just hear Ashley Rabot say there is no need for extra capacity right now???? Explain the high fare prices then! This country's network is fast approaching its maximum capacity, and a line like HS2 is sorely needed to take the fast trains off the conventional network, such that we can run more local and commuter services, not to mention freight services.
Right now - in the gap between Christmas and New Year and with the entire country under strict Covid restrictions, yes there's zero need for extra capacity as almost no one is travelling. ;) In 2009 they reckoned on a rough 2025 opening of phase 1, and it really being needed by then. Growth in traffic in the decade afterwards has been higher than predicted, and the opening delayed a further ~5 years. Of course, HS2 will still be half-empty when opened because this is seriously long term planning of a sort not seen for about 100 years - building a line designed to last a century or more without needing something to relieve it (unlike Crossrail - which is a sticking plaster that will need relief after a decade or two, just like the JLE needs Crossrail).
@@sihollett Ok. But ignoring COVID, the network still is at capacity, and likely story is that fares will continue to get higher simply because demand for railways is higher than the railway's capacity once COVID is over... Whenever that is...
@@mastertrams I take it you ignored my wink pointing out that it was a sarcastic comment, and my second paragraph pointing out that growth in intercity rail travel has actually been faster than predicted.
Up over here in Sweden we're in a similar position. Existing lines as at capacity, a new line connecting the major cities is needed. Given that removing the express passenger services from the legacy lines will be the most effective way to increase capacity and that going for full-on HSR will pretty much kill off domestic air travel in southern Sweden, HSR is clearly what we need. It is planned to be built, but not really committed to as full HSR (yet). We're not into the same costs as HS2 per km, but then we're far less densely populated and also: our plans end outside the major cities :( Adding the rails needed for capacity into Stockholm will be effing expensive - but worth it. HS2? Go, go, go! HSR in Sweden? Go full HSR asap. If we delay more: dare to go maglev.
The (Alstom) Italo AGVs only run in service at 300km/h, albeit they have a design speed of 360km/h. The Frecciarossa 1000s (Hitachi Zefiro) have a design speed of 400km/h, but again only run at 300km/h. Also I haven't scanned all the comments but I'm sure something has pointed out the Southeastern Javelins run faster than 125mph... Happy new year Ashley!
Great video really enjoyed and found it informative. The only thing I wish was considered as a change for the HS2 project is if they build and extra station to connect with East west rail that way many more people would be able to use HS2 with out having to go into London.
I think that's a brilliant idea that I haven't ever come across. The two lines would intersect a km north of Calvert. You can see where on satellite view, as there is east west rail but also what appears to be a former railway alignment that is being used for HS2. It would help connect those who will be affected by east-west rail to the network. The only problem, funnily enough, is capacity, but maybe 1 or 2 HS2 trains could stop there, and then passengers from east-west rail could transfer to other cities through Birmingham Interchange.
Talgo is planning to build a new train factory on an old power station in Fife, Scotland so they must be pretty serious about rail infrastructure in the UK and Hs2!
Lots more UK trains go 125. And, the fastest service in the UK is the javelin run by southeastern, at a max speed of 140 mph. HS2 is planned to run at 250 mph, not just 225.
125 mph Is a perfect speed. The whole country wants it scrapped and for investment to be put into commuter routes into the southeast, the heart of the economy, no one uses trains for long distance and even Europe has scrapped high speed trains. It's time to scrap HS2 and focus on improving the links in SE England. Written on behalf of all of the U.K. We all support my argument.
@@10reubenl they have barely started....but simply stop, backfill and recreate the beauty of nature in probably the most picturesque part of England. We don't need a new railway, well not going all the way outside London's commuter belt. But Kent and Sussex, Berkshire and Surrey desperately need upgrading.
@@nickmagee-brown739 That's just not true. People do use trains for long distance (the existing intercity lines are running at max capacity, which is part of the reason why we need HS2) and no European countries are getting rid of their high speed rail networks. France, Germany, Spain and Italy all have large high-speed rail networks that are still growing to this day. HS2 will help us to fulfill our carbon commitments, reduce regional inequality and bring us in line with the rest of Europe (which contrary to your claims, has NOT scrapped any of its high speed rail).
I regularly use the southeastern highspeed service to go to work and it's max speed is 140mph on the HS1 line so it's slightly inaccurate to say our current fastest domestic trains go 125mph
@@ashleyrabot The Class 395 Javelin's max speed is 230 kph (140 mph) but the Eurostar's top out at 300 kph (186 mph), even on the UK branch according to HighSpeed 1's website (highspeed1.co.uk/about-us).
They're still only scheduled to 125mph(200km/h) with 140mph(225km/h) only ever used to catch up with delays. the Eurostar e320 however does 186mph(300km/h) on HS1
The route is only able to run at 225-250mph (360-400 kph). It should have been designed and built to allow higher speeds, as it is much more expensive to upgrade later. The TGV has reached speeds of 357mph (575kph) and the bullet train 372mph (600kph). The Links to Heathrow and Gatwick and HS1 should be included. If you have ever used Schipol airport for example, the train station is under the concourse. For additional future proofing the Corridor should be wider to allow stopping services on completely separate lines.
Very disappointed that someone claiming to be a railway expert has failed to do enough research and put out a click-bait video. You are suggesting this is only to help high speed passengers in 30 years time, instead of explaining that this is about separation of services that would help commuters that already have overcrowding problems in the rush hour. The entire point of the fork design, is that HS2 is supposed to take express trains (InterCity trains) away from three existing mainlines. That is not just so that more freight can run on the existing mainlines. It is so that the massive gaps required for our current "fast - slow - fast - slow" service patterns on mainlines can be got rid of and those mainlines can run "slow - slow - slow - slow - slow - slow" services that do not catch each other up, and can therefore run much closer together. (In other words we can have many more trains for commuters.) This means that commuter services would be able to have service patterns much closer to the sort of service patterns that places in and around London get. So it's a game changer for workers on those mainlines. The new station at Birmingham Curzon Street, will pull InterCity trains out of Birmingham New Street and create lots of empty slots that allow extra trains, from places far away from the HS2 route (like Wales). The unlocking of existing mainlines is hoped to reduce car dependency, so that people have the choice to avoid driving to work and can switch to using commuter trains. This would: 1) Reduce car pollution along the mainlines that HS2 bypasses and along lines into places like Birmingham New Street that have train bottleneck issues solved and 2) Reduce traffic jams for those people who choose to continue to drive. The ability to put more freight on the existing mainlines would also reduce traffic jams on various roads and motorways. Motor vehicles create pollution that causes lung problems and climate change. And traffic jams lead to motor vehicles chugging out pollution without moving around effectively. So any sort of modal shift from car use or lorry use to railway use will reduce early deaths and reduce climate change damage (as well as making things a bit nicer for people who continue to drive). As for the speed of HS2, that's more about capacity than "getting people to Birmingham a bit faster". If you have a railway journey that takes 4 hours, the train can do 3 trips in 12 hours. Drop that journey time by an hour and a train can make that 3 hour trip 4 times in 12 hours. In other words, you can get an entire extra trainload of passengers every 12 hours if you speed up that railway journey from 4 hours to 3 hours. So more passengers without more trains. This is the entire reason why they are building one new project (instead of doing multiple track widening schemes. The Y-shape of HS2 and the concentration of InterCity trains into one high speed project means that longer and faster trains replace the need to expand different mainlines. Instead HS2 hands those mainlines back to local people. If you look at the proposed service patterns of express and stopping services, you can clearly see that there are going to be more trains on HS2 (because of the speed boost and the lack of stopping services that create gaps) but the stopping services on the lines that HS2 is going to free up are getting much bigger service improvements (potentially all the way up to one train every 5 minutes if demand for commuter trains goes that high). The one other area where speed might be important, is that we have too many people making domestic flights in the UK (at least we did before Covid hit and we will again after Covid goes away). People going on holiday around the UK by plane cause tons of pollution to be spewed into our skies and that's more healthcare problems, more of a contribution to climate change and something we really need to cut down on. If we can persuade some people who currently fly from England to Scotland to take high speed trains instead, we can get rid of dirty aircraft and clean up our air. The NIC report is a very bad thing as they are ignoring the fact that Phase 2 is linking the Birmingham section of HS2 to another mainline and suggesting to the government that they might want to remove that connection. Removing the connection to the ECML would remove the ability to bypass that line and bring the capacity unlocking benefits of HS2 to the Eastern side of England. If HS2 Phase 2 is not built, the ECML will continue to get more and more overcrowded and our country will be forced to either do Phase 2 or something else anyway. But we have a solution for capacity problems ready to go. The NIC should have been recommending that HS2 Phase 2 was accelerated or that HS2 Phase 3 was pushed forward, so that the high speed bypass could be extended to Scotland (or at least closer to Scotland) so that we would have the ability to hand even more mainlines back to local people. We are at risk of hobbling HS2. Instead of levelling up the UK, we could end up creating a lop-sided chopped down HS2 that focuses the commuting advantages around Birmingham. It's very important that HS2 is pushed further North and it's very important that we have various local metro projects that seize on the capacity that HS2 unlocks and that can be used to radically reduce car usage in our cities. If we just fix the issues in Birmingham and ignore the North, that's not fair to Northerners. And it's not fair to people on the East coast. And it's not fair to people in Wales or Scotland who need their own capacity relief schemes , that can tie into HS2, to be starting as soon as possible. Your video badly misses the mark, Ashley. You can do better than this. Please go watch the videos on the HS2 channel, and go look up the various articles that talk about capacity relief on commuter services, modal shift from cars and planes to electric trains (which can run on zero carbon electricity, if we improve our power generation) and make a new video that showcases what HS2 is actually supposed to be about.
David, good riposte. Not to mention that rail travel saves lives. About 1,500 people die on UK roads every year. That exceeds the murder statistics but gets much less publicity. Also roads have been an absolute planning disaster, anything we can do to mitigate and eventually, hopefully reduce and eliminate the millions of acres of land that roads require will be brilliant.
I love your vids mate. Very informative and well presented. Also graphics make it look like a channel with many more subscriptions than you have. You will get there.
Well balanced video. Im at present on a canal boat. Canals opposed at the time - messing up the environment and knocking down houses of loads of people who are now dead. Drove the Industrial Revolution. Can't think of ANY large civil engineering projects we now regret?
@@n1thmusic229 Well the max speed reached by an AGV itself is 360km/h. However I do stand corrected, as the TGV duplex that hit 574km/h was fitted with extra AGV traction motors
If any one wants to follow the HS2 route from Birmingham Curzon Street o London Euston, there are a load of fantastic videos on you tube produced by HS2 ltd that show and explain everything about HS2 phase 1.
I really hope they pick the Bombardier and Hitachi high speed train it looks absolutely stunning from the exterior at least. The Alstom also looks amazing!
Enjoyable video, thank you. I liked your dig at the lack of imagination in naming a station "Interchange". I could confuse it with Bradford Interchange. In Scotland we have new-ish stations called Edinburgh Park and Edinburgh Gateway which are so bland and meaningless, I have trouble remembering which is which. Edinburgh Park is actually at Hermiston Gait, which would have been a much more descriptive name, as most people know where that is. At least HS2 brings back the old historical name of Birmigham Curzon Street.
Mate don't start us. Here in Australia EVERYTHING is named literally with no imagination. 9 Mile Creek, 20 Mile Beach, Great Sandy Desert, Melbourne Cricket Ground.
@@deplorabled1695 LOL Thanks for your comment. In my Atlas of the World I once discovered a place in the USA called Dismal Swamp, an address to die for! Never been there though. Here in Glasgow a lot of streets are named after slave trade millionaires. Names can be quite emotive. For the last few years in the UK there has been an epidemic of naming things "The Queen Elizabeth.....(Hospital, etc.)" as if they're trying to outnumber stuff named Victoria. As the saying goes - what's in a name?
We already know that HS2 will connect London with Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and The North of England and to Scotland via the West Coast Main Line and East Coast Main Line. And the possibility of HS3 that will be part of the Northern Powerhouse rail project. With London still waiting on Crossrail to be completed and plans to build Crossrail 2. And with more rail projects happening including electrification. Our railways aren’t up to scratch than other countries that have better railways and faster trains including Germany, Japan, France and even the USA is also benefiting from having high speed rail links. Plus our roads are always as congested all the time with roadworks, queuing, accidents and so on. But as us Brits say “We are just British and we always will be British”.
Disappointed with the click bait title Ashley, “worlds most expensive railway” but you only looked at UK Infrastructure projects. The Japanese lines have been hugely expensive with the much more difficult terrain to go through than say in France where there’s a lot of open countryside. Also should be looking at £/mile or some other comparable measure if you want to compare HS2 to say the Elizabeth line - total project costs don’t mean anything. I personally think we should continue to invest in infrastructure in this country to provide capacity and support the country; the same cost concerns were said about the Jubilee line, Eurotunnel, HS1, Manchester terminal 2, Dartford Crossing and no doubt the Manchester Ship Canal and the M1 before that. No one suggests that we shouldn’t have built any of those projects now
Vast stretches of the UK mainline network is already at a standard that could theoretically support much higher 160mph+ speeds, the two issues that stop it from happening are network capacity and the signalling systems though. HS2 will undoubtedly help to address the former but even after HS2 is built the plans are not to run faster trains on the East and West Coast lines but instead to increase the number of stopping trains and freight. If money was put towards upgrading the two mainlines North of HS2 to allow both extra capacity and faster speeds (through increasing sections to four tracks, re-routing some sections allowing higher speed trains to bypass some local stations say) then we could have a network that we could be proud of. Of course that would mean a complete upgrade of the signalling systems to allow for faster trains on these lines and that would require money.
The problem with original lines is the signalling and infrastructure, to run these high speed trains you require a dedicated route as per HS1, France, China and Japan with no slow moving freight trains on them or tight bends, plus these trains to run at high speed do not use conventional colour light or semaphore signal, they use in cab signalling like on HS1 and in France and Spain, so basically you could not run these trains safely above 140 MPH on normal track which means when these trains come of a HS2 line to run from Crewe north wards they will have to reduce their speed from 235 MPH to 140 MPH.
@@peterwilliamallen1063 I think you both make good points but if the vision now, is that we need capacity increase, bearing in mind the price tag, why don't we upgrade the existing lines to accommodate double decker's at 140MPH
@@markdebrun7023 Oh Mark De Brun, I take it from your name you are not from the UK of if you are you do not know much about UK Railways, firstly the cost of rebuilding every Bridge, Tunnel, Viaduct and Station on the UK Railway network, up grading track work and it's formation, upgrading Signalling and either rewiring overhead cables or electrifying new sections of British Rail lines would be extortionate in cost, causing to upheaval, delays and cancellations along with destruction of houses and properties next to the lines and valuable country side, on a Victorian Railway System that in places has been upgraded a couple of times in the 1960's/70's and 80's, the cheapest way to do it other is to build a brand new Railway line from scratch, da dom I give you "HS2" the perfect new Railway, and no one has said it will have Double Deck trains as the UK does not need them.
"Birmingham Curzon Street - a newly, custom-built station" - that is the second of that name and basically site. Curzon Street was the original Birmingham station for the London and Birmingham Railway (and the Grand Junction Railway) in 1839. It lost favour when Birmingham New Street Station was built in 1854 because Curzon Street was too far from downtown Birmingham. It was finally torn down in 1966 except for the Grade I listed Entrance Building that still survives. Unfortunately, the decision was made not to include the original entrance building in the new station.
By the way, isn't it incredible that The Great Central Mainline (which was comparable in length to HS2), took just three years to build. HS2 will take at least 20
You would think that with today's tech that it would get built much quicker! But I suspect there is a lot of red tape to sort out with people moaning about houses getting knocked down and bat's in the trees, and huge tunnels getting built incase somebody spots a train and starts crying because they don't want to see it ruining the countryside, where as when they built the GCR, i get the impression they gave zero shits about any of that and just steam rollered it into existence
It's easier for China to build high-speed rail because the government can be a bit more ruthless about taking land. Acquiring a right-of-way in built-up areas is one of several factors that has limited rail expansion in the US.
It's 500 million pounds a year over 200 years, large parts of the current railway system were originally constructed 200 years ago, proves the longevity of railways. I t can be guaranteed that nobody will be flying or driving in 50 years.
The normal go for the UK would be to build half of it, then decide that it's too expensive, and leave an costly piece of railway that doesn't provide any significant benefit because it connects to slower lines rather than reaching city centres.
@@sylviaelse5086 From an economic point of view- no they are not. There is more to an economy than total GDP figures. Otherwise we might as well get rid of everything that doesn't improve GDP. From an "economic" point of view. Slavery is extremely beneficial. So your "economic point of view" is pointless.
Every construction project in Britain overruns both in cost and in time (the two are connected). That's why there's so little transportation development which can't keep up with an expanding population that's well out of control in a country that's too small. And this expanding poplulation relates only to about half the size of the nation - the other half being unsuitable due to geographical remoteness, lack of industry, and services, difficult mountainous terrain and unfavourable climate. The best hope of any new transportation project is to renovate old freight lines - any new lines being almost impossible to build while you have countless thousands of buildings obstructing the way.
The Golbourne Link, the HS2 link to the WCML to Scotland has been dropped. Expect HS2 north Crewe to be 100% dropped. *No need for HS2 north of Crewe.* Currently, the HS2 plan links to the WCML south of Crewe, as the Golborne Link has been dropped. HS2 then running north is completely separate as far as just Manchester. For a few miles from Crewe north to Minshull Vernon HS2 parallels the WCML, being six tracks wide. Hendry, head of Network Rail, wants the WCML upgraded from Crewe to Preston. From Crewe to Weaver Junction where trains split to Liverpool and Scotland, the 2-track WCML there could be 4-track with two tracks being for HS2 classic compatible trains to Liverpool and Scotland - but having these tracks still on the WCML, not HS2. The Crewe North HS2 to WCML junction could remain, allowing Liverpool and Lancaster trains to access Crewe station as already planned under the Crewe Hub scheme. Non-stop trains would be at full HS2 linespeed of 360kph (223 mph) on the new WCML tracks dedicated to HS2 classic compatible services, with no existing restriction to such speeds. This way, Liverpool and Scotland get ‘fast’ services with Runcorn retaining its London service. Journey times would be similar to HS2 times. All just by making 16 miles of new WCML track 223mph. Manchester already has a dedicated line to Crewe. Upgrade this and near equal HS2 times are achieved. HS2 phase 2b will cost £32 billion and rising. Most of that is for the western leg which *only runs to Manchester.* This is an obscene amount of money serving only one provincial city. Upgrading the WCML north of Crewe, and the Liverpool WCML spur and Manchester WCML spur, can be done for a fraction of the cost of HS2 without needlessly tearing up countryside.
I was going to the NEC from London once and our train took almost 3 hours on a Pendolino was not impressed and that was about 10 years ago so yes these new tracks and trains are defiantly needed and I don't know why the eco worriers are getting pissy its because of them the price has been hiked up with more tunnels needed to keep them some what happy it dramatically increased the price.
Yes it is a good idea getting new trains and system but the more important is to cut the train price down because if you keep putting the price up no one in this country will afford going on the trains only ones will do that high class who are very rich and the normal people wouldnt
Fascinating and thanks for the charts and maps. Two things: Why this obsession with speed and the poor connectivity with the existing network. Speed: The difference in journey time between say 150 mph 240 kph and the planned speeds must be fairly marginal - about 12 minutes over 170 kilometres - yet costs (energy and wear and tear) increase exponentially as speeds increase. So if they want to save money then one option would be reduce the speed. Connectivity: Building terminal stations seems the height of insanity. When an HS2 train arrives at Curzon Street passenger wishing to go to say Wolverhampton or Shrewsbury will have to change trains and that involves a walk between Curzon St and New St. Leeds is a little better but HS2 trains will not be able to run on to say York, hence the need for an expensive link to the ECML. Building the stations away from a city centres and away from existing railway nodes - as at Toton seems daft. Are the planners really thinking that someone from Derby (perhaps having taken a train from Matlock) will then take another train to get to the HS2 station at Toton or in the case of Nottingham a tram with many stops - for goodness sake. Finally there is no connection with HS1! So no chance of a day trip to Paris or Amsterdam from Birmingham by train.
Sort of pointless bar chart, don’t you think? Projects are completely different scope at different times and places. Also map is incorrect, Curzon street is connected to the local Midlands Metro. You can even see the tram on the picture of the station you have used.
For the rolling stock, well, I have my thoughts: Alstom knows what is High Speed and their trains are safe, as the TGV technology is recognised all over the world. Bombardier and Hitachi have a good project (isn't it Hitachi only now? Because Bombardier doesn't exist anymore), they know what they are dealing with, they already have produced good trains named IEPs/IETs or Frecciarossa in Italy. Siemens has a bad project: their train is based on the ICE 4 which is a bad train, with major faults and uncomfortable seats. I don't know what to say about CAF, the different trains they have built recently for different countries than Spain don't have any major problems, but i think we should wait. And the Talgo technology is absolutely not adapted for High Speed services.
Siemens technology for HSR is very well trusted however. The e320 trains are used in 3 different countries infact. Saying they have uncomfortable seats is down to the operator of the trains, not siemens
@@emmanueloke667 It's not because the E320 is running in many different countries that it is reliable. These trains are unreliable, and I experienced that myself, and I know a Eurostar driver who says the same thing. The seats are all the same in High Speed trains designed by Siemens. For example, the E 320s have the same seats as the DB Velaro D, but with different colours. These seats are typical of siemens
Which link is that in Rugby? I haven't seen anything about that. Phase 1 will connect to the WCML at Crewe and Phase 2 will connect with HS3, the WCML further north, MML and (hopefully) the ECML.
There is no station or connection on HS2 in the Ruby area, not sure where you got that from. The first stop after Birmingham Curzon Street Station will be Birmingham Interchange Station next to the NEC , Birmingham International Airport and Birmingham International Railway station on the present West Coast Route from Birmingham New Street to London Euston all joined together by a people mover transit system at a place called Bickenhill on the border of Birmingham and Solihull, about 5 mile from Birmingham City Centre, after that the next stop will be in the London area at Old Oak Common and finally London Euston. There is no stop in the Rugby area on HS2 only on the present West Coast Main line from Birmingham New Street to London Euston.
@@EPS_Productions There is no physical junction of any kind between HS2 and Rugby, the two are at least 30 miles apart, the only line from Birmingham to London that goes through Rugby is the present West Coast Main line where the Birmingham New street line joins the main west Coast main line from Crewe and the North and the line via Northampton diverges off towards London via Northampton.
you really seem not not have done much research into Birmingham. “newly called curzon street station” it’s not a new station in fact curzon street station was the first station from Birmingham to london it’s just being rebuilt
I'm sorry to correct you as a Brummie, but the new Birmingham Curzon Street Station will have nothing to do with the original Station, the only part surviving being the original station building which is grade 2 listed and although being retained will have nothing to do with the new station, plus all the old station has been obliterated. The HS2 Birmingham Curzon Street Station is going to be a totally New Build Station with its main entrance being on Moor Street Queens Way next to the Entrance of Birmingham Moor Street Station in the heart of Birmingham City Centre with tram and bus connections plus another entrance close to the original station, so sorry the station is not being rebuilt, it is a totally brand new station being built occupying a larger site to accommodate at least 14 coach trains.
1. Should have started in the north and worked it's way south 2. At this price why not look at conversion of existing lines to double decker trains 3. Why is no station being built at the intersection of HS2 and EWR? 4. This is a once in a century project and we are aiming low, if we go for it and spend all the money lets go for it...mag lev and the fastest service possible.
Why should it have started in the North first and worked South considering the whole idea of HS2 is to improve high speed rail services from the Second City Birmingham to London, you could not convert conventional British rail Lines to Double deck Trains, for high speed on this route between Birmingham and London there are only 2 Intermediate stations, Birmingham Interchange serving Birmingham Airport and Old Oak Common for interchange with the London Under ground and trains for South West England and forget Maglev.
@@peterwilliamallen1063 I may not agree but I take your point. My idea is that if we are trying to 'level up' lets put some investment in the northern transport system. By the way I'd like your thoughts on HS2 and EWR being built at exactly the same time and crossing their construction at the same time. Surely a perfect point for a new station for transit rather the a depot. What do you think?
@@markdebrun7023 There may of been some reason why they have not planned a station here, but as there are two stations between Birmingham / Crewe and London Euston, Birmingham Interchange and London Old Oak Common the powers to be more than likely thought it not necessary as one more station would of caused problems with the High Speed run on this line.
I could be talking out of my ass, but why does HS2 have to terminate in London? In Belgium we have highspeedlines that stop 10-20 kilometers from the citycenter and meet up with existing railways which are often cheaper to double in capacity, to me it seems like building an expensive tunnel underneath one of the most populated cities in europe is a huge cost that could be avoided... might be wrong though
HS2 is mostly about removing intercity trains from congested approaches to major cities to increase capacity and reliability of both the intercity service, and the 'classic' lines. Dumping trains back on the lines 10-20km away from London for final approach is bypassing the bits that are slightly less congested only to snarl up the bits that are most congested. It undermines the whole purpose of the line.
Hm worlds most expensive train line, maybe, but the last big country in Europe to get a real high speed rail line internally, not just going from the capital to Europe, China has a vast internal high speed rail network, more kilometres and many more passengers than Europe. China is also building the Belt Road, at more than 10, more like 15 times the cost of HS2, Japans first magnetic levitation railway 500km/h will be completed before HS2. India will be electrifying ALL of it’s passenger and freight rail lines, Britain still has a lot of diesel electric trains, Taiwan, South Korea already have high speed rail lines. Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Russia, African and Middle Eastern countries are building high speed rail lines, No, this isn’t like the construction of the transcontinental railways in the US, Russia, Canada, Australia, the Panama, or Suez canals, the US interstate highway system. Before it’s completed it will be dwarfed by the renewable energy and liquid hydrogen aviation spends, then there’s the thousands of kilometres of driverless electric trains, buses and cars, into the tens of trillions of dollars in investment.
The mst expensive and with the highest regular running speeds which as everyone knows is less energy efficient for each marginal mph. Then, in order to "save money", they reduce tunnel bore sizes and consequentially SLOW those expensivelly engineered and accelerated trains down to the reduced tunnel line speeds, uhmmm?
If England spends a trillion pounds on transportation, passenger and freight, over the next decade spending 10% of that on it’s highest capacity long distance line, the most kilometres rode, at the highest capacity, seen that way, it begins to look more like a bargain, at 1/125th of the global $12.5 trillion pounds spent on transport in the next decade. If Britain wants to remain competitive, it should double that spending, going to Edinburg, Glasgow and Cardiff, Australian spending on rail, is about this, with a third of the population, or 3 times HS2, per capita (Capital city Metro, intercity, interstate.)
Interesting to note that a report by The Adam Smith Institute reckons that the HS2 project costs would fund at least 25 much needed public transport links in england alone. They also state that the project will return 78p in the Pound. Considering that Wales needs less than 75 miles of track - most shovel ready - to have a north south rail route totally within Wales. Plus Scotland needs about 60mile of route reinstated to link Edinburgh to Carlisle via the Borders Railway. The other fact is that to power a high speed train from 125 to 220 requires 90% more energy, hardly a green alternative.
I thought one major rationale for HS2 was freeing up train paths for more local services everywhere, especially in to Birmingham. The focus on travel times to/from London is misleading. (See the video below, I would be interested to hear your thoughts) I thought they should have jumped ahead to 500kph Maglev with the UK Ultraspeed proposal. The unexplained blow out in costs is ridiculous. Is that just the rolling stock? The historical standard in Australia is for large infrastructure projects to double from their original estimate. Should we build HS2 or Re-open old Railway lines? ua-cam.com/video/Nf5avCUNP0M/v-deo.html FWIW: I know the British have weird pronunciations of proper nouns but surely it’s “all-stom”?
Driverless cars are gonna destroy this anyway when it's completed and the 100 plus wildlife sites gone forever! Country debt well beyond 2 trillion and this isn't the sort of investment we need! Maglev more expensive but so fast will always attract passengers
The cost of HS2 should only include the cost of civils environment etc. New Stations should be under a separate cost, eg. Birmingham international and the terminus while the rolling stock should be included in a separate cost since they will be required in any case.
Just want to make a point on capacity.. yes we are running at capacity.. but when you look at the Shinkansen, I have been on those trains.. they are running trains that are 17 cars long in single and double decker forms that run up and down the the islands. Same situation with the TGV. and Eurostar. Virgin had a maximum of 10. cross country run 4 car sets. If we ran 17 car trains up and down the country north to south.. we would not need HS2 or it would certainly help out. I think HS2 is a good idea. But we should upgrade or build next to existing. If the are planning tunnels under ground.. the should do under Warwickshire to.. so many beautiful woods they are destroying with this.. it’s such a shame. Even the old dr Beaching lines then could look up and re use those routes. We don’t need virgin (Avanti), cross country, London midland, as well as HS2, linking London to Birmingham. Cut back some of those services.. or give them longer trains that are 17 cars long then see. Now a service running HS2 Scotland to France via the U.K.. serving the north, Midlands and London.. that makes better sense. You could have multiple trains serving different parts off that. That’s fine like the Shinkansen dose. And I agree a service east west (livepool to Grimsby or New castle for example with stops in Yorkshire) that makes sense. But what we are doing now just dose not make sense.. it only helps MPs on the campaign run if you ask me.. Boris would love getting to his next stop early so he could have a pint before the convention. We need HS2 3 and 4 agreed.. we need to invest in the rail as ours are dated and old but there are cheaper ways to get HS2 done. And make better use of the train stock we have. All it needs is a few carriage orders from the manufacturers. Oh wait.. what am I thinking this is the British government.. that’s to easy.. and simple.. can’t do a I turn or rip people off on that idea, my bad.. 😆 Yeah ok let’s waste the tax payers money then like the wigwam that was the millennium dome saved by O2 That’s my view anyway.. Great video by the way.. 👍😊
Capacity in terms of seats isn't the only factor here, number and frequency of services matters too. A 2 car train running every 30 minutes is far better than an 8 car train running every 2 hours, and with increased frequency you can still increase train length as required where platform length allows.
Longer trains require longer stations. Birmingham New St is one of the most congested & is blocked in at both ends by Birmingham so there is nowhere it can be extended to. Extending stations is also very slow & disruptive. Many parts of the existing line cannot be widened (the 6 track section in London.) & other parts of it would cause huge disruption for a relatively small increase in capacity & we would still be left with a railway which twists its way around things. All these ideas have been investigated & eliminated.
yes there was cheaper ways to get HS2 done how ever some tea drinking tunnel dwellers decided that money should not be an issue when it comes to the environment and when adjustments where made to make the least amount of impact to the environment as possible the same people then complained the project is now costing more to accommodate the changes that they demanded. Also HS2 has been on the table since the days HS1 was being constructed that was always the plan our lines are so out dated it has come to the point where it is no longer fit for purpose even with upgrades they are just to old you might as well set up a new major transport link that has 75% more capacity than the current one and once that is operational and has relieved the strain on the old network you can then comfortably do any works to the old lines and it will not have any catastrophic effects on the service through out the UK. Also if you want better transport in Scotland then you need to ask Nicola as transportation for Scotland was devolved to the Scottish government since 2006.
The trains that will run on HS2 are planed to be 14 to 16 coaches long, plus due to the Victorian design of the existing rail network you can only fit a maximum of 13 coach trains into most stations on any line, as to operation of train services on HS2 when HS2 is opened between Birmingham Curzon Street and London Euston it is going to be operated by the current West Coast train operator which at the moment is Avanti West Coast owned jointly by First Trains and Trans Italia who operate the Birmingham to London service from Birmingham New Street to London Euston, so on opening of HS2 trains from Birmingham to London 95% of them will be transferred to HS2, leaving just LNWR and a few Pendelino services from Birmingham New Street to London Euston.
Alstom, not Aslom, and Siemens, not Siemans. Nevertheless, thanks for the video. I hope in 2030, there will be no passport needed between the EU and the UK!
Not really no. According to a report by Network Rail to achieve something resembling HS2's benefits you'd need to upgrade 3 active mainlines which would involve a lot more urban and habitat demolition, station rebuilds all along the routes, bridge/tunnel/embankment reconstructions and shutting down the rail network every weekend for 15 years. Even then you still wouldn't get the same capacity release or reduction in journey times.
do you know how much delays, cancellations and disruptions upgrades have caused around London Huston for years and the increased capacity it created has already been reached also these lines have to remain operational while upgrades are applied this will take so long you might as well just build a new and dedicated passenger line. Take HS1 for example, before HS1 was open getting a train in and out of london between 6am to 9am and 3pm to 7pm was a nightmare and some times you where standing for 2 - 3 hours even on the semi fast services but when the HS1 trains came in local routs became much, much less congested and even if the HS1 train is full the longest I have had to wait to get a seat is about 30min
@@patrikricci8423 Why wont the present plan never happen with HS2, I think you need to come to the Birmingham area and see the construction work going on.
The West Coast Mainline between London and Birmingham, which is the primary line that HS2 is relieving, opened over 180 years ago. Trains couldn't do 60mph, let alone the 125mph (201km/h) they operate on the line today with relatively minor alignment modifications. Trains today in Europe operate at up to 320km/h (China runs 350km/h trains, but we'll ignore China here and stick with countries with similar regulatory regimes and political constraints as the UK) and that's mostly limited by the tracks rather than the train technology. 400km/h line design speed on a line that will almost certainly be running in 2121 (when it is still only half the age that the WCML will be on HS2 opening) is really not shooting for the moon when it comes to future proofing. HS2's 360km/h initial train order is 12.5% faster than currently operate the other side of the Channel (and 80% faster than the trains on the WCML), but within current technology. The difference between building the line for 400km/h vs building it for 300km/h (like HS1) is relatively small and the 20% faster speed that 360km/h service provides negates the extra infrastructure costs of 400km/h design speed in the medium term due to needing less rolling stock and train staff to run the same frequency. Plus there's more benefits with faster trains.
@@sihollett The WCML has managed to cope with huge increases in recent years & can't take much more. We can't move local trains off because they serve the many towns which exist on the route. Freight services can exist with these. There is not enough room to build lines next o the existing ones. Trains have already been lengthened. Lengthening trains requires lengthening stations further is hugely disruptive & many stations (Birmingham New St is the best & busiest example) is hemmed in so can't be expanded anyway....& just how far could someone walk to the end of a train? Some are already 300 yards long. The remaining answer is to build a new line to serve the major cities, so you may as well build it to modern standards which allow higher speeds.
@@TheRip72 a very good laying out of the case for HS2, but not much to do with the "why so fast" element of it that this topic is talking about. But, given we're building a brand new alignment for the reasons you lay out so well, why feel constrained by current train speeds when designing the alignment.
@@TheRip72 so basically look what HS1 has done to Kent all the people working/traveling to and from London now take the highspeed express service and now all local trains are back to a reasonable capacity i.e. you get a seat, you get a seat and you get a seat everybody gets a seat (a bit of an Oprah joke there :D )
Great video - Happy new year to you and your family! Watching this I can already feel that we in the East Midlands are going to be completely shafted... Not that the Toton station was a great idea anyway.
@@mastertrams I would improve the MML, electrify the whole thing, add additional lines. Get rid of EM Parkway and build a dedicated Airport station, taking busses off the road.
@@ChristopherDavidGreen But would this deliver the benefits that HS2 delivers to areas outside the EM? HS2 isn't a local project, it's a national project. You can't scrap the entire thing if it doesn't suit one area (unless said area is a politician's back garden), and besides, Midland's Connect is doing a lot of what you just suggested, such as building a dedicated airport station (admittedly as part of its phase 3 though...). And Midland's Connect is working in tandem with HS2.
@@mastertrams I'm all for HS2, don't get me wrong! I just think the stretch for the East heading up to Leeds is unnecessary and could be integrated within the current line 😀
@@ChristopherDavidGreen But the East Midlands is historically and still the least connected region of the entire country when it comes to public transport... And Leeds is at capacity... The line is severely needed to relieve Leeds station and to improve connectivity in the EM. HS2 has never been designed to carry local traffic, so repurpose the MML to carry purely local traffic.
@@dorikaroxby783 Ever tried to ride on trains in the West Midlands in Peak time, why is Manchester and the North so special. You lot do not understand the reason for HS2, it is to initially relieve the Rail Network around the West Midlands / Birmingham area of main Inter City Trains to London so freeing up the normal Rail network in our area for other services and so freeing up the West Coast and East Coast Main Line. We need better train services in the West Midlands as much as the North, if you want your local Train services sorted I suggest you contact your MP or the Mayor of the Greater Manchester Metro Council and not whinge on about HS2 they are two different entities.
It isn't the most expensive. Foreign exchange rates plus the fact that HS2 is rare, in that it is going to go at full pelt right into he heart of destinations. Most other high speed lines in the world (apart from Japan, Spain and China) join existing lines into the stations. HS2 will be faster and have high speed track on all sections. Also there are much more environmental costs going into this with remedial plans and tunnels to avoid some areas. The headline times from London Old Oak to Birmingham is just 36 minutes I believe! - astonishing stuff. Manchester just 58 minutes!
The great deception was that it costs just a teeny weeny bit more to build, equip and operate a 300 kph railway than a 200 kph one. Global status is irrelevant. Most UK journeys are not long enough to benefit from running at much more than 200 kph. Now the cost will be 20 projects the size of the East-West link. The capacity increase could have been achieved by reinstating the track on the GC and associated lines. The key to short door-to-door journey times is frequent and affordable walk-on services at good speeds.
@@david65219 HS2 follows much the same route as the GCML, which could have been reinstated as a 125 mph railway. The GCML duplicates the WCML from Rugby to London (there used to be a bridge over the WCML), making three routes between London and Birmingham. Enlarging Marylebone and increasing capacity towards Rickmansworth and Aylesbury would have been less expensive and avoided the long tunnels under the Chilterns, since the environmental impact of 4-tracking the section from Rickmansworth to Aylesbury would have been acceptable. After that the line could have continued on the old alignment with an interchange station at Calvert on the new Oxford-Cambridge route. Nice connectivity, which is just what is needed and which HS2 will not give, and the money left over could have been used to electrify Oxford-Cambridge from the start. Have a look at the system map as it was in 1960. I get the impression that planners don't look at old maps any more.
@@physiocrat7143 The GCML isn't a route to Birmingham, services would still need to join the section of the WCML from Rugby to Birmingham which is where much of the congestion HS2 relieves is. There would be no appreciable capacity relief to either the WCML nor the ECML. Plus by the time you've created a new alignment for the GCML that avoids sections now built on, sections that are now nature reserves and removed the sharp curves on what is by modern standards a slow alignment you may as well have built a new line that actually goes to Birmingham and Manchester with a route from Birmingham to the East Midlands and Yorkshire. Also Marylebone is wholly unsuitable for a major capital terminus of the scale required, it doesn't have the connectivity of Euston nor the proximity to St Pancras and Kings Cross. Nor does it have a direct connection to the GWML and the Elizabeth Line that Old Oak Common will have aside from an OSI with Paddington.
@@david65219 Did you look at the system map as it was in 1960? The GC was a spine with cross connections providing many alternative routes. Marylebone to Birmingham was possible via the Banbury connection. The congested section through Coventry needs to be four-tracked - or alternatively, local journeys might be served by light rail. This will still be needed after HS2 is finished. Marylebone could easily be doubled in size, though of course the approach routes would eventually need to be upgraded, possibly by removing the local services to a new underground line to release paths on the surface tracks on the Chiltern/Metropolitan alignment. It is on the Bakerloo and as close as Euston is to the Metropolitan line. A westward connection from HS2 is not necessary as passengers would not be travelling through London anyway. The discussion is academic now as the project is so far advanced. It was not a good value for money project, it will take too long to realise the benefits and there would have been other ways of achieving the objectives. It will end up with a European gauge route over which most of the trains will be constrained to fit the UK loading gauge, plus a fleet of dedicated trains which cannot run anywhere else on the UK system. Unless trains are affordably walk-on, it will not even be a time saver for most people. The way to get people out of their cars is to offer frequent affordable turn up and go services; cheap advance bookings do not achieve this, and effectively result in extended journey times due to the need to allow so much time for delays in getting to the start of your journey. It is yet another example of the way in which infrastructure investment is distorted by politicians who favour big and prestigious schemes rather than incremental improvements. We (I am in Gothenburg) currently have the whole city in chaos because of the politically inspired and useless Västlänk project. Before that there was the Hallandsås tunnel fiasco. You can read all about them elsewhere.
@@physiocrat7143 I am sorry to correct you but HS2 does not follow the same route as the GCML, firstly the old great Central route goes no where near Birmingham or Old Oak Common and the cost of rebuilding that would be more than building a new railway.
@@adrianincroydon71 the point is to allow congestion everywhere to improve as Mancunians don’t have to be stuck in packed London streets and Londoners have less people on our streets because of the fewer Mancunians. Win win. You’re idea is just stupid. London requires connection and capacity in the future too and bypassing it makes zero sense
@@JacobOhlssonBudinger I wouldn't phrase it quite like that, but certainly the demand for London means that routing long-distance trains around it is silly. London can fill about 9 times more trains to the Continent than the North, and about 30-40 times more trains to the North than the Continent. Airport travel is trivial for demand on HS2 - modelling for the Heathrow spur worked out that there's about 1 train load of passengers from the North to Heathrow per day - vs about 160 to London.
Where to start? The concept of HS2 is so flawed in a multitude of ways. The proposed speed has already been reduced, but expect it to be further reduced when reality sets in. The need is no longer there. It will take at least a decade to get numbers back up and even then with more wfh it may never quite get there. Why have a separate terminus in Birmingham, that makes no sense. This is unquestionably a vanity project. Better to spend money on improving what we have and, in particular, on massive electrification in order to meet climate change goals.
What do you mean the need is no longer there? Even if numbers come back in a decade, that still means that in 2030 lines will run at capacity. Why do you think prices have been skyrocketing this decade? Also your critique at a new Birmingham station is ridiculous, New street is at capacity right now.
Firstly the need for HS2 and commuting between Birmingham and London is there as Firms are now telling their employees that as the Pandemic recedes the days of working from home are over and they are telling them that they want them back working in the office, plus a lot of people say they want to get back to office based working and friendship. Well in Birmingham at the moment there are already 3 other Stations, Birmingham New Street, Birmingham Snow Hill and Birmingham Moor Street, Snow Hill and Moor Street services to London Marylebone are Diesel operated taking around 2 hours, the Intercity service from New Street to London is constricted by the availability of a Victorian 2 track line from New Street to Rugby carrying 5 passenger operators and numerous freight services with a max speed of between 90 MPH and 100 MPH, so these new High speed trains will require a new line to run on and a new station, hence Birmingham Curzon Street.
The line it is there to support (WCML - London-Birmingham, the NW & Glasgow) is overloaded, as are the M1 & M6. You can't re-route local trains because they serve the intermediate towns. Freight works sort of ok with slower, local trains but combining either of these with the (faster) city to city services is a problem. The latter can be moved away, which is exactly the point of HS2.
Thats not true at all. The point is that removing high speed services from the mainlines to put them on their own tracks is so rural and suburban services can operate with more frequency and reliability. Unless you live miles away from a rail line up in the highlands with the goats you benefit massively from HS2.
@@DaveJNoel by that do you mean Londoners?? I don’t understand what you’re saying. I’m not 18 yet and thus don’t pay tax but even if I didn’t live near it I still would like it to happen. I mean it’s hardly like they’re taking 100 billion out of your own pocket and they aren’t increasing tax for it so you’re not at all out of pocket.
Well the London Heathrow Airport doesn't benefit Birmingham, but we still in the long run pay for it. there will always be a moaner, we all have to pay for something we dont use.
Timestamps
Overview: 00:00
Map of HS2: 00:55
Comparison to other countries: 02:20
Costs to other UK Projects: 03:43
Phase 1: 05:09
Phase 2: 09:20
The Trains: 10:44
Great balanced video. I'm getting tired of other videos with bias only for or only against the project, so this is some relief.
Ultimately, the project is absolutely needed for capacity reasons. In fact, I'd personally say it doesn't even go far enough and its network should extend even further. On the other hand, the prices are getting astronomical and definitely need to be controlled better.
Loving your videos, keep them coming!
A shame about the click-bait title, given that HS2 costs less per mile than:
the Forth Bridge;
the Channel Tunnel;
Chūō Shinkansen;
Crossrail;
the Severn Tunnel;
Manchester Metrolink 2CC; and
the Lötschberg Base Tunnel
(to name a few)...
Hi gareth! Ur the best! :)
Trains are running at more than capacity at the moment especially in the north they are a nightmare and the north desperately needs phase 2 and HS3
Why the North can't build phase 2 themselves now, I have no clue....
@@mattevans4377 again its money but it has been approved now so all good
The great western mainline is quite good but I think we will need a hiGh speed upgrade soon aswell.
@@OnTheRailwayOfficial also with a high speed line, all the express trains that run at 125mph can use hs2 as well because they can have a clearer track build for modern capacity. After hs2, we need to use London like a central hub like France does with Paris. The biggest downside is that knowing the uk, we won’t look after it, it will slowly become unusable because of bad treatment and the costs of using this new train will be more expensive than driving.
I don't believe that's the case.
Is it unsurprising that 300 miles of new top-of-the-line railway designed to last at least 100 years costs a lot more than much shorter schemes?
The Lower Thames Crossing costs more per mile (about 400-500 million, rather than ~300 million) and destroys more ancient woodland than the whole of HS2 despite being about 5% of the length!
Thank you!!!! The people who claim to be pro-eco are thrashing on an electric rail project that is promising to spend billions on a green corridor, tunnels, cuttings, and viaducts to reduce its impact, despite the alternative being motorways that are far worse for the environment to build, in addition to the emmitting cars and lorries that use it. I thought i was the only voice of reason.
It needs scrapping, waste of money.....we need to bring commuter links in SE up to 100mph. In the north, they mainly travel by car so there is no case for train travel in the north. Increase coach routes and invest in green air travel. That's what the u.k. really wants.
@@JacobOhlssonBudinger motorways are the way forward.....we could easily enlarge these to 12 lanes and it would have little to no impact on the environment. Absolutely agreed with you!
@@nickmagee-brown739 are you from the 60s. Motorways are not the way forward. The fact that you want to enlarge them as a solution to upping capacity on them goes to show how little you know about transportation planning. Google “induced demand” for more. For a green future we need to keep longer distance travel to a minimum with as much walking and biking as possible. Where you do have to go longer distance, we need public transportation for a more energy efficient and environmentally friendly way of travel.
You also said that there isn’t a case for rail travel in the north, but there is as people do use the trains in the north of England. It’s just a shite network there at the moment so it’s not being utilised to it’s full potential. More electrification, investment, and HS3 will hopefully solve this and give the north a railway to once again be proud of.
You basically have no idea what you’re talking about
One of my favourite channels at the moment! Great Video.
Woah, woah, woah! Did I just hear Ashley Rabot say there is no need for extra capacity right now???? Explain the high fare prices then! This country's network is fast approaching its maximum capacity, and a line like HS2 is sorely needed to take the fast trains off the conventional network, such that we can run more local and commuter services, not to mention freight services.
Right now - in the gap between Christmas and New Year and with the entire country under strict Covid restrictions, yes there's zero need for extra capacity as almost no one is travelling. ;)
In 2009 they reckoned on a rough 2025 opening of phase 1, and it really being needed by then. Growth in traffic in the decade afterwards has been higher than predicted, and the opening delayed a further ~5 years. Of course, HS2 will still be half-empty when opened because this is seriously long term planning of a sort not seen for about 100 years - building a line designed to last a century or more without needing something to relieve it (unlike Crossrail - which is a sticking plaster that will need relief after a decade or two, just like the JLE needs Crossrail).
@@sihollett Ok. But ignoring COVID, the network still is at capacity, and likely story is that fares will continue to get higher simply because demand for railways is higher than the railway's capacity once COVID is over...
Whenever that is...
Well technically coronavirus has relieved capacity, I think there's no need AT THIS VERY MOMENT
@@n1thmusic229 And I'm thinking in the year or two ahead of us as being now.
@@mastertrams I take it you ignored my wink pointing out that it was a sarcastic comment, and my second paragraph pointing out that growth in intercity rail travel has actually been faster than predicted.
Up over here in Sweden we're in a similar position. Existing lines as at capacity, a new line connecting the major cities is needed. Given that removing the express passenger services from the legacy lines will be the most effective way to increase capacity and that going for full-on HSR will pretty much kill off domestic air travel in southern Sweden, HSR is clearly what we need. It is planned to be built, but not really committed to as full HSR (yet). We're not into the same costs as HS2 per km, but then we're far less densely populated and also: our plans end outside the major cities :( Adding the rails needed for capacity into Stockholm will be effing expensive - but worth it.
HS2? Go, go, go!
HSR in Sweden? Go full HSR asap. If we delay more: dare to go maglev.
The (Alstom) Italo AGVs only run in service at 300km/h, albeit they have a design speed of 360km/h. The Frecciarossa 1000s (Hitachi Zefiro) have a design speed of 400km/h, but again only run at 300km/h. Also I haven't scanned all the comments but I'm sure something has pointed out the Southeastern Javelins run faster than 125mph... Happy new year Ashley!
Great video really enjoyed and found it informative. The only thing I wish was considered as a change for the HS2 project is if they build and extra station to connect with East west rail that way many more people would be able to use HS2 with out having to go into London.
I think that's a brilliant idea that I haven't ever come across. The two lines would intersect a km north of Calvert. You can see where on satellite view, as there is east west rail but also what appears to be a former railway alignment that is being used for HS2. It would help connect those who will be affected by east-west rail to the network. The only problem, funnily enough, is capacity, but maybe 1 or 2 HS2 trains could stop there, and then passengers from east-west rail could transfer to other cities through Birmingham Interchange.
Talgo is planning to build a new train factory on an old power station in Fife, Scotland so they must be pretty serious about rail infrastructure in the UK and Hs2!
Lots more UK trains go 125. And, the fastest service in the UK is the javelin run by southeastern, at a max speed of 140 mph. HS2 is planned to run at 250 mph, not just 225.
What About The Eurostar?
125 mph Is a perfect speed. The whole country wants it scrapped and for investment to be put into commuter routes into the southeast, the heart of the economy, no one uses trains for long distance and even Europe has scrapped high speed trains. It's time to scrap HS2 and focus on improving the links in SE England. Written on behalf of all of the U.K. We all support my argument.
@@nickmagee-brown739 And do what with the tunnels already under construction? Make all the people they've employed redundant?
@@10reubenl they have barely started....but simply stop, backfill and recreate the beauty of nature in probably the most picturesque part of England. We don't need a new railway, well not going all the way outside London's commuter belt. But Kent and Sussex, Berkshire and Surrey desperately need upgrading.
@@nickmagee-brown739 That's just not true. People do use trains for long distance (the existing intercity lines are running at max capacity, which is part of the reason why we need HS2) and no European countries are getting rid of their high speed rail networks. France, Germany, Spain and Italy all have large high-speed rail networks that are still growing to this day. HS2 will help us to fulfill our carbon commitments, reduce regional inequality and bring us in line with the rest of Europe (which contrary to your claims, has NOT scrapped any of its high speed rail).
I regularly use the southeastern highspeed service to go to work and it's max speed is 140mph on the HS1 line so it's slightly inaccurate to say our current fastest domestic trains go 125mph
I stand corrected!
@@ashleyrabot The Class 395 Javelin's max speed is 230 kph (140 mph) but the Eurostar's top out at 300 kph (186 mph), even on the UK branch according to HighSpeed 1's website (highspeed1.co.uk/about-us).
@@zork999 Class 91's max speed is 140mph and they are so old they are being phased out
Awesome video, great explanations and visuals, I see you spent a lot of time doing thetn! Hope your channel grows big, I can see it happen 🙂
Southeastern high speed (class 395) operate at up to 140miles/hour on HS1
But it’s still as expensive to use.
They're still only scheduled to 125mph(200km/h) with 140mph(225km/h) only ever used to catch up with delays. the Eurostar e320 however does 186mph(300km/h) on HS1
@@jack_elliott So it doesn't reach it's maximum speed - 320km/h - on HS1?
@@robincoleman1350 class 395's yes, they only hit 140 to catch up
@@jack_elliott I meant the Eurostar e320s.
The route is only able to run at 225-250mph (360-400 kph). It should have been designed and built to allow higher speeds, as it is much more expensive to upgrade later. The TGV has reached speeds of 357mph (575kph) and the bullet train 372mph (600kph). The Links to Heathrow and Gatwick and HS1 should be included. If you have ever used Schipol airport for example, the train station is under the concourse.
For additional future proofing the Corridor should be wider to allow stopping services on completely separate lines.
The TGV was a test run and the Japanese is a maglev train that’s expected by experts to be a massive failure
This is 50 years over due.
Very disappointed that someone claiming to be a railway expert has failed to do enough research and put out a click-bait video. You are suggesting this is only to help high speed passengers in 30 years time, instead of explaining that this is about separation of services that would help commuters that already have overcrowding problems in the rush hour.
The entire point of the fork design, is that HS2 is supposed to take express trains (InterCity trains) away from three existing mainlines. That is not just so that more freight can run on the existing mainlines. It is so that the massive gaps required for our current "fast - slow - fast - slow" service patterns on mainlines can be got rid of and those mainlines can run "slow - slow - slow - slow - slow - slow" services that do not catch each other up, and can therefore run much closer together. (In other words we can have many more trains for commuters.)
This means that commuter services would be able to have service patterns much closer to the sort of service patterns that places in and around London get. So it's a game changer for workers on those mainlines.
The new station at Birmingham Curzon Street, will pull InterCity trains out of Birmingham New Street and create lots of empty slots that allow extra trains, from places far away from the HS2 route (like Wales).
The unlocking of existing mainlines is hoped to reduce car dependency, so that people have the choice to avoid driving to work and can switch to using commuter trains. This would:
1) Reduce car pollution along the mainlines that HS2 bypasses and along lines into places like Birmingham New Street that have train bottleneck issues solved and
2) Reduce traffic jams for those people who choose to continue to drive.
The ability to put more freight on the existing mainlines would also reduce traffic jams on various roads and motorways.
Motor vehicles create pollution that causes lung problems and climate change. And traffic jams lead to motor vehicles chugging out pollution without moving around effectively. So any sort of modal shift from car use or lorry use to railway use will reduce early deaths and reduce climate change damage (as well as making things a bit nicer for people who continue to drive).
As for the speed of HS2, that's more about capacity than "getting people to Birmingham a bit faster".
If you have a railway journey that takes 4 hours, the train can do 3 trips in 12 hours.
Drop that journey time by an hour and a train can make that 3 hour trip 4 times in 12 hours.
In other words, you can get an entire extra trainload of passengers every 12 hours if you speed up that railway journey from 4 hours to 3 hours. So more passengers without more trains.
This is the entire reason why they are building one new project (instead of doing multiple track widening schemes.
The Y-shape of HS2 and the concentration of InterCity trains into one high speed project means that longer and faster trains replace the need to expand different mainlines. Instead HS2 hands those mainlines back to local people.
If you look at the proposed service patterns of express and stopping services, you can clearly see that there are going to be more trains on HS2 (because of the speed boost and the lack of stopping services that create gaps) but the stopping services on the lines that HS2 is going to free up are getting much bigger service improvements (potentially all the way up to one train every 5 minutes if demand for commuter trains goes that high).
The one other area where speed might be important, is that we have too many people making domestic flights in the UK (at least we did before Covid hit and we will again after Covid goes away). People going on holiday around the UK by plane cause tons of pollution to be spewed into our skies and that's more healthcare problems, more of a contribution to climate change and something we really need to cut down on.
If we can persuade some people who currently fly from England to Scotland to take high speed trains instead, we can get rid of dirty aircraft and clean up our air.
The NIC report is a very bad thing as they are ignoring the fact that Phase 2 is linking the Birmingham section of HS2 to another mainline and suggesting to the government that they might want to remove that connection. Removing the connection to the ECML would remove the ability to bypass that line and bring the capacity unlocking benefits of HS2 to the Eastern side of England.
If HS2 Phase 2 is not built, the ECML will continue to get more and more overcrowded and our country will be forced to either do Phase 2 or something else anyway. But we have a solution for capacity problems ready to go. The NIC should have been recommending that HS2 Phase 2 was accelerated or that HS2 Phase 3 was pushed forward, so that the high speed bypass could be extended to Scotland (or at least closer to Scotland) so that we would have the ability to hand even more mainlines back to local people.
We are at risk of hobbling HS2. Instead of levelling up the UK, we could end up creating a lop-sided chopped down HS2 that focuses the commuting advantages around Birmingham. It's very important that HS2 is pushed further North and it's very important that we have various local metro projects that seize on the capacity that HS2 unlocks and that can be used to radically reduce car usage in our cities. If we just fix the issues in Birmingham and ignore the North, that's not fair to Northerners. And it's not fair to people on the East coast. And it's not fair to people in Wales or Scotland who need their own capacity relief schemes , that can tie into HS2, to be starting as soon as possible.
Your video badly misses the mark, Ashley. You can do better than this. Please go watch the videos on the HS2 channel, and go look up the various articles that talk about capacity relief on commuter services, modal shift from cars and planes to electric trains (which can run on zero carbon electricity, if we improve our power generation) and make a new video that showcases what HS2 is actually supposed to be about.
David, good riposte. Not to mention that rail travel saves lives. About 1,500 people die on UK roads every year. That exceeds the murder statistics but gets much less publicity. Also roads have been an absolute planning disaster, anything we can do to mitigate and eventually, hopefully reduce and eliminate the millions of acres of land that roads require will be brilliant.
why do you need to complain if you already know anything?
Why didn't you made your own vid
I didnt read all of that but the adjusting from fast-slow getting in eachothers way on the main intercity lines made sense
+1
I love your vids mate. Very informative and well presented. Also graphics make it look like a channel with many more subscriptions than you have. You will get there.
I just found this channel and it's very informative. Keep up the great work, loving the videos
Well balanced video. Im at present on a canal boat. Canals opposed at the time - messing up the environment and knocking down houses of loads of people who are now dead. Drove the Industrial Revolution. Can't think of ANY large civil engineering projects we now regret?
Deserve way more subs, keep it up mate
AGV in Itally only runs at 300 km/h or so, but here I´m guessing its the infrastructure that limits the train.
But the AGV can go much faster than 360, the top speed in its test run was 574kmh the fastest of any wheeled train EVER
@@n1thmusic229 It was actually the TGV that hit this speed. Though the train set used was modified for this world record run
@@emmanueloke667 So how fast did the AGV end up reaching
@@n1thmusic229 Well the max speed reached by an AGV itself is 360km/h. However I do stand corrected, as the TGV duplex that hit 574km/h was fitted with extra AGV traction motors
@@emmanueloke667 yeah but as one guy above our comments said trains don't always run at their maximum speed
If any one wants to follow the HS2 route from Birmingham Curzon Street o London Euston, there are a load of fantastic videos on you tube produced by HS2 ltd that show and explain everything about HS2 phase 1.
Time for an update of your costs slide, or the addition of a value slide, with cost per km being a far more useful metric.
I really hope they pick the Bombardier and Hitachi high speed train it looks absolutely stunning from the exterior at least. The Alstom also looks amazing!
Enjoyable video, thank you. I liked your dig at the lack of imagination in naming a station "Interchange". I could confuse it with Bradford Interchange. In Scotland we have new-ish stations called Edinburgh Park and Edinburgh Gateway which are so bland and meaningless, I have trouble remembering which is which. Edinburgh Park is actually at Hermiston Gait, which would have been a much more descriptive name, as most people know where that is. At least HS2 brings back the old historical name of Birmigham Curzon Street.
Mate don't start us. Here in Australia EVERYTHING is named literally with no imagination. 9 Mile Creek, 20 Mile Beach, Great Sandy Desert, Melbourne Cricket Ground.
@@deplorabled1695 LOL Thanks for your comment. In my Atlas of the World I once discovered a place in the USA called Dismal Swamp, an address to die for! Never been there though. Here in Glasgow a lot of streets are named after slave trade millionaires. Names can be quite emotive. For the last few years in the UK there has been an epidemic of naming things "The Queen Elizabeth.....(Hospital, etc.)" as if they're trying to outnumber stuff named Victoria. As the saying goes - what's in a name?
We already know that HS2 will connect London with Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and The North of England and to Scotland via the West Coast Main Line and East Coast Main Line. And the possibility of HS3 that will be part of the Northern Powerhouse rail project. With London still waiting on Crossrail to be completed and plans to build Crossrail 2. And with more rail projects happening including electrification.
Our railways aren’t up to scratch than other countries that have better railways and faster trains including Germany, Japan, France and even the USA is also benefiting from having high speed rail links. Plus our roads are always as congested all the time with roadworks, queuing, accidents and so on. But as us Brits say “We are just British and we always will be British”.
Also why can’t the bot accounts and spammers go away. As they are everywhere on UA-cam. Can’t you block them.
Disappointed with the click bait title Ashley, “worlds most expensive railway” but you only looked at UK Infrastructure projects. The Japanese lines have been hugely expensive with the much more difficult terrain to go through than say in France where there’s a lot of open countryside.
Also should be looking at £/mile or some other comparable measure if you want to compare HS2 to say the Elizabeth line - total project costs don’t mean anything.
I personally think we should continue to invest in infrastructure in this country to provide capacity and support the country; the same cost concerns were said about the Jubilee line, Eurotunnel, HS1, Manchester terminal 2, Dartford Crossing and no doubt the Manchester Ship Canal and the M1 before that. No one suggests that we shouldn’t have built any of those projects now
Oh just shut up
Vast stretches of the UK mainline network is already at a standard that could theoretically support much higher 160mph+ speeds, the two issues that stop it from happening are network capacity and the signalling systems though. HS2 will undoubtedly help to address the former but even after HS2 is built the plans are not to run faster trains on the East and West Coast lines but instead to increase the number of stopping trains and freight. If money was put towards upgrading the two mainlines North of HS2 to allow both extra capacity and faster speeds (through increasing sections to four tracks, re-routing some sections allowing higher speed trains to bypass some local stations say) then we could have a network that we could be proud of. Of course that would mean a complete upgrade of the signalling systems to allow for faster trains on these lines and that would require money.
The problem with original lines is the signalling and infrastructure, to run these high speed trains you require a dedicated route as per HS1, France, China and Japan with no slow moving freight trains on them or tight bends, plus these trains to run at high speed do not use conventional colour light or semaphore signal, they use in cab signalling like on HS1 and in France and Spain, so basically you could not run these trains safely above 140 MPH on normal track which means when these trains come of a HS2 line to run from Crewe north wards they will have to reduce their speed from 235 MPH to 140 MPH.
@@peterwilliamallen1063 I think you both make good points but if the vision now, is that we need capacity increase, bearing in mind the price tag, why don't we upgrade the existing lines to accommodate double decker's at 140MPH
@@markdebrun7023 Oh Mark De Brun, I take it from your name you are not from the UK of if you are you do not know much about UK Railways, firstly the cost of rebuilding every Bridge, Tunnel, Viaduct and Station on the UK Railway network, up grading track work and it's formation, upgrading Signalling and either rewiring overhead cables or electrifying new sections of British Rail lines would be extortionate in cost, causing to upheaval, delays and cancellations along with destruction of houses and properties next to the lines and valuable country side, on a Victorian Railway System that in places has been upgraded a couple of times in the 1960's/70's and 80's, the cheapest way to do it other is to build a brand new Railway line from scratch, da dom I give you "HS2" the perfect new Railway, and no one has said it will have Double Deck trains as the UK does not need them.
2:36 That's slightly incorrect top UK domestic service is 140mph and 180mph on international services on HS1
Love your channel
"Birmingham Curzon Street - a newly, custom-built station" - that is the second of that name and basically site. Curzon Street was the original Birmingham station for the London and Birmingham Railway (and the Grand Junction Railway) in 1839. It lost favour when Birmingham New Street Station was built in 1854 because Curzon Street was too far from downtown Birmingham. It was finally torn down in 1966 except for the Grade I listed Entrance Building that still survives. Unfortunately, the decision was made not to include the original entrance building in the new station.
This country just knows how to finesse people hard
By the way, isn't it incredible that The Great Central Mainline (which was comparable in length to HS2), took just three years to build. HS2 will take at least 20
nowadays there’s a lot more shit in the way e.g houses and ‘historic’ woodlands
You would think that with today's tech that it would get built much quicker! But I suspect there is a lot of red tape to sort out with people moaning about houses getting knocked down and bat's in the trees, and huge tunnels getting built incase somebody spots a train and starts crying because they don't want to see it ruining the countryside, where as when they built the GCR, i get the impression they gave zero shits about any of that and just steam rollered it into existence
The only rolling stock they are going to use is Siemans.They are beautiful.
Sorry, no dissision has been made yet
It's easier for China to build high-speed rail because the government can be a bit more ruthless about taking land. Acquiring a right-of-way in built-up areas is one of several factors that has limited rail expansion in the US.
It is All-stom
@@Topboy53 It's Al Stom.
@@peterd788 I know but to help pronounciation
Good video mate.
It's 500 million pounds a year over 200 years, large parts of the current railway system were originally constructed 200 years ago, proves the longevity of railways.
I t can be guaranteed that nobody will be flying or driving in 50 years.
The normal go for the UK would be to build half of it, then decide that it's too expensive, and leave an costly piece of railway that doesn't provide any significant benefit because it connects to slower lines rather than reaching city centres.
city centres are not all that matters
@@ruijackson7697 From an economics point of view, they are.
@@sylviaelse5086 From an economic point of view- no they are not. There is more to an economy than total GDP figures. Otherwise we might as well get rid of everything that doesn't improve GDP.
From an "economic" point of view. Slavery is extremely beneficial. So your "economic point of view" is pointless.
Every construction project in Britain overruns both in cost and in time (the two are connected).
That's why there's so little transportation development which can't keep up with an expanding population that's well out of control in a country that's too small.
And this expanding poplulation relates only to about half the size of the nation - the other half being unsuitable due to geographical remoteness, lack of industry, and services, difficult mountainous terrain and unfavourable climate.
The best hope of any new transportation project is to renovate old freight lines -
any new lines being almost impossible to build while you have countless thousands of buildings obstructing the way.
Very informative vid ..
The Golbourne Link, the HS2 link to the WCML to Scotland has been dropped. Expect HS2 north Crewe to be 100% dropped.
*No need for HS2 north of Crewe.*
Currently, the HS2 plan links to the WCML south of Crewe, as the Golborne Link has been dropped. HS2 then running north is completely separate as far as just Manchester. For a few miles from Crewe north to Minshull Vernon HS2 parallels the WCML, being six tracks wide.
Hendry, head of Network Rail, wants the WCML upgraded from Crewe to Preston. From Crewe to Weaver Junction where trains split to Liverpool and Scotland, the 2-track WCML there could be 4-track with two tracks being for HS2 classic compatible trains to Liverpool and Scotland - but having these tracks still on the WCML, not HS2. The Crewe North HS2 to WCML junction could remain, allowing Liverpool and Lancaster trains to access Crewe station as already planned under the Crewe Hub scheme.
Non-stop trains would be at full HS2 linespeed of 360kph (223 mph) on the new WCML tracks dedicated to HS2 classic compatible services, with no existing restriction to such speeds. This way, Liverpool and Scotland get ‘fast’ services with Runcorn retaining its London service. Journey times would be similar to HS2 times. All just by making 16 miles of new WCML track 223mph.
Manchester already has a dedicated line to Crewe. Upgrade this and near equal HS2 times are achieved.
HS2 phase 2b will cost £32 billion and rising. Most of that is for the western leg which *only runs to Manchester.* This is an obscene amount of money serving only one provincial city. Upgrading the WCML north of Crewe, and the Liverpool WCML spur and Manchester WCML spur, can be done for a fraction of the cost of HS2 without needlessly tearing up countryside.
Nice video
Why is HS3(High Speed 3) being constructed
HS3 isn't being constructed
I was going to the NEC from London once and our train took almost 3 hours on a Pendolino was not impressed and that was about 10 years ago so yes these new tracks and trains are defiantly needed and I don't know why the eco worriers are getting pissy its because of them the price has been hiked up with more tunnels needed to keep them some what happy it dramatically increased the price.
“There is hope! There is hope, right? ... “ burn!!
Ooooh y'all better get a handle on that price.... because the California High Speed Rail got shut down because costs got too high.
CHSR is still being built
Wonder how much of this staggering sum is going just for few bosses who will stash the cash in overseas accounts and how much for real project?
Yes it is a good idea getting new trains and system but the more important is to cut the train price down because if you keep putting the price up no one in this country will afford going on the trains only ones will do that high class who are very rich and the normal people wouldnt
Greetings from Al Stom.
Taking inflation into account it will be no re expensive than many transport projects already built.
It’s ridiculous how long it takes them to build this
Fascinating and thanks for the charts and maps. Two things: Why this obsession with speed and the poor connectivity with the existing network.
Speed: The difference in journey time between say 150 mph 240 kph and the planned speeds must be fairly marginal - about 12 minutes over 170 kilometres - yet costs (energy and wear and tear) increase exponentially as speeds increase. So if they want to save money then one option would be reduce the speed.
Connectivity: Building terminal stations seems the height of insanity. When an HS2 train arrives at Curzon Street passenger wishing to go to say Wolverhampton or Shrewsbury will have to change trains and that involves a walk between Curzon St and New St. Leeds is a little better but HS2 trains will not be able to run on to say York, hence the need for an expensive link to the ECML. Building the stations away from a city centres and away from existing railway nodes - as at Toton seems daft. Are the planners really thinking that someone from Derby (perhaps having taken a train from Matlock) will then take another train to get to the HS2 station at Toton or in the case of Nottingham a tram with many stops - for goodness sake.
Finally there is no connection with HS1! So no chance of a day trip to Paris or Amsterdam from Birmingham by train.
HS1 goes 140mph, whereas eurostar can reach 180-200mph I believe
Such a shame it doesnt connect w any railway so it can run to other destinations
Where in london is it
Sort of pointless bar chart, don’t you think? Projects are completely different scope at different times and places. Also map is incorrect, Curzon street is connected to the local Midlands Metro. You can even see the tram on the picture of the station you have used.
For the rolling stock, well, I have my thoughts: Alstom knows what is High Speed and their trains are safe, as the TGV technology is recognised all over the world. Bombardier and Hitachi have a good project (isn't it Hitachi only now? Because Bombardier doesn't exist anymore), they know what they are dealing with, they already have produced good trains named IEPs/IETs or Frecciarossa in Italy. Siemens has a bad project: their train is based on the ICE 4 which is a bad train, with major faults and uncomfortable seats. I don't know what to say about CAF, the different trains they have built recently for different countries than Spain don't have any major problems, but i think we should wait. And the Talgo technology is absolutely not adapted for High Speed services.
Siemens technology for HSR is very well trusted however.
The e320 trains are used in 3 different countries infact. Saying they have uncomfortable seats is down to the operator of the trains, not siemens
@@emmanueloke667 It's not because the E320 is running in many different countries that it is reliable. These trains are unreliable, and I experienced that myself, and I know a Eurostar driver who says the same thing. The seats are all the same in High Speed trains designed by Siemens. For example, the E 320s have the same seats as the DB Velaro D, but with different colours. These seats are typical of siemens
5:28 Birmingham Curzon st will connect with the west Midlands metro
The main question I'm asking is: Why is there no connection with existing lines before the only one planned in the Rugby area?
Which link is that in Rugby? I haven't seen anything about that. Phase 1 will connect to the WCML at Crewe and Phase 2 will connect with HS3, the WCML further north, MML and (hopefully) the ECML.
@@david65219 It's Lichfield, I didn't remember where it was exactly.
There is no station or connection on HS2 in the Ruby area, not sure where you got that from. The first stop after Birmingham Curzon Street Station will be Birmingham Interchange Station next to the NEC , Birmingham International Airport and Birmingham International Railway station on the present West Coast Route from Birmingham New Street to London Euston all joined together by a people mover transit system at a place called Bickenhill on the border of Birmingham and Solihull, about 5 mile from Birmingham City Centre, after that the next stop will be in the London area at Old Oak Common and finally London Euston. There is no stop in the Rugby area on HS2 only on the present West Coast Main line from Birmingham New Street to London Euston.
@@peterwilliamallen1063 Sorry.....i realise now that i used the french word :) i was talking about a physical junction
@@EPS_Productions There is no physical junction of any kind between HS2 and Rugby, the two are at least 30 miles apart, the only line from Birmingham to London that goes through Rugby is the present West Coast Main line where the Birmingham New street line joins the main west Coast main line from Crewe and the North and the line via Northampton diverges off towards London via Northampton.
the current London to Manchester wasn't that slow.... Why not just upgrading the existing rails?
World's most expensive railway? East Side Access and 2nd Ave Subway say hello
you really seem not not have done much research into Birmingham. “newly called curzon street station” it’s not a new station in fact curzon street station was the first station from Birmingham to london it’s just being rebuilt
I'm sorry to correct you as a Brummie, but the new Birmingham Curzon Street Station will have nothing to do with the original Station, the only part surviving being the original station building which is grade 2 listed and although being retained will have nothing to do with the new station, plus all the old station has been obliterated. The HS2 Birmingham Curzon Street Station is going to be a totally New Build Station with its main entrance being on Moor Street Queens Way next to the Entrance of Birmingham Moor Street Station in the heart of Birmingham City Centre with tram and bus connections plus another entrance close to the original station, so sorry the station is not being rebuilt, it is a totally brand new station being built occupying a larger site to accommodate at least 14 coach trains.
1. Should have started in the north and worked it's way south
2. At this price why not look at conversion of existing lines to double decker trains
3. Why is no station being built at the intersection of HS2 and EWR?
4. This is a once in a century project and we are aiming low, if we go for it and spend all the money lets go for it...mag lev and the fastest service possible.
Why should it have started in the North first and worked South considering the whole idea of HS2 is to improve high speed rail services from the Second City Birmingham to London, you could not convert conventional British rail Lines to Double deck Trains, for high speed on this route between Birmingham and London there are only 2 Intermediate stations, Birmingham Interchange serving Birmingham Airport and Old Oak Common for interchange with the London Under ground and trains for South West England and forget Maglev.
@@peterwilliamallen1063 I may not agree but I take your point. My idea is that if we are trying to 'level up' lets put some investment in the northern transport system. By the way I'd like your thoughts on HS2 and EWR being built at exactly the same time and crossing their construction at the same time. Surely a perfect point for a new station for transit rather the a depot. What do you think?
@@markdebrun7023 There may of been some reason why they have not planned a station here, but as there are two stations between Birmingham / Crewe and London Euston, Birmingham Interchange and London Old Oak Common the powers to be more than likely thought it not necessary as one more station would of caused problems with the High Speed run on this line.
I could be talking out of my ass, but why does HS2 have to terminate in London? In Belgium we have highspeedlines that stop 10-20 kilometers from the citycenter and meet up with existing railways which are often cheaper to double in capacity, to me it seems like building an expensive tunnel underneath one of the most populated cities in europe is a huge cost that could be avoided... might be wrong though
HS2 is mostly about removing intercity trains from congested approaches to major cities to increase capacity and reliability of both the intercity service, and the 'classic' lines. Dumping trains back on the lines 10-20km away from London for final approach is bypassing the bits that are slightly less congested only to snarl up the bits that are most congested. It undermines the whole purpose of the line.
Hm worlds most expensive train line, maybe, but the last big country in Europe to get a real high speed rail line internally, not just going from the capital to Europe, China has a vast internal high speed rail network, more kilometres and many more passengers than Europe. China is also building the Belt Road, at more than 10, more like 15 times the cost of HS2, Japans first magnetic levitation railway 500km/h will be completed before HS2. India will be electrifying ALL of it’s passenger and freight rail lines, Britain still has a lot of diesel electric trains, Taiwan, South Korea already have high speed rail lines. Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Russia, African and Middle Eastern countries are building high speed rail lines, No, this isn’t like the construction of the transcontinental railways in the US, Russia, Canada, Australia, the Panama, or Suez canals, the US interstate highway system.
Before it’s completed it will be dwarfed by the renewable energy and liquid hydrogen aviation spends, then there’s the thousands of kilometres of driverless electric trains, buses and cars, into the tens of trillions of dollars in investment.
Not true, the HONG KONG section of Shenzhen-HK HSR cost about 9 BN GBP in 26 KM.
Most expensive railway in terms of overall cost yes. If it's per mile, it isn't for sure!
5:05 Jesus Christ that's enough to pay for about 350,000 homes!
The mst expensive and with the highest regular running speeds which as everyone knows is less energy efficient for each marginal mph. Then, in order to "save money", they reduce tunnel bore sizes and consequentially SLOW those expensivelly engineered and accelerated trains down to the reduced tunnel line speeds, uhmmm?
If England spends a trillion pounds on transportation, passenger and freight, over the next decade spending 10% of that on it’s highest capacity long distance line, the most kilometres rode, at the highest capacity, seen that way, it begins to look more like a bargain, at 1/125th of the global $12.5 trillion pounds spent on transport in the next decade. If Britain wants to remain competitive, it should double that spending, going to Edinburg, Glasgow and Cardiff, Australian spending on rail, is about this, with a third of the population, or 3 times HS2, per capita (Capital city Metro, intercity, interstate.)
Interesting to note that a report by The Adam Smith Institute reckons that the HS2 project costs would fund at least 25 much needed public transport links in england alone. They also state that the project will return 78p in the Pound.
Considering that Wales needs less than 75 miles of track - most shovel ready - to have a north south rail route totally within Wales. Plus Scotland needs about 60mile of route reinstated to link Edinburgh to Carlisle via the Borders Railway.
The other fact is that to power a high speed train from 125 to 220 requires 90% more energy, hardly a green alternative.
I thought one major rationale for HS2 was freeing up train paths for more local services everywhere, especially in to Birmingham. The focus on travel times to/from London is misleading. (See the video below, I would be interested to hear your thoughts)
I thought they should have jumped ahead to 500kph Maglev with the UK Ultraspeed proposal.
The unexplained blow out in costs is ridiculous. Is that just the rolling stock? The historical standard in Australia is for large infrastructure projects to double from their original estimate.
Should we build HS2 or Re-open old Railway lines?
ua-cam.com/video/Nf5avCUNP0M/v-deo.html
FWIW: I know the British have weird pronunciations of proper nouns but surely it’s “all-stom”?
Driverless cars are gonna destroy this anyway when it's completed and the 100 plus wildlife sites gone forever! Country debt well beyond 2 trillion and this isn't the sort of investment we need! Maglev more expensive but so fast will always attract passengers
What Driverless cars doing 300 mph, what a joke don't think so
If they bring it in under £150bn, it'll be a surprise. The rail industry is not good at projects.
Motorways cost more to build per mile than HS2 and cause way more damage to the environment
The cost of HS2 should only include the cost of civils environment etc. New Stations should be under a separate cost, eg. Birmingham international and the terminus while the rolling stock should be included in a separate cost since they will be required in any case.
Just want to make a point on capacity.. yes we are running at capacity.. but when you look at the Shinkansen, I have been on those trains.. they are running trains that are 17 cars long in single and double decker forms that run up and down the the islands.
Same situation with the TGV. and Eurostar.
Virgin had a maximum of 10.
cross country run 4 car sets.
If we ran 17 car trains up and down the country north to south.. we would not need HS2 or it would certainly help out.
I think HS2 is a good idea. But we should upgrade or build next to existing. If the are planning tunnels under ground.. the should do under Warwickshire to.. so many beautiful woods they are destroying with this.. it’s such a shame.
Even the old dr Beaching lines then could look up and re use those routes.
We don’t need virgin (Avanti), cross country, London midland, as well as HS2, linking London to Birmingham. Cut back some of those services.. or give them longer trains that are 17 cars long then see.
Now a service running HS2 Scotland to France via the U.K.. serving the north, Midlands and London.. that makes better sense. You could have multiple trains serving different parts off that. That’s fine like the Shinkansen dose.
And I agree a service east west (livepool to Grimsby or New castle for example with stops in Yorkshire) that makes sense.
But what we are doing now just dose not make sense.. it only helps MPs on the campaign run if you ask me.. Boris would love getting to his next stop early so he could have a pint before the convention.
We need HS2 3 and 4 agreed.. we need to invest in the rail as ours are dated and old but there are cheaper ways to get HS2 done. And make better use of the train stock we have. All it needs is a few carriage orders from the manufacturers.
Oh wait.. what am I thinking this is the British government.. that’s to easy.. and simple.. can’t do a I turn or rip people off on that idea, my bad.. 😆
Yeah ok let’s waste the tax payers money then like the wigwam that was the millennium dome saved by O2
That’s my view anyway..
Great video by the way.. 👍😊
Capacity in terms of seats isn't the only factor here, number and frequency of services matters too. A 2 car train running every 30 minutes is far better than an 8 car train running every 2 hours, and with increased frequency you can still increase train length as required where platform length allows.
Longer trains require longer stations. Birmingham New St is one of the most congested & is blocked in at both ends by Birmingham so there is nowhere it can be extended to. Extending stations is also very slow & disruptive. Many parts of the existing line cannot be widened (the 6 track section in London.) & other parts of it would cause huge disruption for a relatively small increase in capacity & we would still be left with a railway which twists its way around things. All these ideas have been investigated & eliminated.
yes there was cheaper ways to get HS2 done how ever some tea drinking tunnel dwellers decided that money should not be an issue when it comes to the environment and when adjustments where made to make the least amount of impact to the environment as possible the same people then complained the project is now costing more to accommodate the changes that they demanded. Also HS2 has been on the table since the days HS1 was being constructed that was always the plan our lines are so out dated it has come to the point where it is no longer fit for purpose even with upgrades they are just to old you might as well set up a new major transport link that has 75% more capacity than the current one and once that is operational and has relieved the strain on the old network you can then comfortably do any works to the old lines and it will not have any catastrophic effects on the service through out the UK.
Also if you want better transport in Scotland then you need to ask Nicola as transportation for Scotland was devolved to the Scottish government since 2006.
The trains that will run on HS2 are planed to be 14 to 16 coaches long, plus due to the Victorian design of the existing rail network you can only fit a maximum of 13 coach trains into most stations on any line, as to operation of train services on HS2 when HS2 is opened between Birmingham Curzon Street and London Euston it is going to be operated by the current West Coast train operator which at the moment is Avanti West Coast owned jointly by First Trains and Trans Italia who operate the Birmingham to London service from Birmingham New Street to London Euston, so on opening of HS2 trains from Birmingham to London 95% of them will be transferred to HS2, leaving just LNWR and a few Pendelino services from Birmingham New Street to London Euston.
Alstom, not Aslom, and Siemens, not Siemans. Nevertheless, thanks for the video. I hope in 2030, there will be no passport needed between the EU and the UK!
Aslom? Alstom....All-Stom.
England won the war but not the peace...
What about the revenues of the oil? Wasted? Disappeared?
wouldnt it be cheaper to just upgrade the already existing railway network ?
Yes it would, but you can't increase capacity
@@deplorabled1695 well given that the proposed plan will probably never happen,even if,it will be 2050 at least...
Not really no. According to a report by Network Rail to achieve something resembling HS2's benefits you'd need to upgrade 3 active mainlines which would involve a lot more urban and habitat demolition, station rebuilds all along the routes, bridge/tunnel/embankment reconstructions and shutting down the rail network every weekend for 15 years. Even then you still wouldn't get the same capacity release or reduction in journey times.
do you know how much delays, cancellations and disruptions upgrades have caused around London Huston for years and the increased capacity it created has already been reached also these lines have to remain operational while upgrades are applied this will take so long you might as well just build a new and dedicated passenger line. Take HS1 for example, before HS1 was open getting a train in and out of london between 6am to 9am and 3pm to 7pm was a nightmare and some times you where standing for 2 - 3 hours even on the semi fast services but when the HS1 trains came in local routs became much, much less congested and even if the HS1 train is full the longest I have had to wait to get a seat is about 30min
@@patrikricci8423 Why wont the present plan never happen with HS2, I think you need to come to the Birmingham area and see the construction work going on.
What's "mind boggling" about 220mph.?🙄?.
The fact it’d be the fastest in Europe
whats the point of having trains that go a bit faster, why not get some trains with current technology...?
The West Coast Mainline between London and Birmingham, which is the primary line that HS2 is relieving, opened over 180 years ago. Trains couldn't do 60mph, let alone the 125mph (201km/h) they operate on the line today with relatively minor alignment modifications. Trains today in Europe operate at up to 320km/h (China runs 350km/h trains, but we'll ignore China here and stick with countries with similar regulatory regimes and political constraints as the UK) and that's mostly limited by the tracks rather than the train technology. 400km/h line design speed on a line that will almost certainly be running in 2121 (when it is still only half the age that the WCML will be on HS2 opening) is really not shooting for the moon when it comes to future proofing.
HS2's 360km/h initial train order is 12.5% faster than currently operate the other side of the Channel (and 80% faster than the trains on the WCML), but within current technology. The difference between building the line for 400km/h vs building it for 300km/h (like HS1) is relatively small and the 20% faster speed that 360km/h service provides negates the extra infrastructure costs of 400km/h design speed in the medium term due to needing less rolling stock and train staff to run the same frequency. Plus there's more benefits with faster trains.
@@sihollett The WCML has managed to cope with huge increases in recent years & can't take much more. We can't move local trains off because they serve the many towns which exist on the route. Freight services can exist with these. There is not enough room to build lines next o the existing ones. Trains have already been lengthened. Lengthening trains requires lengthening stations further is hugely disruptive & many stations (Birmingham New St is the best & busiest example) is hemmed in so can't be expanded anyway....& just how far could someone walk to the end of a train? Some are already 300 yards long. The remaining answer is to build a new line to serve the major cities, so you may as well build it to modern standards which allow higher speeds.
@@TheRip72 a very good laying out of the case for HS2, but not much to do with the "why so fast" element of it that this topic is talking about. But, given we're building a brand new alignment for the reasons you lay out so well, why feel constrained by current train speeds when designing the alignment.
@@TheRip72 so basically look what HS1 has done to Kent all the people working/traveling to and from London now take the highspeed express service and now all local trains are back to a reasonable capacity i.e. you get a seat, you get a seat and you get a seat everybody gets a seat (a bit of an Oprah joke there :D )
Great video - Happy new year to you and your family! Watching this I can already feel that we in the East Midlands are going to be completely shafted... Not that the Toton station was a great idea anyway.
Well... What alternative would you suggest?
@@mastertrams I would improve the MML, electrify the whole thing, add additional lines. Get rid of EM Parkway and build a dedicated Airport station, taking busses off the road.
@@ChristopherDavidGreen But would this deliver the benefits that HS2 delivers to areas outside the EM? HS2 isn't a local project, it's a national project. You can't scrap the entire thing if it doesn't suit one area (unless said area is a politician's back garden), and besides, Midland's Connect is doing a lot of what you just suggested, such as building a dedicated airport station (admittedly as part of its phase 3 though...). And Midland's Connect is working in tandem with HS2.
@@mastertrams I'm all for HS2, don't get me wrong! I just think the stretch for the East heading up to Leeds is unnecessary and could be integrated within the current line 😀
@@ChristopherDavidGreen But the East Midlands is historically and still the least connected region of the entire country when it comes to public transport... And Leeds is at capacity... The line is severely needed to relieve Leeds station and to improve connectivity in the EM. HS2 has never been designed to carry local traffic, so repurpose the MML to carry purely local traffic.
HS2 isn’t needed as much as HS3 just saying
You wont get HS3 with out HS2. and why isn't HS2 needed a much as HS3, I am afraid it is the other way round HS2 is needed more than HS3
Ever tried to ride on a train from Manchester to Leeds in peak times?
@@dorikaroxby783 Ever tried to ride on trains in the West Midlands in Peak time, why is Manchester and the North so special. You lot do not understand the reason for HS2, it is to initially relieve the Rail Network around the West Midlands / Birmingham area of main Inter City Trains to London so freeing up the normal Rail network in our area for other services and so freeing up the West Coast and East Coast Main Line. We need better train services in the West Midlands as much as the North, if you want your local Train services sorted I suggest you contact your MP or the Mayor of the Greater Manchester Metro Council and not whinge on about HS2 they are two different entities.
Chunnel
What a waste of money. It's a crime. Actually it's probably many real crimes.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics
It isn't the most expensive. Foreign exchange rates plus the fact that HS2 is rare, in that it is going to go at full pelt right into he heart of destinations. Most other high speed lines in the world (apart from Japan, Spain and China) join existing lines into the stations. HS2 will be faster and have high speed track on all sections. Also there are much more environmental costs going into this with remedial plans and tunnels to avoid some areas. The headline times from London Old Oak to Birmingham is just 36 minutes I believe! - astonishing stuff. Manchester just 58 minutes!
I personally think just construct Phase 1 and Phase 2 a, the rest doesn't seem that necessary and the costs get beyond ridiculous by that point
Don't believe this rubbish, it's costing no more than cross rail!!!, thank God we had people like Isambard Kingdom Brunel.......
Not per mile it isnt
The great deception was that it costs just a teeny weeny bit more to build, equip and operate a 300 kph railway than a 200 kph one. Global status is irrelevant. Most UK journeys are not long enough to benefit from running at much more than 200 kph. Now the cost will be 20 projects the size of the East-West link. The capacity increase could have been achieved by reinstating the track on the GC and associated lines.
The key to short door-to-door journey times is frequent and affordable walk-on services at good speeds.
How would the GCML relieve anything except the MML?
@@david65219
HS2 follows much the same route as the GCML, which could have been reinstated as a 125 mph railway. The GCML duplicates the WCML from Rugby to London (there used to be a bridge over the WCML), making three routes between London and Birmingham.
Enlarging Marylebone and increasing capacity towards Rickmansworth and Aylesbury would have been less expensive and avoided the long tunnels under the Chilterns, since the environmental impact of 4-tracking the section from Rickmansworth to Aylesbury would have been acceptable. After that the line could have continued on the old alignment with an interchange station at Calvert on the new Oxford-Cambridge route. Nice connectivity, which is just what is needed and which HS2 will not give, and the money left over could have been used to electrify Oxford-Cambridge from the start.
Have a look at the system map as it was in 1960. I get the impression that planners don't look at old maps any more.
@@physiocrat7143 The GCML isn't a route to Birmingham, services would still need to join the section of the WCML from Rugby to Birmingham which is where much of the congestion HS2 relieves is. There would be no appreciable capacity relief to either the WCML nor the ECML. Plus by the time you've created a new alignment for the GCML that avoids sections now built on, sections that are now nature reserves and removed the sharp curves on what is by modern standards a slow alignment you may as well have built a new line that actually goes to Birmingham and Manchester with a route from Birmingham to the East Midlands and Yorkshire. Also Marylebone is wholly unsuitable for a major capital terminus of the scale required, it doesn't have the connectivity of Euston nor the proximity to St Pancras and Kings Cross. Nor does it have a direct connection to the GWML and the Elizabeth Line that Old Oak Common will have aside from an OSI with Paddington.
@@david65219
Did you look at the system map as it was in 1960? The GC was a spine with cross connections providing many alternative routes. Marylebone to Birmingham was possible via the Banbury connection.
The congested section through Coventry needs to be four-tracked - or alternatively, local journeys might be served by light rail. This will still be needed after HS2 is finished. Marylebone could easily be doubled in size, though of course the approach routes would eventually need to be upgraded, possibly by removing the local services to a new underground line to release paths on the surface tracks on the Chiltern/Metropolitan alignment. It is on the Bakerloo and as close as Euston is to the Metropolitan line. A westward connection from HS2 is not necessary as passengers would not be travelling through London anyway.
The discussion is academic now as the project is so far advanced. It was not a good value for money project, it will take too long to realise the benefits and there would have been other ways of achieving the objectives. It will end up with a European gauge route over which most of the trains will be constrained to fit the UK loading gauge, plus a fleet of dedicated trains which cannot run anywhere else on the UK system. Unless trains are affordably walk-on, it will not even be a time saver for most people. The way to get people out of their cars is to offer frequent affordable turn up and go services; cheap advance bookings do not achieve this, and effectively result in extended journey times due to the need to allow so much time for delays in getting to the start of your journey.
It is yet another example of the way in which infrastructure investment is distorted by politicians who favour big and prestigious schemes rather than incremental improvements. We (I am in Gothenburg) currently have the whole city in chaos because of the politically inspired and useless Västlänk project. Before that there was the Hallandsås tunnel fiasco. You can read all about them elsewhere.
@@physiocrat7143 I am sorry to correct you but HS2 does not follow the same route as the GCML, firstly the old great Central route goes no where near Birmingham or Old Oak Common and the cost of rebuilding that would be more than building a new railway.
but but I don't want to go to Birmingham
That's your problem mate, you will have to get the slow train to where you want to go, HS2 is going to Brum where it's headquarters are.
If money wasn't an issue they could connect hs2 to the channel tunnel via Heathrow and Gatwick airports and bypass London and go straight to the North
whats the use of that, bypassing a megacity that houses our government and most of our economy for the relatively sparsely populated north
@@adrianincroydon71 Exactly, plus links to 2 of the major airports in London and perhaps a branch linking up to Euston
@@adrianincroydon71 the point is to allow congestion everywhere to improve as Mancunians don’t have to be stuck in packed London streets and Londoners have less people on our streets because of the fewer Mancunians. Win win. You’re idea is just stupid. London requires connection and capacity in the future too and bypassing it makes zero sense
@@JacobOhlssonBudinger I wouldn't phrase it quite like that, but certainly the demand for London means that routing long-distance trains around it is silly. London can fill about 9 times more trains to the Continent than the North, and about 30-40 times more trains to the North than the Continent.
Airport travel is trivial for demand on HS2 - modelling for the Heathrow spur worked out that there's about 1 train load of passengers from the North to Heathrow per day - vs about 160 to London.
@@sihollett The point about the Mancunians was the M25, not HS2.
Funded no more with EU🇪🇺
🇮🇪🇪🇺
Where to start? The concept of HS2 is so flawed in a multitude of ways. The proposed speed has already been reduced, but expect it to be further reduced when reality sets in. The need is no longer there. It will take at least a decade to get numbers back up and even then with more wfh it may never quite get there. Why have a separate terminus in Birmingham, that makes no sense. This is unquestionably a vanity project. Better to spend money on improving what we have and, in particular, on massive electrification in order to meet climate change goals.
The need is not there, WTF is this stupidity.
What do you mean the need is no longer there? Even if numbers come back in a decade, that still means that in 2030 lines will run at capacity. Why do you think prices have been skyrocketing this decade? Also your critique at a new Birmingham station is ridiculous, New street is at capacity right now.
Ignorance is bliss right Chris?
Firstly the need for HS2 and commuting between Birmingham and London is there as Firms are now telling their employees that as the Pandemic recedes the days of working from home are over and they are telling them that they want them back working in the office, plus a lot of people say they want to get back to office based working and friendship. Well in Birmingham at the moment there are already 3 other Stations, Birmingham New Street, Birmingham Snow Hill and Birmingham Moor Street, Snow Hill and Moor Street services to London Marylebone are Diesel operated taking around 2 hours, the Intercity service from New Street to London is constricted by the availability of a Victorian 2 track line from New Street to Rugby carrying 5 passenger operators and numerous freight services with a max speed of between 90 MPH and 100 MPH, so these new High speed trains will require a new line to run on and a new station, hence Birmingham Curzon Street.
HS2 will meet our climate goals, it ill be a totally electrified railway with nothing else running on it.
With the line being already being in existence, it seems pointless to create this!
The line it is there to support (WCML - London-Birmingham, the NW & Glasgow) is overloaded, as are the M1 & M6. You can't re-route local trains because they serve the intermediate towns. Freight works sort of ok with slower, local trains but combining either of these with the (faster) city to city services is a problem. The latter can be moved away, which is exactly the point of HS2.
I dont want it to happen.
Well tough titties it needs to happen so it's happening
It will bring precisely zero benefit to my part of the country, yet we all pay for it.
Thats not true at all. The point is that removing high speed services from the mainlines to put them on their own tracks is so rural and suburban services can operate with more frequency and reliability. Unless you live miles away from a rail line up in the highlands with the goats you benefit massively from HS2.
you are not paying for it.
@@DaveJNoel by that do you mean Londoners?? I don’t understand what you’re saying. I’m not 18 yet and thus don’t pay tax but even if I didn’t live near it I still would like it to happen. I mean it’s hardly like they’re taking 100 billion out of your own pocket and they aren’t increasing tax for it so you’re not at all out of pocket.
Well the London Heathrow Airport doesn't benefit Birmingham, but we still in the long run pay for it. there will always be a moaner, we all have to pay for something we dont use.
Not even watching the video cos the title is that misleading. Disliked.
So you don't like it so you click it, comment and dislike which all helps the video 🤦♂️
Is ignoring it difficult or something?