http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23744619

I doubt the cost will double, but I fully expect it to go up sharply as ever with large government projects

only £80bn betcha its gonna be more, much much more ...

Agree 100%.

Also, if it's all about developing something newer, better and faster. Then why the hell is it still going to be standard gauge?

we are now in a world where very little "big capital infrastructure projects" will be given the go ahead because of the "cost"

i believe that essential "big capital infrastructure projects" are necessary, such as a national water network
but HS2? how is that necessary ...

In an era where the NHS must make savings of £20bn, why is £40-80bn being spent on something very few people will use?

Even if they add in all the long term benefits they will not go ahead because of the impact now.

Though with the RPI+1% deals on train fares will anyone be able to afford the journey apart from MP's and those with expense accounts?

There are already trains that will do 380km/h, why invest billions developing one that will do an extra 20km/h, when they can just buy existing trains and concentrate on repairing/ upgrading the network?

I think it is partly down to empire building by ministers. It will inevitably have a Minister's name attached historically if it is a success.

thats a large amount of the cost upgrading the track/networking

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4

...but think of the dozens of people who will benefit from it on a daily basis!

Money well borrowed!

thats equivalent to the responses about building the channel tunnel. Some projects need to be done even if the cost is never recouped. Look how long the cross london rail link took to be given the go ahead. Each time it was stopped because the cost got bigger and bigger. What a suprise! Costs tend to rise over time.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4

Nonsense. £80bn versus an initial cost of ~ £30bn. Some projects don't need doing at all.

Not really, The channel tunnel provides an obvious improvement - both in time, convenience and functionality - to what was there before. HS2 provides an improvement in time over what was there before, no extra convenience and no extra functionality. The channel tunnel produced a qualitative benefit, HS2 doesn't.


True, but the question is : Is HS2 the best of those projects we can come up with? Frankly, the people in favour of HS2 haven't really made that argument very well at all. We have a massive housing shortage, how many houses and jobs could £30bn and years ofl building provide? How many power stations to ensure our energy needs for the future? How much of the country could be covered by a high grade wireless broadband network to allow rural areas access to high speed communications? How many technological research advances? Are any of those things a worse use of the money than a slightly faster train service between London and Birmingham, a change hardly anybody was crying out?

HS2 is a vanity project. It's a big shiny thing politicians can point to and say 'See! we did that. We made that happen. Aren't we brilliant.' Well no, you aren't. You wasted pretty much all the country's spare cash for a decade, you idiots.

olympics original cost 3 bill final cost 12 bill

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4