Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Varche on 28 January 2013, 13:30:27
-
So the plans for the extension to Manchester and Leeds are announced today.
With overuns etc it will cost £2,000 per household apparently. Here is hoping it will be good value and not bogged down with construction delays, budget overuns and when it opens prohibitive ticket prices. Spain has a mighty fine High Speed train network( second longest in the world) but many trains run with hardly anyone on them. No one has any money and the prices of tickets are erm a lot.
So can a younger forum member make a note of how much they said it would cost now and then make a comparison with the actual cost when it opens in 20 or so years time?
I think the timing of this is a bit off. Should have been planned and executed 20 years ago. Now I am fairly confident it will end up owned by a foreign company for a purchase price of peanuts. Still it will provide much needed employment for a few years.
-
but.. We have to have one 'cos France have got one. ::)
-
Absolute waste of money >:( Hope the protesters stop the go ahead .
-
The problem is what to do in another 50 years time? I feel its not needed now, but will be but not for considerable amount of time. This HS2 will get pushed through I think, once built and in use, I can see in 50/75 years time, it being used as main London feed and West cost or East coast getting serious over-haul or re-built.
Problem is its going to be flawed, as Chiltern, East & West Coast will be significantly cheaper. Just because it gets to London 40 mins 50 mins or what ever sooner, does not really matter these days.
We would rather pay less & take more time getting there.
-
It may open up the possibilty of people further north to commute to London,who wouldnt consider it now ?
I remember seeing a bloke on TV a few years ago who commuted to London from Yorkshire to earn good money,but live in a much cheaper,quieter,less crowded place.He was obviously an exception,which is why he was on TV, but it may be more viable for others if an hour each way was trimmed off the journey time. :-\
Could also encourage businesses to locate oop tnath,if it didnt take so long to get there ?
I dont know much about the subject at all tbh,but generally speaking,better,more modern infractructure seems a good idea.
-
It may open up the possibilty of people further north to commute to London,who wouldnt consider it now ?
But the cost saved of slower travel I think would override this, savings could be huge.
HS1, suffered badly from low passenger numbers as fares are around 20% higher than regular services.
You get up 20 mins earlier, save around £90 a month on HS1.
I used to pay £420 per month about 5 years ago to do Bicester North to London (including tube). Given same rules ish, if I was offered at the time a HS route for £500? I'd say sod it, I'd rather have £80 to pay for my lunches for the month...
-
An individual choice I suppose. :y
Daughter moved to London years ago due to extortionate train fares,appalling service,and the amount of time spent commutting,which seems completely sensible as long as you dont mind living in a big city.Personally,I think living in a big city when your young is a no brainer. ;)
-
It may open up the possibilty of people further north to commute to London,who wouldnt consider it now ?
I remember seeing a bloke on TV a few years ago who commuted to London from Yorkshire to earn good money,but live in a much cheaper,quieter,less crowded place.He was obviously an exception,which is why he was on TV, but it may be more viable for others if an hour each way was trimmed off the journey time. :-\
Could also encourage businesses to locate oop tnath,if it didnt take so long to get there ?
I dont know much about the subject at all tbh,but generally speaking,better,more modern infractructure seems a good idea.
I agree with you Albitz, as I think everyone knows I am very much in favour of this new - future - rail link that we will need, including for the reasons you suggest. :y :y :y :y
We cannot continue attempting to go into the future with our rail travel relying on a Victorian infrastructure. ;) Let the North thrive again :y :y
-
An individual choice I suppose. :y
Daughter moved to London years ago due to extortionate train fares,appalling service,and the amount of time spent commutting,which seems completely sensible as long as you dont mind living in a big city.Personally,I think living in a big city when your young is a no brainer. ;)
As you say its personal choice :y
I chose to commute in, as it allowed me to save much more than renting in the city. Save save save, to then buy in London.
-
An individual choice I suppose. :y
Daughter moved to London years ago due to extortionate train fares,appalling service,and the amount of time spent commutting,which seems completely sensible as long as you dont mind living in a big city.Personally,I think living in a big city when your young is a no brainer. ;)
As you say its personal choice :y
I chose to commute in, as it allowed me to save much more than renting in the city. Save save save, to then buy in London.
After 18 months in Oz,she has now returned to Londinium and is paying £1000 pcm for a 12x12 room and shared facilities in a flat.
Its ok though,as its in a trendy area. ::) ;D
-
An individual choice I suppose. :y
Daughter moved to London years ago due to extortionate train fares,appalling service,and the amount of time spent commutting,which seems completely sensible as long as you dont mind living in a big city.Personally,I think living in a big city when your young is a no brainer. ;)
As you say its personal choice :y
I chose to commute in, as it allowed me to save much more than renting in the city. Save save save, to then buy in London.
After 18 months in Oz,she has now returned to Londinium and is paying £1000 pcm for a 12x12 room and shared facilities in a flat.
Its ok though,as its in a trendy area. ::) ;D
At a guess, Shoreditch? A mate lives there, he says its best part of London as its trendy. I think its a shit hole though ;D
-
Yep,well very close to it actually,near the old spitalfields market :y ;D............I dont mind the place tbh,but it does tend to get very full of pretentious tw*ts who must be seen to carry an Applemac under one arm and a copy of the Grauniad under the other.It also seems that hetrosexuality is frowned upon too,its just sooooo last century you know. ::) ;D
But Kiera Knightley lives just round the corner and is often seen in the same trendy shops as the daughter,so its all good,. ::) ;D
-
I used to pay £420 per month about 5 years ago to do Bicester North to London (including tube). Given same rules ish, if I was offered at the time a HS route for £500? I'd say sod it, I'd rather have £80 to pay for my lunches for the month...
I'm surprised how cheap that is.. ok, cheap isn't the right word, reasonable? I reckon I clear £300 in fuel doing just a 40 mile round trip for work each day!
-
Last year I was using £200 per month of LPG per month (mostly for commuting) but have now reduced that to approx £75. :)
-
I used to pay £420 per month about 5 years ago to do Bicester North to London (including tube). Given same rules ish, if I was offered at the time a HS route for £500? I'd say sod it, I'd rather have £80 to pay for my lunches for the month...
I'm surprised how cheap that is.. ok, cheap isn't the right word, reasonable? I reckon I clear £300 in fuel doing just a 40 mile round trip for work each day!
Add in car parking and it was £500+
Think it was £84 for a monthly car parking ticket, to be honest, I did not mind, at time, iPod touch with TV Shows on, flew by. Read books too which was first for me.
Now with iPads, and other tablets can watch a whole film on nice big screen. Maybe I'm along in that time savings is not all that :-\
-
Assuming it will be on budget - it won't - these figures of £53bn are best case scenario, and do not include the changes that will need to be made. I mean, FFS, they haven't decided on the rail design yet, so how can they cost it?
Its another civil service monumental white elephant, that won't get used unless you need to travel from central Mancs/Leeds to a specific station in London.
And the cost? Not the £2k per household mentioned, its £2.7k for every UK worker (inc part time). Thats just to build, and assuming the guesses are correct. HS2's own admission is 50-60% subsidisation on fares.
Scrap it now.
-
My mistake, £55bn. Looking at wrong set of figures for Phase 2.
-
If all that is true - cancel the bloody thing now. :o ;D............Im not paying 2.7k plus subsidy for something I will never use. ;D
Anyone oop tnorth want to start up an independence movement ? I will chip in a few bob. :y :P ;D
-
HS2 sounds to me like another ill-thought-out vanity project.
I recently took a train to Glasgow. It was almost frighteningly fast. Five and something hours from my house to a hotel just outside the city centre . . . on existing lines, and costing less than driving or flying. I really don't see the point. I really don't see that half an hour or even a whole hour makes much practical difference.
AND . . . . you can be sure that tickets will cost a fortune, so nobody will use the line anyway.
-
If all that is true - cancel the bloody thing now. :o ;D............Im not paying 2.7k plus subsidy for something I will never use. ;D
Anyone oop tnorth want to start up an independence movement ? I will chip in a few bob. :y :P ;D
I am and it's not coming all the way up here and most people do not want it, very few of us want to go to London, even Miss Vamps, age 12, asked why when the cost of a ticket will prevent most people using it, she was more verbal and passionate that that :) - I was quite proud of her..... :y :y
A huge waste of money imo.....yes Lizzie imo which I am allowed...... :-X
-
Assuming it will be on budget - it won't - these figures of £53bn are best case scenario, and do not include the changes that will need to be made. I mean, FFS, they haven't decided on the rail design yet, so how can they cost it?
Its another civil service monumental white elephant, that won't get used unless you need to travel from central Mancs/Leeds to a specific station in London.
And the cost? Not the £2k per household mentioned, its £2.7k for every UK worker (inc part time). Thats just to build, and assuming the guesses are correct. HS2's own admission is 50-60% subsidisation on fares.
Scrap it now.
Agreed! :y :y :y
-
Its another case of sod who gets in the way....bulldoze their homes, shut their business, bugger up the countryside. We don't live near it so sod the rest >:( >:(
Well...I for one don't want it coming through here >:( :y
-
Reading all the posts, with many so anti this step into the future, I am so glad you were not around in Victorian England! If you had been there, Britain would never have become Great! ::) ::) ::) ::)
Great Britain either moves on and modernises, or dies. Then everyone will be complaining about a lack of job opportunities far greater than now.
Let progress wagons roll on! ;D ;D ;D ;D :y :y :y
-
Reading all the posts, with many so anti this step into the future, I am so glad you were not around in Victorian England! If you had been there, Britain would never have become Great! ::) ::) ::) ::)
Great Britain either moves on and modernises, or dies. Then everyone will be complaining about a lack of job opportunities far greater than now.
Let progress wagons roll on! ;D ;D ;D ;D :y :y :y
But progress does not need to be centred on London and the South East. The vast majority of people in this country do not live or work in the South East corner of Britain and seldom need to get there. Rather than making the funnel wider, to pour more people into an already crowded and expensive part of the country, I'd rather see real incentives for businesses (and other organisations) to relocate or expand into the less densely populated (and often more attractive) regions.
-
Reading all the posts, with many so anti this step into the future, I am so glad you were not around in Victorian England! If you had been there, Britain would never have become Great! ::) ::) ::) ::)
Great Britain either moves on and modernises, or dies. Then everyone will be complaining about a lack of job opportunities far greater than now.
Let progress wagons roll on! ;D ;D ;D ;D :y :y :y
But progress does not need to be centred on London and the South East. The vast majority of people in this country do not live or work in the South East corner of Britain and seldom need to get there. Rather than making the funnel wider, to pour more people into an already crowded and expensive part of the country, I'd rather see real incentives for businesses (and other organisations) to relocate or expand into the less densely populated (and often more attractive) regions.
So ... how does the business that "relocates" to your "less populated area" actually DO business ?? if its major client base is in a populated area ??
That is the whole purpose of better infrastructure links .. it actually ALLOWS what you desire !! Without the decent links the business must remain in the populated area .. with them, it can move and still service its clients. It is fine being able to view/order/pay for your items on the internet .. but you actually do want them delivered don't you ?? and that takes infrastructure.
Lots of hypocrisy (again) over these issues ... "Government must do more" "Government must invest" "Government encourages north/south divide as they all live in London" ...... but when they actually do something that answers all 3 points "Government wastes money" "Government blights lives" etc etc etc ..
It is, I believe, simply that many folk don't think, they simply repeat the headlines of the politically motivated press... who never let the truth get in the way of a headline .. :)
Good news sells no papers ... slating the government does ... regardless of the truth.
-
Reading all the posts, with many so anti this step into the future, I am so glad you were not around in Victorian England! If you had been there, Britain would never have become Great! ::) ::) ::) ::)
Great Britain either moves on and modernises, or dies. Then everyone will be complaining about a lack of job opportunities far greater than now.
Let progress wagons roll on! ;D ;D ;D ;D :y :y :y
But progress does not need to be centred on London and the South East. The vast majority of people in this country do not live or work in the South East corner of Britain and seldom need to get there. Rather than making the funnel wider, to pour more people into an already crowded and expensive part of the country, I'd rather see real incentives for businesses (and other organisations) to relocate or expand into the less densely populated (and often more attractive) regions.
So ... how does the business that "relocates" to your "less populated area" actually DO business ?? if its major client base is in a populated area ??
That is the whole purpose of better infrastructure links .. it actually ALLOWS what you desire !! Without the decent links the business must remain in the populated area .. with them, it can move and still service its clients. It is fine being able to view/order/pay for your items on the internet .. but you actually do want them delivered don't you ?? and that takes infrastructure.
Lots of hypocrisy (again) over these issues ... "Government must do more" "Government must invest" "Government encourages north/south divide as they all live in London" ...... but when they actually do something that answers all 3 points "Government wastes money" "Government blights lives" etc etc etc ..
It is, I believe, simply that many folk don't think, they simply repeat the headlines of the politically motivated press... who never let the truth get in the way of a headline .. :)
Good news sells no papers ... slating the government does ... regardless of the truth.
But we have infrastructure, and businesses outside of the South East that still manage to thrive. I order goods off the Internet today and can get them delivered tomorrow. HS2 is all about getting people into and out of London quicker, not about providing new routes or opening up non-existant corridors.
And, like I said, most people don't live in the South East so there is already a good client base everywhere else. Many distribution depots are already based in the Midlands so that goods can be distributed effectively around the country. I don't see HS2 helping with this at all.
-
>:( And they say there is no money to repair the roads , the "A1" in Northumberland into Scotland is SINGLE carriage way for long stretches , transport policy in this country is a joke >:(
-
Keep up at the back .. :)
http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2013/01/26/a1-dualling-in-northumbeland-is-back-on-agenda-clegg-61634-32682207
:)
-
London and the home counties has a population of approx. 18 million people.The whole of thenorth of England has a population of approx. 14.5 million people.Thats why everything tends to centre around London and the surrounding area.Its the capital city and also arguably the worlds biggest finance centre,so that will always be where the money (and therefore people) tends to be concentrated.
In many ways people in the north are better off as its a much less crowded & hectic place to be.
-
Thats a better suggestion....use the money to repair the roads :y
I have to say...irrespective of all the comments on here....it seems nobody gives a toss for those in its way. As I said earlier,....'It doesn't come near me so I ain't bothered.' attitude.
I can remember when Concorde was needed for business, it was needed for business to survive....where is it now !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rotting in museums while business now trundles around again in 747's etc. If rail travel is so good....why haven't all the lorries disappeared from our roads ? They were talking about container rail to do this donkey's years ago, Another failure :)
-
If it got freight off the roads and back on the railways I would be all for it. :y
-
And remember....you have got to get to London first to be able to get on the thing anyway.
After wasting time doing that, I would be almost in Birmingham from here!!!! :y
-
I thought it was for passengers, not freight Albs........cannot see freight trains running at 200mph......could not use the passenger lines, they would slow down that traffic. ;)
-
I work in an IT based industry, and commute daily a fair old way. HS2 may actually affect my company, because they're going to plough their track through some of our grounds. The thing that gets me is that in the old days (and not really that long ago) people used to work near their office/factory/business. It seems that more and more people want to live in one place and work in another (as I do - although I would move closer if I could a) convince the other half to move further from her mother, and b) afford to buy a house in the area). I spend most my days working with other people, but reckon that 90% of the time I could be just as productive working from home, using video conf, email & phones. Some businesses in my sector are already embracing this as a working culture - with a small office in the capital but barely any employees actually work there - the main workforce are at home or in small pockets around the world.
I'd like to see money invested more in trying to just cut down the journeys people 'need' to make - how many of those people commuting to London could work at home or more locally, if businesses went for the idea? I can't see my company doing it - not just yet - but think of the costs for lighting, heating, securing, renting, furnishing, maintaining, powering, watering etc and the cost per seat at a business is extortion. Shift those to smaller sites, or home offices, run your business at a lower overhead (or pay your staff more), watch all your staff save on their transport costs so they end up with more cash on the hip at the end of every month - then watch them spend it (hey we could even put something into the economy :))
</ramble>
...and I saw the clip of Cameron bleating on about 'but they've got one, so we need one too' - and as a reason to push it through that just wound me right up.
-
Should have been done 25 years ago. The station at Toton sidings is a perfect place midway between Nottingham and Derby, just off the A52 close to the M1 and a soon to be completed tram line direct into Nottingham for transfer to local trains, a link to East Midlands airport at Parkway would be good. :y
Lot of money but stop foreign aid to pay for it or the daily £55m to the bloody EU. UK FIRST :y :y :y
I hope British companies get the contracts and use British labour for the work, why restrict it to 220MPH when trains now run at 300.
A pity I won't travel on it :( :(
-
London and the home counties has a population of approx. 18 million people.The whole of thenorth of England has a population of approx. 14.5 million people.Thats why everything tends to centre around London and the surrounding area.Its the capital city and also arguably the worlds biggest finance centre,so that will always be where the money (and therefore people) tends to be concentrated.
In many ways people in the north are better off as its a much less crowded & hectic place to be.
So, that's 42 million (70%) that don't live in London and the home counties. And just because London is the capital is no reason for eveything to be based there (the population of Washington DC is around 650,000, New York City is around 8,000,000).
People tend to be concentrated there because businesses and Government is concentrated there, and it becomes self perpetuating resulting in overcrowding and increased costs. If businesses were incentivised to move away and spread out (and they could be highly incentivised with £50bn) we could all enjoy this green and pleasant land a little more.
-
London and the home counties has a population of approx. 18 million people.The whole of thenorth of England has a population of approx. 14.5 million people.Thats why everything tends to centre around London and the surrounding area.Its the capital city and also arguably the worlds biggest finance centre,so that will always be where the money (and therefore people) tends to be concentrated.
In many ways people in the north are better off as its a much less crowded & hectic place to be.
So, that's 42 million (70%) that don't live in London and the home counties. And just because London is the capital is no reason for eveything to be based there (the population of Washington DC is around 650,000, New York City is around 8,000,000).
People tend to be concentrated there because businesses and Government is concentrated there, and it becomes self perpetuating resulting in overcrowding and increased costs. If businesses were incentivised to move away and spread out (and they could be highly incentivised with £50bn) we could all enjoy this green and pleasant land a little more.
There will not be much left at this rate >:(
-
London and the home counties has a population of approx. 18 million people.The whole of thenorth of England has a population of approx. 14.5 million people.Thats why everything tends to centre around London and the surrounding area.Its the capital city and also arguably the worlds biggest finance centre,so that will always be where the money (and therefore people) tends to be concentrated.
In many ways people in the north are better off as its a much less crowded & hectic place to be.
So, that's 42 million (70%) that don't live in London and the home counties. And just because London is the capital is no reason for eveything to be based there (the population of Washington DC is around 650,000, New York City is around 8,000,000).
People tend to be concentrated there because businesses and Government is concentrated there, and it becomes self perpetuating resulting in overcrowding and increased costs. If businesses were incentivised to move away and spread out (and they could be highly incentivised with £50bn) we could all enjoy this green and pleasant land a little more.
There will not be much left at this rate >:(
Except in the North, where they build bugger all these days!
-
Reading all the posts, with many so anti this step into the future, I am so glad you were not around in Victorian England! If you had been there, Britain would never have become Great! ::) ::) ::) ::)
I really don't consider myself Luddite or non-forward thinking. During Victorian times and the Industrial Revolution, the innovators were doing things because they simply didn't exist.
The railway network didn't exist so they made it. The London Underground didn't exist so they made it, Our sewerage system didn't exist, so they made it etc etc. We already have quite an extensive railway system to Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds etc.
If HS2 was something really different, maybe carriages in underground vacuum tubes that sucked you to Birmingham in 20 minutes LOL :o, I'd be for it. But It isn't, it's another railway.
-
Also, Rog, remember that during Victorian times, our towns were smaller, villages were hamlets, there were no big housing estates, no massive airports...so hell of a lot of green land, so building a railway or stuff in those times did not cause disruption to peoples lives and livelyhoods. I wouldn't mind so much if they upgraded the existing tracks instead of ploughing out for more.
How many of these trains are going to leave London each day, filled to the gunwhales with passengers, on a journey that is going to take an hour. Struth, most of the population is going north daily and most of the northern population are heading south !!!!!! But if its not continuous all day, why do we need it
I don't think the figures add up at all ;)
-
Reading all the posts, with many so anti this step into the future, I am so glad you were not around in Victorian England! If you had been there, Britain would never have become Great! ::) ::) ::) ::)
Great Britain either moves on and modernises, or dies. Then everyone will be complaining about a lack of job opportunities far greater than now.
Let progress wagons roll on! ;D ;D ;D ;D :y :y :y
But progress does not need to be centred on London and the South East. The vast majority of people in this country do not live or work in the South East corner of Britain and seldom need to get there. Rather than making the funnel wider, to pour more people into an already crowded and expensive part of the country, I'd rather see real incentives for businesses (and other organisations) to relocate or expand into the less densely populated (and often more attractive) regions.
So ... how does the business that "relocates" to your "less populated area" actually DO business ?? if its major client base is in a populated area ??
That is the whole purpose of better infrastructure links .. it actually ALLOWS what you desire !! Without the decent links the business must remain in the populated area .. with them, it can move and still service its clients. It is fine being able to view/order/pay for your items on the internet .. but you actually do want them delivered don't you ?? and that takes infrastructure.
Lots of hypocrisy (again) over these issues ... "Government must do more" "Government must invest" "Government encourages north/south divide as they all live in London" ...... but when they actually do something that answers all 3 points "Government wastes money" "Government blights lives" etc etc etc ..
It is, I believe, simply that many folk don't think, they simply repeat the headlines of the politically motivated press... who never let the truth get in the way of a headline .. :)
Good news sells no papers ... slating the government does ... regardless of the truth.
#
Well said Entwood! :y :y :y
-
Reading all the posts, with many so anti this step into the future, I am so glad you were not around in Victorian England! If you had been there, Britain would never have become Great! ::) ::) ::) ::)
I really don't consider myself Luddite or non-forward thinking. During Victorian times and the Industrial Revolution, the innovators were doing things because they simply didn't exist.
The railway network didn't exist so they made it. The London Underground didn't exist so they made it, Our sewerage system didn't exist, so they made it etc etc. We already have quite an extensive railway system to Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds etc.
If HS2 was something really different, maybe carriages in underground vacuum tubes that sucked you to Birmingham in 20 minutes LOL :o, I'd be for it. But It isn't, it's another railway.
Following your logic, the motorways should never have been built because standard roads already existed. With airports they already exist so there is no need to expand them or add to the number. ::) ::) ::)
Sorry, but we must drive forward, and we are talking here about a transport system to cater for 25, 50 and 100 years time, not for us around now particularly. When those years arrive will we still go around in our automobile bubbles, burning fossil fuels, or even electric bubbles that ultimately burn fossil fuels in some form (well certainly for the next 50 years the way it is going!)?
The answer our children's children will face will need to be radical, and hopefully that is a high speed, super capacity, railway driven system that those who live at the end of the 21st century will say "thank God somene had the foresight and commitment to build it for us!" 8) 8) 8) 8) :y :y :y
-
Reading all the posts, with many so anti this step into the future, I am so glad you were not around in Victorian England! If you had been there, Britain would never have become Great! ::) ::) ::) ::)
I really don't consider myself Luddite or non-forward thinking. During Victorian times and the Industrial Revolution, the innovators were doing things because they simply didn't exist.
The railway network didn't exist so they made it. The London Underground didn't exist so they made it, Our sewerage system didn't exist, so they made it etc etc. We already have quite an extensive railway system to Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds etc.
If HS2 was something really different, maybe carriages in underground vacuum tubes that sucked you to Birmingham in 20 minutes LOL :o, I'd be for it. But It isn't, it's another railway.
The answer our children's children will face will need to be radical, and hopefully . . . .
Lizzy, that is my exact point. It isn't radical or certainly not radical enough.
-
Reading all the posts, with many so anti this step into the future, I am so glad you were not around in Victorian England! If you had been there, Britain would never have become Great! ::) ::) ::) ::)
I really don't consider myself Luddite or non-forward thinking. During Victorian times and the Industrial Revolution, the innovators were doing things because they simply didn't exist.
The railway network didn't exist so they made it. The London Underground didn't exist so they made it, Our sewerage system didn't exist, so they made it etc etc. We already have quite an extensive railway system to Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds etc.
If HS2 was something really different, maybe carriages in underground vacuum tubes that sucked you to Birmingham in 20 minutes LOL :o, I'd be for it. But It isn't, it's another railway.
The answer our children's children will face will need to be radical, and hopefully . . . .
Lizzy, that is my exact point. It isn't radical or certainly not radical enough.
Oh it is for the UK, and will bring us up to the standards our railways should have reached decades ago! :y :y
-
Also, Rog, remember that during Victorian times, our towns were smaller, villages were hamlets, there were no big housing estates, no massive airports...so hell of a lot of green land, so building a railway or stuff in those times did not cause disruption to peoples lives and livelyhoods. I wouldn't mind so much if they upgraded the existing tracks instead of ploughing out for more.
How many of these trains are going to leave London each day, filled to the gunwhales with passengers, on a journey that is going to take an hour. Struth, most of the population is going north daily and most of the northern population are heading south !!!!!! But if its not continuous all day, why do we need it
I don't think the figures add up at all ;)
But those very railway lines created new towns, with large working populations to grow up and give a secondary boost to the Industrial Revolution. The railways opened up new areas of industrial growth, with the supply of working people, taken away from very poorly paid jobs on the land, greatly increased with the economy greatly enhanced.
The Coalitions plan is to recreate that progress, using a small amount of land from the millions of acres hardly populated, and give the population what they are screaming out for, with complaints galour aimed at the Government. As Entwood states, the Government cannot win whatever they do!! ::) ::) ::)
As a matter of interest when the railways entered London, and developed their systems, in the 1840's and later, they carried out a major land clearance with many homes, albeit often slums, being demolished without compensation. In fact the railway companies ended up owning 10% of the land in London. The Victorians were determined to create a railway system, yes for profit, but also to drive commerce forward. ;)
-
Fix the bloody roads first ::) then you can play with the trains , preferably steam ;D
-
We have a precedent. HS1. Its a flop, and under utilised.
The business case for HS2 doesn't stack up. If you read the consultation bumf, its blatant. The biggest savings, they think, is "wasted time" lost on longer journeys. Not only is that rubbish - anyone who has been on a commuter train in the last 5 years, now most trains have laptop charge points and wifi, will know - but it is based on the hourly rates of execs. NOT joe public.
It has no benfits over the existing infrastructure, save a few minutes (15mins from Birmingham, 40mins from Leeds).
As IT infrastructure improves, and society changes, commuting will reduce - this is already happening.
*IF* they do get the fares the same as existing lines - which will only happen if we taxpayers subsidise it more - the likes of Chiltern will go bust (Hoorah! ;D), and it will be akin to the closing of the branch lines, as all stations between Birmingham and London will close.
-
As IT infrastructure improves, and society changes, commuting will reduce - this is already happening.
That was exactly my point - agree completely - most businesses need to change the idea that everyone needs to sit in an office. The IT infrastructure already exists - incentivise business to invest in this more and people don't need to travel, and (if they're sensible) they get a better work/life/commute balance.
-
As IT infrastructure improves, and society changes, commuting will reduce - this is already happening.
That was exactly my point - agree completely - most businesses need to change the idea that everyone needs to sit in an office. The IT infrastructure already exists - incentivise business to invest in this more and people don't need to travel, and (if they're sensible) they get a better work/life/commute balance.
The last mile is still a problem for many, but fast broadband is spreading. I have a pair of FTTC lines here, and it really is a new way of home working compared to ADSL.
-
As IT infrastructure improves, and society changes, commuting will reduce - this is already happening.
That was exactly my point - agree completely - most businesses need to change the idea that everyone needs to sit in an office. The IT infrastructure already exists - incentivise business to invest in this more and people don't need to travel, and (if they're sensible) they get a better work/life/commute balance.
In the service sector perhaps .. but what this country needs is to MAKE stuff .. and that can't be done on the internet/telephone/whatever form of magic IT you describe.
It requires PEOPLE .. managers/inventors/designers/workers in a production facility producing goods, or attracting those who may wish to purchase said goods to actually SEE them, and their production methods (this is called selling your product).
And one way to get folks to come and see your product is not to waste their valuable time in travelling by mule.
-
I'm actually in favour of HS2 as a concept, but I'm very anti what is proposed. The problem is that we are still using 19th century technology with all of it high maintenance, high running costs and performance limitation issues. 200mph is about the limit that is practical for rail based railways. Freight will never be a major operator due to wear and fatigue issues due to its weight compared with passenger trains.
We should be following Japan's lead where they are building the first 400mph+ maglev train. If we built this then it would make up to Edinburgh commutable to London, so spreading the London effect as far as Scotland. For cheap rail fares you would want this to be fully automated, so no expensive drivers necessary, only guards, there is no direct contact with the ground so no wear and maintenance issues, a wider track gauge to increase passenger comfort and to allow the transport of cars and freight. This would make the running costs reasonable and therefore ticket prices reasonable.
In a post oil and gas economy, which we have got to face over the next 50 years, then electric mass transport systems make sense, powered by nuclear Thorium power stations. There is enough Thorium reserves to last over 1000 years. The present proposal makes no more sense to me than building motorways for horses and carts. ::) ::) ::)
-
As IT infrastructure improves, and society changes, commuting will reduce - this is already happening.
That was exactly my point - agree completely - most businesses need to change the idea that everyone needs to sit in an office. The IT infrastructure already exists - incentivise business to invest in this more and people don't need to travel, and (if they're sensible) they get a better work/life/commute balance.
The last mile is still a problem for many, but fast broadband is spreading. I have a pair of FTTC lines here, and it really is a new way of home working compared to ADSL.
Very true. I travel very little now compared to when I first started working, largely due to better digital communication. I see that working for all industries. Manufacturing needs good short range commuter transport not high speed rail links half way up the country. Who knows how much further this will have progressed by the time they've opened this white elephant? We probably won't be moving from our homes.
Ironically, the last mile of public transport is even more of a problem for most, non existent, in fact. That's where the government should be focusing, IMHO. If you're going to upset a load of people, do it by putting in some of the infrastructure that Beeching trashed. While they're at it, have a cull of all the fly-by-night private bus and train operators who provide such a sh1te service. High speed links are utterly pointless if the majority can't access them.
I am one of the lucky ones. I can get a bus at the end of my road. Last time I tried to use it it was 30 minutes late. 45 minutes late the previous time. Nevertheless, once it arrives, 15 minutes to the nearest station, then a 45 minute wait for the next train, then an hour and a half into Waterloo (they used to manage it in 50 minutes. Progress!), then mess about on the tube, and then HS2 saves me how much time getting to Birmingham? ;D Does anyone seriously expect I won't take the cheaper, quicker and easier option of just jumping in the car? ;D
As always, the government don't think outside London.
Ever more ways to commute to and from London helps nobody, and, IMHO, will do little to encourage investment in other parts of the country.
.. and I agree about not setting our sights high enough too. Rail will be the new steam by the time they've got round to building all this. ;D
-
As IT infrastructure improves, and society changes, commuting will reduce - this is already happening.
That was exactly my point - agree completely - most businesses need to change the idea that everyone needs to sit in an office. The IT infrastructure already exists - incentivise business to invest in this more and people don't need to travel, and (if they're sensible) they get a better work/life/commute balance.
The last mile is still a problem for many, but fast broadband is spreading. I have a pair of FTTC lines here, and it really is a new way of home working compared to ADSL.
Very true. I travel very little now compared to when I first started working, largely due to better digital communication. I see that working for all industries. Manufacturing needs good short range commuter transport not high speed rail links half way up the country. Who knows how much further this will have progressed by the time they've opened this white elephant? We probably won't be moving from our homes.
Ironically, the last mile of public transport is even more of a problem for most, non existent, in fact. That's where the government should be focusing, IMHO. If you're going to upset a load of people, do it by putting in some of the infrastructure that Beeching trashed. While they're at it, have a cull of all the fly-by-night private bus and train operators who provide such a sh1te service. High speed links are utterly pointless if the majority can't access them.
I am one of the lucky ones. I can get a bus at the end of my road. Last time I tried to use it it was 30 minutes late. 45 minutes late the previous time. Nevertheless, once it arrives, 15 minutes to the nearest station, then a 45 minute wait for the next train, then an hour and a half into Waterloo (they used to manage it in 50 minutes. Progress!), then mess about on the tube, and then HS2 saves me how much time getting to Birmingham? ;D Does anyone seriously expect I won't take the cheaper, quicker and easier option of just jumping in the car? ;D
As always, the government don't think outside London.
Ever more ways to commute to and from London helps nobody, and, IMHO, will do little to encourage investment in other parts of the country.
.. and I agree about not setting our sights high enough too. Rail will be the new steam by the time they've got round to building all this. ;D
Sorry Kevin, but like so many posters you are basing your argument on the facts in the context of today. As in my previous posts, we must think about 25, 50 or 100 years time and the conditions relevant then. Life will be very different.
IT, working at home, is all very well now. But in years to come, if not now, we must return to manufacturing, in the physical form, and that will require workers to be on a site actually building things. We need those industries in the Midlands and the North generally, so we need a large commuting / living population in those areas to revitalise the commerce there, and for Great Britain generally. We need to move people at high speed around the land and from Europe to get the best for our industries for their expansion.
As I said before, Victorian England was given a massive secondary boost to it's Industrial Revolution by the railways moving around the workforce to were they were needed, away from the land. In a country with by 50/100 years time perhaps 75/80 million (?) people we will need rapid transport that is sustainable. Sorry, and I hate saying this myself, but the car is going to become a liability for anything but local travel. The road system will never cope no matter how often it is extended, and it will be far slower travelling on them than today!
I would add though, in addition to a HS1/HS2 passenger lines, we must have a superfast, super gauged, freight lines (HS3?) to take freight off the roads, which I predict of course will become unviabal for fast movement.
So, in conclusion everyone has got to think "tomorrow" not "today". That is what the Government are trying to achieve and full marks to them in a field of otherwise growing failure! :y :y
-
'So, in conclusion everyone has got to think "tomorrow" not "today". That is what the Government are trying to achieve and full marks to them in a field of otherwise growing failure!'
A clever ploy.....whilst half the country are argueing the why's and wherefore's of HS2, they are not thinking about Europe and the other problems the government have!!!! Pressure relief :y
-
<snip>
IT, working at home, is all very well now. But in years to come, if not now, we must return to manufacturing, in the physical form, and that will require workers to be on a site actually building things. We need those industries in the Midlands and the North generally, so we need a large commuting / living population in those areas to revitalise the commerce there, and for Great Britain generally. We need to move people at high speed around the land and from Europe to get the best for our industries for their expansion.
<snip>
OK, we need the industries in the Midlands and the North so how does a high speed train between Birmingham and London help this to be achieved? We already have "a large commuting/living population in those areas" so there is no need to "move people at high speed around the land".
Decentralisation is the answer, not extending commuting. As technology moves on we will (or should) require less commuting and travel will increasingly be for recreation. Manufacturing requires less manpower now than it did 50 years ago, and I don't see that trend reversing.
HS2 is about moving people between very limited locations. That is a backward-looking solution rather than being innovative about the future. We should be trying to reduce the need to move people around the country. That's the real challenge for the future.
-
Sorry Kevin, but like so many posters you are basing your argument on the facts in the context of today. As in my previous posts, we must think about 25, 50 or 100 years time and the conditions relevant then. Life will be very different.
That's my point exactly. Travel is becoming less important in order to be able to do business, and it may be completely irrelevant in 100 years time.
IT, working at home, is all very well now. But in years to come, if not now, we must return to manufacturing, in the physical form, and that will require workers to be on a site actually building things. We need those industries in the Midlands and the North generally, so we need a large commuting / living population in those areas to revitalise the commerce there, and for Great Britain generally. We need to move people at high speed around the land and from Europe to get the best for our industries for their expansion.
If we are to promote manufacturing then the government would be better off halting the erection of the artificial barriers to manufacturing that have all but driven it out of the UK in recent years. The green agenda and employment conditions in the UK has driven it to sweat shops in the east where child labour and CO2 emissions are of no concern. If we are to have decent standards of living and constantly reducing environmental impact then manufacturing doesn't belong here. On the other hand, perhaps we should be imposing tariffs on imports from places who don't meet our standards on these aspects of manufacturing?
Either way, marginally faster trains won't have any impact.
As I said before, Victorian England was given a massive secondary boost to it's Industrial Revolution by the railways moving around the workforce to were they were needed, away from the land. In a country with by 50/100 years time perhaps 75/80 million (?) people we will need rapid transport that is sustainable. Sorry, and I hate saying this myself, but the car is going to become a liability for anything but local travel. The road system will never cope no matter how often it is extended, and it will be far slower travelling on them than today!
The industrial revolution has moved on from this country to elsewhere, though and it won't come back! We need to look to the next revolution, whatever that may be.
As for eliminating the car - I agree. It won't scale up the the requirements of a growing population, but the barrier to other forms of transport is the last mile. We have been making the mistake for decades of not integrating other forms of transport such as rail into housing developments and now have large swathes of conurbation which is only accessible by road. Once you've had to get into a car, you might as well make the whole journey by road.
So, the job for rail is to reach a larger percentage of the population easily. Not as sexy as trains doing 200 MPH, though, so that'll get no political support. ::)
I would add though, in addition to a HS1/HS2 passenger lines, we must have a superfast, super gauged, freight lines (HS3?) to take freight off the roads, which I predict of course will become unviabal for fast movement.
Yes, it would be good to get freight off the roads. It doesn't have to be high speed either, IMHO. It'd be significantly faster than HGV speeds to use conventional rail. Again, it's the last mile, though. I have no idea how far I'd have to take a container to get it on the rail network, but, I suspect that, once I'd loaded it onto an HGV, that would be far enough that I just wouldn't bother with the rail option unless it turned out to be stupidly cheap.
So, in conclusion everyone has got to think "tomorrow" not "today". That is what the Government are trying to achieve and full marks to them in a field of otherwise growing failure! :y :y
I disagree. They are instead looking at networks built in mainland Europe decades ago, to solve the transport problems of mainland Europe, thinking "why haven't we got one of those? I'd like to see my name on that!" and trying to play "catch-up".
-
Well, all I will say now is we shall all see; LOL if we live long enough! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Damn, I have just thought I will not be around to say "I told you so!" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;) ;)
No seriously, I cannot say anymore about any HS2, but I do accept all the counter arguments that may indeed prove to be correct, which would be a crying shame; yes and a huge waste of money! :P :P :P :P.
-
Keep up at the back .. :)
http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2013/01/26/a1-dualling-in-northumbeland-is-back-on-agenda-clegg-61634-32682207
:)
Classiic weasel words from Clegg, Northumberland is a sparsely populated area and as such doesn't have many votes or any political clout ,A1 upgrade is light years away, and if the Scots get their independance it will NEVER get done,why spend money linking up to a bunch of ungrateful Jocks who don't want us ?