FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > HS2...yes or no?
HS2...yes or no?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
This debacle seems set to go on longer than brexit.
The constant indecision is just adding to the final cost...rather like brexit.
What's your opinion? Yes or no? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lan157Man
over a year ago
a village near Haywards Heath in East Sussex |
Government needs to look at ways to reduce the amount on travel required by people not find new ways to create more journeys. Work that is available close to where we live and improved communications on internet. Governments do not have joined up thinking as far as I can see. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
It needs starting and starting quickly. The WCML is already at capacity and “modernising” it will be akin the turning the motorways into “smart” motorways. By that I mean years of disruption, great cost and by the time it’s finished the motorway is still over-crowded because it only increased capacity by 15%~20%.
New track is needed. If new track is to be laid, why not track, technology and infrastructure that can operate fast, closely sequenced trains so that capacity can be not just doubled, but more like trebled.
I understand the argument for linking up Manchester and Leeds and Newcastle better, but in truth anyone travelling south from the NW to anywhere (Bristol, Cardiff South and Mid Wales, South West, South Coast, South East, all of London and south and East Midlands) has to use the WCML for at least part of that journey.
The argument about getting to London 30 minutes faster is symptomatic of the level of debate that is around theses days. It Ignores the factual and complicated reasons for this project and instead tries to diminish it using simplistic sound-bytes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
NO
The cost has gone up from starting - estimate - in other words guessing what cost it will be, from 50 billion ? And now upto 100 billion and this is just in 2 years since it was started to be put into place! So ten years from when they think " it might be finished " we will bankrupt and back in debt by 150 billion! At a guess that is ....
We we bailed out the banks for 30 billion.
And all the forrest, wild life and ancient woodland - some thousands of years old will be destroyed. Habitat and Carbon capture will be gone for good.
The line does not benefit the rest of the United Kingdom - rail netwwork at all, unless your heading from leeds or manchester, once again this is all for london.
All for what a line to london to get there 15 minutes faster than you normally would AND this is another guess.
Bin the project and invest in all our country's rail way network.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Why we need the fastest trains in the world in such a small country is beyond me. If it was a bit slower , the costs would come down by tens of billions . If we can’t run a slowcoach train cos of a few leaves on the line, I can’t imagine a HS2 train ever leaving the station cos of daft health and safety or some loony environmentalist complaining |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Agreed fella, and why over the past 10 - 15 years with all this battery, uber saving electric and engine technology, We have got the worst fkn train service period, apart from London and manchester.. the Victorians built everything, now we cant build shit in this technology era. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
No no no,a total waste of money we need better links across the North from Liverpool to Manchester to Leeds Hull and Newcastle etc and better commuter services.
HS2 is to costly and not worth it,we just need more trains to the south which we are getting anuway |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No no no,a total waste of money we need better links across the North from Liverpool to Manchester to Leeds Hull and Newcastle etc and better commuter services.
HS2 is to costly and not worth it,we just need more trains to the south which we are getting anuway"
ageee100% think the north costed that at around 15 bilion but they spent that amount on the one linking east to west London and the tv show to showcase it lol who said there’s a north south divide lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"My answer is no to HS2 we don't need it what we do need is longer platforms and more carriages the network is at its full capacity."
You are correct in saying that the WCML is at capacity. Adding 15% more capacity over 10 years by building longer platforms will simply mean massive disruption and unnecessary cost because the line will still be at capacity on completion.
Capacity needs to increase by at least 100% and that is achieved with new track. If the extended bin platforms are built in, sequencing times are reduced because of the latest technology and trains spend less time on the track then that 100% capacity increase can easily become 200% - ie 3 x current capacity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"NO
The cost has gone up from starting - estimate - in other words guessing what cost it will be, from 50 billion ? And now upto 100 billion and this is just in 2 years since it was started to be put into place! So ten years from when they think " it might be finished " we will bankrupt and back in debt by 150 billion! At a guess that is ....
We we bailed out the banks for 30 billion.
And all the forrest, wild life and ancient woodland - some thousands of years old will be destroyed. Habitat and Carbon capture will be gone for good.
The line does not benefit the rest of the United Kingdom - rail netwwork at all, unless your heading from leeds or manchester, once again this is all for london.
All for what a line to london to get there 15 minutes faster than you normally would AND this is another guess.
Bin the project and invest in all our country's rail way network.
"
It is not just for London. To get to any city or region south of, and from NW England, the WCML needs to be used for at least part of the journey.
Yes the cost is eye-wateringly expensive, but it is going to be there for a very, very long time and public transport is an absolute necessity for the future. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"Why we need the fastest trains in the world in such a small country is beyond me. If it was a bit slower , the costs would come down by tens of billions . If we can’t run a slowcoach train cos of a few leaves on the line, I can’t imagine a HS2 train ever leaving the station cos of daft health and safety or some loony environmentalist complaining"
Less time on the track delivers more capacity - simples. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"No no no,a total waste of money we need better links across the North from Liverpool to Manchester to Leeds Hull and Newcastle etc and better commuter services.
HS2 is to costly and not worth it,we just need more trains to the south which we are getting anuway"
It should not be either / or.
The rail network needs huge investment and HS2 should be built as well as high speed tram system between Manchester and Liverpool and improved rail infrastructure connecting Liverpool / Manchester / Leeds / York and Newcastle.
Why do we have to choose one over the other? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It needs starting and starting quickly. The WCML is already at capacity and “modernising” it will be akin the turning the motorways into “smart” motorways. By that I mean years of disruption, great cost and by the time it’s finished the motorway is still over-crowded because it only increased capacity by 15%~20%.
New track is needed. If new track is to be laid, why not track, technology and infrastructure that can operate fast, closely sequenced trains so that capacity can be not just doubled, but more like trebled.
I understand the argument for linking up Manchester and Leeds and Newcastle better, but in truth anyone travelling south from the NW to anywhere (Bristol, Cardiff South and Mid Wales, South West, South Coast, South East, all of London and south and East Midlands) has to use the WCML for at least part of that journey.
The argument about getting to London 30 minutes faster is symptomatic of the level of debate that is around theses days. It Ignores the factual and complicated reasons for this project and instead tries to diminish it using simplistic sound-bytes."
If you can explain how a track with two stops helps solve the wcmls problems you may persuade me but i still believe that phase 2 and 3 have way more merit |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No no no,a total waste of money we need better links across the North from Liverpool to Manchester to Leeds Hull and Newcastle etc and better commuter services.
HS2 is to costly and not worth it,we just need more trains to the south which we are getting anuway
It should not be either / or.
The rail network needs huge investment and HS2 should be built as well as high speed tram system between Manchester and Liverpool and improved rail infrastructure connecting Liverpool / Manchester / Leeds / York and Newcastle.
Why do we have to choose one over the other?"
why not link the big northern city’s first as the need is bigger and needed now then think about hs2 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Infrastructure is good.It will allow more people to commute to London while living in cheaper properties in the midlands .
Of course the north needs its own high speed connection from east to west.Lets hope Boris looks after all those up north who voted for him..
He’ll keep his promises no doubt.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well if he doesn’t bob labour be back in in 5yrs time but I think there will be more money spent in the north than ever before so the tories get another 5 yrs don’t you bob ?"
Yeah Boris has a long track record of keeping his promises I’m sure you’ll be in clover..  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well if he doesn’t bob labour be back in in 5yrs time but I think there will be more money spent in the north than ever before so the tories get another 5 yrs don’t you bob ?
Yeah Boris has a long track record of keeping his promises I’m sure you’ll be in clover.. "
well if he doesn’t bob he be out in 5 I can’t see the tories blowing chance of minimum ten yrs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well if he doesn’t bob labour be back in in 5yrs time but I think there will be more money spent in the north than ever before so the tories get another 5 yrs don’t you bob ?
Yeah Boris has a long track record of keeping his promises I’m sure you’ll be in clover.. well if he doesn’t bob he be out in 5 I can’t see the tories blowing chance of minimum ten yrs "
Yeah I’m sure he’ll build a high speed link between the east and west in the next 5 years and make the north as wealthy and prosperous as the south ..
Keep the faith foxy..He needs you to keep the faith.. 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well if he doesn’t bob labour be back in in 5yrs time but I think there will be more money spent in the north than ever before so the tories get another 5 yrs don’t you bob ?
Yeah Boris has a long track record of keeping his promises I’m sure you’ll be in clover.. well if he doesn’t bob he be out in 5 I can’t see the tories blowing chance of minimum ten yrs
Yeah I’m sure he’ll build a high speed link between the east and west in the next 5 years and make the north as wealthy and prosperous as the south ..
Keep the faith foxy..He needs you to keep the faith..
"
it won’t be done in 5yrs bob you know that but if it’s started in 5yrs that will be something and we know the south will always be more wealthy we just want a more even share of the spending it’s not a lot to ask for putting the tories in power is it lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well if he doesn’t bob labour be back in in 5yrs time but I think there will be more money spent in the north than ever before so the tories get another 5 yrs don’t you bob ?
Yeah Boris has a long track record of keeping his promises I’m sure you’ll be in clover.. well if he doesn’t bob he be out in 5 I can’t see the tories blowing chance of minimum ten yrs
Yeah I’m sure he’ll build a high speed link between the east and west in the next 5 years and make the north as wealthy and prosperous as the south ..
Keep the faith foxy..He needs you to keep the faith..
it won’t be done in 5yrs bob you know that but if it’s started in 5yrs that will be something and we know the south will always be more wealthy we just want a more even share of the spending it’s not a lot to ask for putting the tories in power is it lol"
You gotta have a dream. If you don't have a dream, how you gonna make a dream come true.
Completion is due for 2033 .Im sure it will be on schedule and on budget and they won’t run out of money .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
Sorry but I don’t see why a new link between Manchester and Leeds is more important than a link to everywhere else south of Manchester and Liverpool?
WCML connects Manchester and Liverpool (not to mention Lancaster, Carlisle, Preston, Fylde Coast and Warrington) to The entire rest of England. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"What about north west to north east west coast to east coast Liverpool to hull and all the city’s towns in between not really bothered about the north to the south that’s allready there "
the difficulty you have is theres a bloody great lump if granite known as the pennines right bang smack in the way that makes it very expensive to either burrow under it or climb over it plus the approaches to the pennines are along steeply sidded narrow river valleys that are already full of housing and industry making it very difficult expensive and time consuming to upgrade or rebuild
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No it's the biggest scam going it's only 15 quicker and that's only because it won't stop after Birmingham until Leeds what a waste hs2 are nothing but corporate bullied |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We have to take people out of their cars, onto public transport, whilst also addressing the capacity issues of the current West Coast Mainline route.
I don't know what the better solution is but can't help but perceive that HS2 isn't it. It's cumbersome, involving multiple changes for most people, which eliminate speed achieved time savings. It also is another privatised chunk onto the madness that is our fragmented system that clearly doesn't work in the greater public interest of UK citizens, even if it helps citizens of other countries, due to the money they get from us. And yet it still is more costly than the previous system that we had.
Germany has made a great move, by reducing train fares and other countries cities have found similar benefits from cutting public transport fares.
The fact that the HS2 route causes so much significant natural habitat damage should be a major cause for us to stop this route before this continues. We should be looking for a system that uses our current large city stations and predominantly our existing or unused routes. Whilst upgrading our current routes, we would also have to accept the huge disruption and costs of doing so. I'd certainly be taxing technology companies that are running services here to a far greater extent, to support the investment in upgrades, as well as companies that offshore income to manage tax levels. They all rely on the country having effective infrastructure to support businesses and the economy, for their benefit. Would the likes of Google, Amazon, Facebook et al cease to provide services here if we did? Would we manage if they didn't - I'm sure we would be fine.
We're struggling in part because we failed to invest sufficiently in previous decades. Other priorities were made instead. To overcome just this, if we were not also needing to make huge changes to our lifestyles, that prioritise greater emphasis on public transport, is a massive step change for the UK. Real leaders of significance and value would revolutionise our country and not settle for some more of the same. HS2 is a bit more of what we have, including what isn't effective or fully right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"We have to take people out of their cars, onto public transport, whilst also addressing the capacity issues of the current West Coast Mainline route.
I don't know what the better solution is but can't help but perceive that HS2 isn't it. It's cumbersome, involving multiple changes for most people, which eliminate speed achieved time savings. It also is another privatised chunk onto the madness that is our fragmented system that clearly doesn't work in the greater public interest of UK citizens, even if it helps citizens of other countries, due to the money they get from us. And yet it still is more costly than the previous system that we had.
Germany has made a great move, by reducing train fares and other countries cities have found similar benefits from cutting public transport fares.
The fact that the HS2 route causes so much significant natural habitat damage should be a major cause for us to stop this route before this continues. We should be looking for a system that uses our current large city stations and predominantly our existing or unused routes. Whilst upgrading our current routes, we would also have to accept the huge disruption and costs of doing so. I'd certainly be taxing technology companies that are running services here to a far greater extent, to support the investment in upgrades, as well as companies that offshore income to manage tax levels. They all rely on the country having effective infrastructure to support businesses and the economy, for their benefit. Would the likes of Google, Amazon, Facebook et al cease to provide services here if we did? Would we manage if they didn't - I'm sure we would be fine.
We're struggling in part because we failed to invest sufficiently in previous decades. Other priorities were made instead. To overcome just this, if we were not also needing to make huge changes to our lifestyles, that prioritise greater emphasis on public transport, is a massive step change for the UK. Real leaders of significance and value would revolutionise our country and not settle for some more of the same. HS2 is a bit more of what we have, including what isn't effective or fully right. "
I am not sure the concept is about getting people to their ultimate destination faster - albeit that is the populist argument.
Faster trains that spend less time on the track enable more movements per hour and thereby more capacity on the specific route. Add in some advanced technology to reduce sequencing and build longer platforms to carry more people per train and suddenly you have trebled existing capacity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We have to take people out of their cars, onto public transport, whilst also addressing the capacity issues of the current West Coast Mainline route.
I don't know what the better solution is but can't help but perceive that HS2 isn't it. It's cumbersome, involving multiple changes for most people, which eliminate speed achieved time savings. It also is another privatised chunk onto the madness that is our fragmented system that clearly doesn't work in the greater public interest of UK citizens, even if it helps citizens of other countries, due to the money they get from us. And yet it still is more costly than the previous system that we had.
Germany has made a great move, by reducing train fares and other countries cities have found similar benefits from cutting public transport fares.
The fact that the HS2 route causes so much significant natural habitat damage should be a major cause for us to stop this route before this continues. We should be looking for a system that uses our current large city stations and predominantly our existing or unused routes. Whilst upgrading our current routes, we would also have to accept the huge disruption and costs of doing so. I'd certainly be taxing technology companies that are running services here to a far greater extent, to support the investment in upgrades, as well as companies that offshore income to manage tax levels. They all rely on the country having effective infrastructure to support businesses and the economy, for their benefit. Would the likes of Google, Amazon, Facebook et al cease to provide services here if we did? Would we manage if they didn't - I'm sure we would be fine.
We're struggling in part because we failed to invest sufficiently in previous decades. Other priorities were made instead. To overcome just this, if we were not also needing to make huge changes to our lifestyles, that prioritise greater emphasis on public transport, is a massive step change for the UK. Real leaders of significance and value would revolutionise our country and not settle for some more of the same. HS2 is a bit more of what we have, including what isn't effective or fully right.
I am not sure the concept is about getting people to their ultimate destination faster - albeit that is the populist argument.
Faster trains that spend less time on the track enable more movements per hour and thereby more capacity on the specific route. Add in some advanced technology to reduce sequencing and build longer platforms to carry more people per train and suddenly you have trebled existing capacity."
Or conversely you could argue that more slower trains and cheaper fares would provide as much benefit in terms of capacity on the existing system while allowing those who need to move rapidly and can afford it, the option of flying to a regional airport. It might sound counter intuitive but then perhaps travelling by sleeper train throughout the night would be more fun - all aboard the swingers special anyone? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What about north west to north east west coast to east coast Liverpool to hull and all the city’s towns in between not really bothered about the north to the south that’s allready there the difficulty you have is theres a bloody great lump if granite known as the pennines right bang smack in the way that makes it very expensive to either burrow under it or climb over it plus the approaches to the pennines are along steeply sidded narrow river valleys that are already full of housing and industry making it very difficult expensive and time consuming to upgrade or rebuild "
im sure it’s not as expensive as HS2
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"We have to take people out of their cars, onto public transport, whilst also addressing the capacity issues of the current West Coast Mainline route.
I don't know what the better solution is but can't help but perceive that HS2 isn't it. It's cumbersome, involving multiple changes for most people, which eliminate speed achieved time savings. It also is another privatised chunk onto the madness that is our fragmented system that clearly doesn't work in the greater public interest of UK citizens, even if it helps citizens of other countries, due to the money they get from us. And yet it still is more costly than the previous system that we had.
Germany has made a great move, by reducing train fares and other countries cities have found similar benefits from cutting public transport fares.
The fact that the HS2 route causes so much significant natural habitat damage should be a major cause for us to stop this route before this continues. We should be looking for a system that uses our current large city stations and predominantly our existing or unused routes. Whilst upgrading our current routes, we would also have to accept the huge disruption and costs of doing so. I'd certainly be taxing technology companies that are running services here to a far greater extent, to support the investment in upgrades, as well as companies that offshore income to manage tax levels. They all rely on the country having effective infrastructure to support businesses and the economy, for their benefit. Would the likes of Google, Amazon, Facebook et al cease to provide services here if we did? Would we manage if they didn't - I'm sure we would be fine.
We're struggling in part because we failed to invest sufficiently in previous decades. Other priorities were made instead. To overcome just this, if we were not also needing to make huge changes to our lifestyles, that prioritise greater emphasis on public transport, is a massive step change for the UK. Real leaders of significance and value would revolutionise our country and not settle for some more of the same. HS2 is a bit more of what we have, including what isn't effective or fully right.
I am not sure the concept is about getting people to their ultimate destination faster - albeit that is the populist argument.
Faster trains that spend less time on the track enable more movements per hour and thereby more capacity on the specific route. Add in some advanced technology to reduce sequencing and build longer platforms to carry more people per train and suddenly you have trebled existing capacity.
Or conversely you could argue that more slower trains and cheaper fares would provide as much benefit in terms of capacity on the existing system while allowing those who need to move rapidly and can afford it, the option of flying to a regional airport. It might sound counter intuitive but then perhaps travelling by sleeper train throughout the night would be more fun - all aboard the swingers special anyone?"
How does spending more time on the track equate to cheaper fares?
Moving people around is all about efficiency. The quicker you can get them on and off, the more efficient you are and able to move more people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
No. Monumental waste of time and money. Upgrade tracks, invest in more rolling stock, massively reduce fares and ensure free hi speed Wi-Fi on all trains. No one cares about the odd 10 minutes here and there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"No. Monumental waste of time and money. Upgrade tracks, invest in more rolling stock, massively reduce fares and ensure free hi speed Wi-Fi on all trains. No one cares about the odd 10 minutes here and there."
And therein is the caricature post of a populist argument against HS2
1) infrastructure projects are never a waste of time because they exist for and benefit generations thereafter.
2) There is no such thing as upgrading track that was laid 100 years ago unless you think that “smart” motorways are a good idea?
3) You can’t put more rolling stock on a track that is already at capacity.
4) Reducing fares only adds more traffic onto an already flooded network (see above).
5) You are right about the “odd ten minutes here and there” but faster trains increase overall capacity because there would be more time for more trains to be moving.
Rail solutions are not answered by soundbyte responses - they deserve deeper thought. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Hs2 chairman and the northern power house exec on tv today saying Hs2 sole purpose is to take lorries and cars off the roads and thus cut carbon emission
as the super high speed has to be cut for safety reasons and will not cut rail journeys times by what they first stated.
What a load of short term ist .. fkn politician bullshit. They have been talking from its instigation.
kill the fkn project and save the 150 - 200 billion debt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Rail solutions are not answered by soundbyte responses - they deserve deeper thought."
That's true. Sadly, we haven't had anyone capable of that sort of deeper thought in government for more than a decade. Which is why we are where we are.
Fucking this sort of major project up is a long held tradition in the UK. Our defence procurement is another example of how we love to get things wrong and waste billions.
That said, we got the Channel Tunnel right; but only with help from the French - and what the fuck do they know about railways?
Right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"Rail solutions are not answered by soundbyte responses - they deserve deeper thought.
That's true. Sadly, we haven't had anyone capable of that sort of deeper thought in government for more than a decade. Which is why we are where we are.
Fucking this sort of major project up is a long held tradition in the UK. Our defence procurement is another example of how we love to get things wrong and waste billions.
That said, we got the Channel Tunnel right; but only with help from the French - and what the fuck do they know about railways?
Right?"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We have to take people out of their cars, onto public transport, whilst also addressing the capacity issues of the current West Coast Mainline route.
I don't know what the better solution is but can't help but perceive that HS2 isn't it. It's cumbersome, involving multiple changes for most people, which eliminate speed achieved time savings. It also is another privatised chunk onto the madness that is our fragmented system that clearly doesn't work in the greater public interest of UK citizens, even if it helps citizens of other countries, due to the money they get from us. And yet it still is more costly than the previous system that we had.
Germany has made a great move, by reducing train fares and other countries cities have found similar benefits from cutting public transport fares.
The fact that the HS2 route causes so much significant natural habitat damage should be a major cause for us to stop this route before this continues. We should be looking for a system that uses our current large city stations and predominantly our existing or unused routes. Whilst upgrading our current routes, we would also have to accept the huge disruption and costs of doing so. I'd certainly be taxing technology companies that are running services here to a far greater extent, to support the investment in upgrades, as well as companies that offshore income to manage tax levels. They all rely on the country having effective infrastructure to support businesses and the economy, for their benefit. Would the likes of Google, Amazon, Facebook et al cease to provide services here if we did? Would we manage if they didn't - I'm sure we would be fine.
We're struggling in part because we failed to invest sufficiently in previous decades. Other priorities were made instead. To overcome just this, if we were not also needing to make huge changes to our lifestyles, that prioritise greater emphasis on public transport, is a massive step change for the UK. Real leaders of significance and value would revolutionise our country and not settle for some more of the same. HS2 is a bit more of what we have, including what isn't effective or fully right.
I am not sure the concept is about getting people to their ultimate destination faster - albeit that is the populist argument.
Faster trains that spend less time on the track enable more movements per hour and thereby more capacity on the specific route. Add in some advanced technology to reduce sequencing and build longer platforms to carry more people per train and suddenly you have trebled existing capacity.
Or conversely you could argue that more slower trains and cheaper fares would provide as much benefit in terms of capacity on the existing system while allowing those who need to move rapidly and can afford it, the option of flying to a regional airport. It might sound counter intuitive but then perhaps travelling by sleeper train throughout the night would be more fun - all aboard the swingers special anyone?
How does spending more time on the track equate to cheaper fares?
Moving people around is all about efficiency. The quicker you can get them on and off, the more efficient you are and able to move more people."
I think you missed the purpose of my post so to explain further. My understanding is that HS2 just like Crossrail is going to go massively over budget because building a railway is extremely difficult and costly. Our whole rail system is compromised because we adopted a cheaper loading gauge in the early days of rail so we cannot build larger rolling stock. The alternative is longer stations but this is impossible in many locations due to physical geography. The existing tracks are running at capacity now and the only way of increasing that is to run more trains at slower speeds to take into account fixed embarkation times(how long a train is in the station). In countries that have high speed rail systems the trains are longer, larger and easier to get on and off and they do not have delays because of leaves on the line or the narrow exits of our rolling stock.
The future should be high speed electrified rail and tram networks but the problem is that we now have alternative methods of transport that vie for speed (flybe) and no integrated transport thinking. You also need to look back at the the boom time of railway building when every little town was building its own links to the major rail lines because there was no alternative transport that was anywhere near as fast. I completely get that there is a need for sustainable infrastructure but there is no appetite in government or amongst investors for long term commitments.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"We have to take people out of their cars, onto public transport, whilst also addressing the capacity issues of the current West Coast Mainline route.
I don't know what the better solution is but can't help but perceive that HS2 isn't it. It's cumbersome, involving multiple changes for most people, which eliminate speed achieved time savings. It also is another privatised chunk onto the madness that is our fragmented system that clearly doesn't work in the greater public interest of UK citizens, even if it helps citizens of other countries, due to the money they get from us. And yet it still is more costly than the previous system that we had.
Germany has made a great move, by reducing train fares and other countries cities have found similar benefits from cutting public transport fares.
The fact that the HS2 route causes so much significant natural habitat damage should be a major cause for us to stop this route before this continues. We should be looking for a system that uses our current large city stations and predominantly our existing or unused routes. Whilst upgrading our current routes, we would also have to accept the huge disruption and costs of doing so. I'd certainly be taxing technology companies that are running services here to a far greater extent, to support the investment in upgrades, as well as companies that offshore income to manage tax levels. They all rely on the country having effective infrastructure to support businesses and the economy, for their benefit. Would the likes of Google, Amazon, Facebook et al cease to provide services here if we did? Would we manage if they didn't - I'm sure we would be fine.
We're struggling in part because we failed to invest sufficiently in previous decades. Other priorities were made instead. To overcome just this, if we were not also needing to make huge changes to our lifestyles, that prioritise greater emphasis on public transport, is a massive step change for the UK. Real leaders of significance and value would revolutionise our country and not settle for some more of the same. HS2 is a bit more of what we have, including what isn't effective or fully right.
I am not sure the concept is about getting people to their ultimate destination faster - albeit that is the populist argument.
Faster trains that spend less time on the track enable more movements per hour and thereby more capacity on the specific route. Add in some advanced technology to reduce sequencing and build longer platforms to carry more people per train and suddenly you have trebled existing capacity.
Or conversely you could argue that more slower trains and cheaper fares would provide as much benefit in terms of capacity on the existing system while allowing those who need to move rapidly and can afford it, the option of flying to a regional airport. It might sound counter intuitive but then perhaps travelling by sleeper train throughout the night would be more fun - all aboard the swingers special anyone?
How does spending more time on the track equate to cheaper fares?
Moving people around is all about efficiency. The quicker you can get them on and off, the more efficient you are and able to move more people.
I think you missed the purpose of my post so to explain further. My understanding is that HS2 just like Crossrail is going to go massively over budget because building a railway is extremely difficult and costly. Our whole rail system is compromised because we adopted a cheaper loading gauge in the early days of rail so we cannot build larger rolling stock. The alternative is longer stations but this is impossible in many locations due to physical geography. The existing tracks are running at capacity now and the only way of increasing that is to run more trains at slower speeds to take into account fixed embarkation times(how long a train is in the station). In countries that have high speed rail systems the trains are longer, larger and easier to get on and off and they do not have delays because of leaves on the line or the narrow exits of our rolling stock.
The future should be high speed electrified rail and tram networks but the problem is that we now have alternative methods of transport that vie for speed (flybe) and no integrated transport thinking. You also need to look back at the the boom time of railway building when every little town was building its own links to the major rail lines because there was no alternative transport that was anywhere near as fast. I completely get that there is a need for sustainable infrastructure but there is no appetite in government or amongst investors for long term commitments. "
we had a mainline from London to Sheffield and manchester that was built throughout to the continental loading gauge and would of made a fantastic high speed line up the spine of the country we even electrified a portion of it and built a brand new tunnel under the pennines sadly with great forsite it was deemed surplus to requirements and apart from the electrified section from Sheffield to manchester was closed and largely ripped up post breaching this was the Great Central Railway from marylebone to manchester Leeds & Sheffield the rump from manchester to Sheffield was closed in 1980 and the 30 year old tunnel sold off to the CEGB to hold power cables as usual lots of forward thinking by various govts over the years |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We have to take people out of their cars, onto public transport, whilst also addressing the capacity issues of the current West Coast Mainline route.
I don't know what the better solution is but can't help but perceive that HS2 isn't it. It's cumbersome, involving multiple changes for most people, which eliminate speed achieved time savings. It also is another privatised chunk onto the madness that is our fragmented system that clearly doesn't work in the greater public interest of UK citizens, even if it helps citizens of other countries, due to the money they get from us. And yet it still is more costly than the previous system that we had.
Germany has made a great move, by reducing train fares and other countries cities have found similar benefits from cutting public transport fares.
The fact that the HS2 route causes so much significant natural habitat damage should be a major cause for us to stop this route before this continues. We should be looking for a system that uses our current large city stations and predominantly our existing or unused routes. Whilst upgrading our current routes, we would also have to accept the huge disruption and costs of doing so. I'd certainly be taxing technology companies that are running services here to a far greater extent, to support the investment in upgrades, as well as companies that offshore income to manage tax levels. They all rely on the country having effective infrastructure to support businesses and the economy, for their benefit. Would the likes of Google, Amazon, Facebook et al cease to provide services here if we did? Would we manage if they didn't - I'm sure we would be fine.
We're struggling in part because we failed to invest sufficiently in previous decades. Other priorities were made instead. To overcome just this, if we were not also needing to make huge changes to our lifestyles, that prioritise greater emphasis on public transport, is a massive step change for the UK. Real leaders of significance and value would revolutionise our country and not settle for some more of the same. HS2 is a bit more of what we have, including what isn't effective or fully right.
I am not sure the concept is about getting people to their ultimate destination faster - albeit that is the populist argument.
Faster trains that spend less time on the track enable more movements per hour and thereby more capacity on the specific route. Add in some advanced technology to reduce sequencing and build longer platforms to carry more people per train and suddenly you have trebled existing capacity.
Or conversely you could argue that more slower trains and cheaper fares would provide as much benefit in terms of capacity on the existing system while allowing those who need to move rapidly and can afford it, the option of flying to a regional airport. It might sound counter intuitive but then perhaps travelling by sleeper train throughout the night would be more fun - all aboard the swingers special anyone?
How does spending more time on the track equate to cheaper fares?
Moving people around is all about efficiency. The quicker you can get them on and off, the more efficient you are and able to move more people.
I think you missed the purpose of my post so to explain further. My understanding is that HS2 just like Crossrail is going to go massively over budget because building a railway is extremely difficult and costly. Our whole rail system is compromised because we adopted a cheaper loading gauge in the early days of rail so we cannot build larger rolling stock. The alternative is longer stations but this is impossible in many locations due to physical geography. The existing tracks are running at capacity now and the only way of increasing that is to run more trains at slower speeds to take into account fixed embarkation times(how long a train is in the station). In countries that have high speed rail systems the trains are longer, larger and easier to get on and off and they do not have delays because of leaves on the line or the narrow exits of our rolling stock.
The future should be high speed electrified rail and tram networks but the problem is that we now have alternative methods of transport that vie for speed (flybe) and no integrated transport thinking. You also need to look back at the the boom time of railway building when every little town was building its own links to the major rail lines because there was no alternative transport that was anywhere near as fast. I completely get that there is a need for sustainable infrastructure but there is no appetite in government or amongst investors for long term commitments. we had a mainline from London to Sheffield and manchester that was built throughout to the continental loading gauge and would of made a fantastic high speed line up the spine of the country we even electrified a portion of it and built a brand new tunnel under the pennines sadly with great forsite it was deemed surplus to requirements and apart from the electrified section from Sheffield to manchester was closed and largely ripped up post breaching this was the Great Central Railway from marylebone to manchester Leeds & Sheffield the rump from manchester to Sheffield was closed in 1980 and the 30 year old tunnel sold off to the CEGB to hold power cables as usual lots of forward thinking by various govts over the years "
Yes the grand central was the finest moment of rail construction in this country - well ahead of its time in vision and design. Dr Beeching has a lot to answer for! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
I honestly don't know enough about it.
But instinct tells me it will achieve the opposite of what's intended - it'll suck more into London rather than the reverse.
So probably no - that kinda money could improve an awful of lot of crappy railway lines in peripheral areas.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why not sort out and improve the train lines we already have x"
Have you read any of these posts?
Basics are as follows;
1: the trains are too small to carry more passengers
2: the stations are too short to carry longer trains
3: the system is at full capacity now
4: new tracks cost £££-millions per mile to build
5: going as fast as they currently can on the existing tracks the time savings of faster trains would be negligible
6: There is not enough money or desire in government to fund vital infrastructure and private companies are not interested because they would have to charge such high fares to make back their money that they know it doesnt add up financially for their shareholders.
Sorry to be negative but HS2 is a poor idea. Better to spend the money linking Northern towns instead of sending everything via London |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why not sort out and improve the train lines we already have x
Have you read any of these posts?
Basics are as follows;
1: the trains are too small to carry more passengers
2: the stations are too short to carry longer trains
3: the system is at full capacity now
4: new tracks cost £££-millions per mile to build
5: going as fast as they currently can on the existing tracks the time savings of faster trains would be negligible
6: There is not enough money or desire in government to fund vital infrastructure and private companies are not interested because they would have to charge such high fares to make back their money that they know it doesnt add up financially for their shareholders.
Sorry to be negative but HS2 is a poor idea. Better to spend the money linking Northern towns instead of sending everything via London "
Sorry not read all the thread but if they can find money for hs2 then they can find it to improve the system that is failing at the moment. I may be wrong. Not just train issues but timetable and travel costs too x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why not sort out and improve the train lines we already have x
Have you read any of these posts?
Basics are as follows;
1: the trains are too small to carry more passengers
2: the stations are too short to carry longer trains
3: the system is at full capacity now
4: new tracks cost £££-millions per mile to build
5: going as fast as they currently can on the existing tracks the time savings of faster trains would be negligible
6: There is not enough money or desire in government to fund vital infrastructure and private companies are not interested because they would have to charge such high fares to make back their money that they know it doesnt add up financially for their shareholders.
Sorry to be negative but HS2 is a poor idea. Better to spend the money linking Northern towns instead of sending everything via London
Sorry not read all the thread but if they can find money for hs2 then they can find it to improve the system that is failing at the moment. I may be wrong. Not just train issues but timetable and travel costs too x"
I wish that were the case but the money needed to modernise the whole rail system would make HS2 look like a drop in the ocean. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why not sort out and improve the train lines we already have x
Have you read any of these posts?
Basics are as follows;
1: the trains are too small to carry more passengers
2: the stations are too short to carry longer trains
3: the system is at full capacity now
4: new tracks cost £££-millions per mile to build
5: going as fast as they currently can on the existing tracks the time savings of faster trains would be negligible
6: There is not enough money or desire in government to fund vital infrastructure and private companies are not interested because they would have to charge such high fares to make back their money that they know it doesnt add up financially for their shareholders.
Sorry to be negative but HS2 is a poor idea. Better to spend the money linking Northern towns instead of sending everything via London
Sorry not read all the thread but if they can find money for hs2 then they can find it to improve the system that is failing at the moment. I may be wrong. Not just train issues but timetable and travel costs too x
I wish that were the case but the money needed to modernise the whole rail system would make HS2 look like a drop in the ocean. "
I remember the who ha of the Eurotunnel and look what a success that was. Like everything we will have to wait and see x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why not sort out and improve the train lines we already have x
Have you read any of these posts?
Basics are as follows;
1: the trains are too small to carry more passengers
2: the stations are too short to carry longer trains
3: the system is at full capacity now
4: new tracks cost £££-millions per mile to build
5: going as fast as they currently can on the existing tracks the time savings of faster trains would be negligible
6: There is not enough money or desire in government to fund vital infrastructure and private companies are not interested because they would have to charge such high fares to make back their money that they know it doesnt add up financially for their shareholders.
Sorry to be negative but HS2 is a poor idea. Better to spend the money linking Northern towns instead of sending everything via London
Sorry not read all the thread but if they can find money for hs2 then they can find it to improve the system that is failing at the moment. I may be wrong. Not just train issues but timetable and travel costs too x
I wish that were the case but the money needed to modernise the whole rail system would make HS2 look like a drop in the ocean.
I remember the who ha of the Eurotunnel and look what a success that was. Like everything we will have to wait and see x"
One line built to a much larger size to cater for eurostar trains is not really a great comparison to improving the whole network I am afraid but hey ho something will have to change or we’ll all be on bicycles |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *illy999TV/TS
over a year ago
Taunton |
george hasbeen started HS2 & he's certainly a norvern powerhouse having been a napkin folder & bullingdon boy . Oooo, he's the headitor of the Evening Standard owned bi Mr Lebedev , now there's a strange alliance , or is it.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why not sort out and improve the train lines we already have x
Have you read any of these posts?
Basics are as follows;
1: the trains are too small to carry more passengers
2: the stations are too short to carry longer trains
3: the system is at full capacity now
4: new tracks cost £££-millions per mile to build
5: going as fast as they currently can on the existing tracks the time savings of faster trains would be negligible
6: There is not enough money or desire in government to fund vital infrastructure and private companies are not interested because they would have to charge such high fares to make back their money that they know it doesnt add up financially for their shareholders.
Sorry to be negative but HS2 is a poor idea. Better to spend the money linking Northern towns instead of sending everything via London
Sorry not read all the thread but if they can find money for hs2 then they can find it to improve the system that is failing at the moment. I may be wrong. Not just train issues but timetable and travel costs too x
I wish that were the case but the money needed to modernise the whole rail system would make HS2 look like a drop in the ocean.
I remember the who ha of the Eurotunnel and look what a success that was. Like everything we will have to wait and see x
One line built to a much larger size to cater for eurostar trains is not really a great comparison to improving the whole network I am afraid but hey ho something will have to change or we’ll all be on bicycles "
But they built it under the sea which is rather impressive to me lol what about monorail what is your view on that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"Why not sort out and improve the train lines we already have x
Have you read any of these posts?
Basics are as follows;
1: the trains are too small to carry more passengers
2: the stations are too short to carry longer trains
3: the system is at full capacity now
4: new tracks cost £££-millions per mile to build
5: going as fast as they currently can on the existing tracks the time savings of faster trains would be negligible
6: There is not enough money or desire in government to fund vital infrastructure and private companies are not interested because they would have to charge such high fares to make back their money that they know it doesnt add up financially for their shareholders.
Sorry to be negative but HS2 is a poor idea. Better to spend the money linking Northern towns instead of sending everything via London
Sorry not read all the thread but if they can find money for hs2 then they can find it to improve the system that is failing at the moment. I may be wrong. Not just train issues but timetable and travel costs too x
I wish that were the case but the money needed to modernise the whole rail system would make HS2 look like a drop in the ocean.
I remember the who ha of the Eurotunnel and look what a success that was. Like everything we will have to wait and see x
One line built to a much larger size to cater for eurostar trains is not really a great comparison to improving the whole network I am afraid but hey ho something will have to change or we’ll all be on bicycles
But they built it under the sea which is rather impressive to me lol what about monorail what is your view on that."
Monorail eh? Let's ask Lyle Lanley |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lan157Man
over a year ago
a village near Haywards Heath in East Sussex |
"Why not sort out and improve the train lines we already have x
Have you read any of these posts?
Basics are as follows;
1: the trains are too small to carry more passengers
2: the stations are too short to carry longer trains
3: the system is at full capacity now
4: new tracks cost £££-millions per mile to build
5: going as fast as they currently can on the existing tracks the time savings of faster trains would be negligible
6: There is not enough money or desire in government to fund vital infrastructure and private companies are not interested because they would have to charge such high fares to make back their money that they know it doesnt add up financially for their shareholders.
Sorry to be negative but HS2 is a poor idea. Better to spend the money linking Northern towns instead of sending everything via London
Sorry not read all the thread but if they can find money for hs2 then they can find it to improve the system that is failing at the moment. I may be wrong. Not just train issues but timetable and travel costs too x
I wish that were the case but the money needed to modernise the whole rail system would make HS2 look like a drop in the ocean.
I remember the who ha of the Eurotunnel and look what a success that was. Like everything we will have to wait and see x
One line built to a much larger size to cater for eurostar trains is not really a great comparison to improving the whole network I am afraid but hey ho something will have to change or we’ll all be on bicycles
But they built it under the sea which is rather impressive to me lol what about monorail what is your view on that.
Monorail eh? Let's ask Lyle Lanley"
Built a monorail that hangs over the M1 and M6 . ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why not sort out and improve the train lines we already have x
Have you read any of these posts?
Basics are as follows;
1: the trains are too small to carry more passengers
2: the stations are too short to carry longer trains
3: the system is at full capacity now
4: new tracks cost £££-millions per mile to build
5: going as fast as they currently can on the existing tracks the time savings of faster trains would be negligible
6: There is not enough money or desire in government to fund vital infrastructure and private companies are not interested because they would have to charge such high fares to make back their money that they know it doesnt add up financially for their shareholders.
Sorry to be negative but HS2 is a poor idea. Better to spend the money linking Northern towns instead of sending everything via London
Sorry not read all the thread but if they can find money for hs2 then they can find it to improve the system that is failing at the moment. I may be wrong. Not just train issues but timetable and travel costs too x
I wish that were the case but the money needed to modernise the whole rail system would make HS2 look like a drop in the ocean.
I remember the who ha of the Eurotunnel and look what a success that was. Like everything we will have to wait and see x
One line built to a much larger size to cater for eurostar trains is not really a great comparison to improving the whole network I am afraid but hey ho something will have to change or we’ll all be on bicycles
But they built it under the sea which is rather impressive to me lol what about monorail what is your view on that.
Monorail eh? Let's ask Lyle Lanley
Built a monorail that hangs over the M1 and M6 . ? "
Sounds promising x just look at Japan's railway and infrastructure x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *estivalMan
over a year ago
borehamwood |
"Why not sort out and improve the train lines we already have x
Have you read any of these posts?
Basics are as follows;
1: the trains are too small to carry more passengers
2: the stations are too short to carry longer trains
3: the system is at full capacity now
4: new tracks cost £££-millions per mile to build
5: going as fast as they currently can on the existing tracks the time savings of faster trains would be negligible
6: There is not enough money or desire in government to fund vital infrastructure and private companies are not interested because they would have to charge such high fares to make back their money that they know it doesnt add up financially for their shareholders.
Sorry to be negative but HS2 is a poor idea. Better to spend the money linking Northern towns instead of sending everything via London
Sorry not read all the thread but if they can find money for hs2 then they can find it to improve the system that is failing at the moment. I may be wrong. Not just train issues but timetable and travel costs too x
I wish that were the case but the money needed to modernise the whole rail system would make HS2 look like a drop in the ocean.
I remember the who ha of the Eurotunnel and look what a success that was. Like everything we will have to wait and see x
One line built to a much larger size to cater for eurostar trains is not really a great comparison to improving the whole network I am afraid but hey ho something will have to change or we’ll all be on bicycles
But they built it under the sea which is rather impressive to me lol what about monorail what is your view on that.
Monorail eh? Let's ask Lyle Lanley"
monorail monorail monorail |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"
... snipped....
Better to spend the money linking Northern towns instead of sending everything via London "
I keep reading this and I keep responding - it is not just about London.
To go anywhere south of Manchester you have to use the WCML for at least part of the journey.
Why just improve the link between Manchester and Leeds when you can improve the links between Manchester and the whole of Wales, and the Potteries, and all of the Midlands and Bristol and The South West - not to mention the entire M4 corridor, the south coast, Kent, the South East, the Home Counties and the East Midlands?.,, oh and London too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Too hot yr an educated guy you know fine well everything is about London if HS2 didn’t benefit London more than the north there wouldn’t be a HS2 everything is about London just look at the money spent per head compared to the north |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
to go anywhere south of manchester you have to use the wcml err factually incorrect a perfectly good service to london st pancras via Sheffield & derby ran through out all the modernisation work on the wcml in the mid noughtys also the service from Wrexham to london ran via Wolverhampton low level and the chiltern line into marylebone so that's two routes strait off the top off my head |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"Too hot yr an educated guy you know fine well everything is about London if HS2 didn’t benefit London more than the north there wouldn’t be a HS2 everything is about London just look at the money spent per head compared to the north "
No - it is bc an easy, populist soundbyte to make it about London. It isn’t.
As an example, we now travel by train to all parts of the U.K. for work and this week i have travelled to Poole (where I am now) and on Monday my wife was in Bristol. This year already we have been to Maidstone, Cambridge and Cardiff as well as this weeks travel. We are not the only people who need to use the WCML to get to places other than London.
Yes, we have also recently travelled to Bradford and Newcastle and the journey was slow when comparing the relative distances but there are more places south of Manchester than there are north of Manchester and so the cost/benefit has to be better when more cities and regions become connected.
Every one |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"to go anywhere south of manchester you have to use the wcml err factually incorrect a perfectly good service to london st pancras via Sheffield & derby ran through out all the modernisation work on the wcml in the mid noughtys also the service from Wrexham to london ran via Wolverhampton low level and the chiltern line into marylebone so that's two routes strait off the top off my head "
Try telling that to either the Trainline or Avanti ticket booking engines. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"to go anywhere south of manchester you have to use the wcml err factually incorrect a perfectly good service to london st pancras via Sheffield & derby ran through out all the modernisation work on the wcml in the mid noughtys also the service from Wrexham to london ran via Wolverhampton low level and the chiltern line into marylebone so that's two routes strait off the top off my head "
There are no direct trains from Manchester to St. Pancras. There used to be one train a week, on a Sunday, but that finished in the 1980s.
All main lines are now at capacity. Operators are fighting each other for paths, so we do need to invest in high speed rail, just as many other major European countries have done.
HS2 will only work if its part of a major plan for rail travel in the UK.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"to go anywhere south of manchester you have to use the wcml err factually incorrect a perfectly good service to london st pancras via Sheffield & derby ran through out all the modernisation work on the wcml in the mid noughtys also the service from Wrexham to london ran via Wolverhampton low level and the chiltern line into marylebone so that's two routes strait off the top off my head
There are no direct trains from Manchester to St. Pancras. There used to be one train a week, on a Sunday, but that finished in the 1980s.
All main lines are now at capacity. Operators are fighting each other for paths, so we do need to invest in high speed rail, just as many other major European countries have done.
HS2 will only work if its part of a major plan for rail travel in the UK.
"
Do you think anyone in government has any appetite for such a massive task ?
I rather think that they might all be a bit occupied with getting a fantastic brexit through and all those trade deals done so I imagine this will get knocked into the long grass for someone else to sort out |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think that you'll see HS2 morph into a Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle high speed line. The London end will be shunted into the sidings until the Northern end is complete. "
I wish that would happen but I think be other way rnd London comes first in werminster
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why not sort out and improve the train lines we already have x
Have you read any of these posts?
Basics are as follows;
1: the trains are too small to carry more passengers
2: the stations are too short to carry longer trains
3: the system is at full capacity now
4: new tracks cost £££-millions per mile to build
5: going as fast as they currently can on the existing tracks the time savings of faster trains would be negligible
6: There is not enough money or desire in government to fund vital infrastructure and private companies are not interested because they would have to charge such high fares to make back their money that they know it doesnt add up financially for their shareholders.
Sorry to be negative but HS2 is a poor idea. Better to spend the money linking Northern towns instead of sending everything via London "
The best words are the simplest ones !
HS2 is a poor idea. Better to spend the money linking Northern towns instead of sending everything via London
London gets most of our tax payers money - all towns from Carlisle the borders - north east - yorkshire - all the way
south should get what we have been owed for 3 decades .. london has had incalculable probs spent on it over this period .. wld luv to know how much they have taken from the north of watford for londons infrastructure
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
" I propose re-opening the Manchester - Sheffield "Woodhead" route - and then the Great Central London - Nottingham and on Northwards."
unfortunately all the woodhead tunnels have been sold to CEGB or whatever they are called now and have high tension electric cables running through them now after an expensive re fit so that's a non starter
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" I propose re-opening the Manchester - Sheffield "Woodhead" route - and then the Great Central London - Nottingham and on Northwards."
open up and start investing all the lines buffering all the investment to the hundreds of towns & villages - link up the non invested areas - from the past 30 years.
All the money funnels to london - south east.
This is wrong - STOP HS2 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"well surprise surprise the leaked govt review suggests "pausing" further expansion north of Birmingham due to cost nobody living in the north could see that coming could they ?"
Ha, and at the same time they are suggesting moving the house of lords to the north - now there’s an interesting strategy! Removing the checks and balances of parliament by making the hol physically more remote and then reinforcing that by stopping the continuation of the ha2 route isnt exactly my idea of democracy  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
