This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Some latest news (part buried under the other bad news for rail investment). Can't say I'm surprised.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/26/damning-hs2-report-reveals-s...
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/26/damning-hs2-report-reveals-s...
In reply to Offwidth:
Says all you need to know about this country's short term perspective on infrastucture spending and why Japan has the bullet train and we have Mega Bus
Says all you need to know about this country's short term perspective on infrastucture spending and why Japan has the bullet train and we have Mega Bus
6
In reply to GrahamD:
Fair point. Although I'd say we should focus on fixing all the other crumbling transport infrastructure before building a high speed network that would benefit only a minority.
Fair point. Although I'd say we should focus on fixing all the other crumbling transport infrastructure before building a high speed network that would benefit only a minority.
5
1
In reply to Phil79:
The whole country is run for the benefit of only a minority. That's what people voted for.
The whole country is run for the benefit of only a minority. That's what people voted for.
19
4
In reply to Phil79:
What does that mean? Any individual bit of infrastructure is only for "a minority"
> Fair point. Although I'd say we should focus on fixing all the other crumbling transport infrastructure before building a high speed network that would benefit only a minority.
What does that mean? Any individual bit of infrastructure is only for "a minority"
2
1
In reply to john arran:
No it's not
> The whole country is run for the benefit of only a minority. That's what people voted for.
No it's not
2
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
Sorry, didn't express that very well.
What I actually meant was I'd rather see the money invested in the existing railway network (which has plenty of capacity/operating/rolling stock problems to be addressed), rather then construction of a new high speed line which will only cut journey times between destinations which are already well served by the existing system.
> What does that mean? Any individual bit of infrastructure is only for "a minority"
Sorry, didn't express that very well.
What I actually meant was I'd rather see the money invested in the existing railway network (which has plenty of capacity/operating/rolling stock problems to be addressed), rather then construction of a new high speed line which will only cut journey times between destinations which are already well served by the existing system.
Post edited at 15:54
9
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Its probably unaffordable not to build it in the long term. I'm not sure HS2 is exactly the right scheme but this level of investment in infrastructure is needed. I don't know if they said cross-rail was unaffordable but that cost billions!
More depressing is the cancellation of a lot of the upgrades on northern rail lines where it is really needed which will just lead us to look even more underinvested a few years down the line.
Its probably unaffordable not to build it in the long term. I'm not sure HS2 is exactly the right scheme but this level of investment in infrastructure is needed. I don't know if they said cross-rail was unaffordable but that cost billions!
More depressing is the cancellation of a lot of the upgrades on northern rail lines where it is really needed which will just lead us to look even more underinvested a few years down the line.
4
In reply to Offwidth:
Yes it is. It's an absurd, vanity project that has got out of control - ( over £125000/m of track and rising rapidly still). Meanwhile upgrades to the rest of the network to a decent level are being cancelled. Bonkers.
Yes it is. It's an absurd, vanity project that has got out of control - ( over £125000/m of track and rising rapidly still). Meanwhile upgrades to the rest of the network to a decent level are being cancelled. Bonkers.
6
In reply to Phil79:
They aren't served very well. The WCML is old and needs regular maintenance. This will become more frequent as times go by while passenger numbers keep increasing. A new line is the obvious answer It should not stop other upgrades across the country.
> What I actually meant was I'd rather see the money invested in the existing railway network (which has plenty of capacity/operating/rolling stock problems to be addressed), rather then construction of a new high speed line which will only cut journey times between destinations which are already well served by the existing system.
They aren't served very well. The WCML is old and needs regular maintenance. This will become more frequent as times go by while passenger numbers keep increasing. A new line is the obvious answer It should not stop other upgrades across the country.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
If they can cite costs as the reason for kicking the electrfication of the relatively short trans pennine route between Manchester and Leeds in to the proverbial long grass for the forseeable future, how can they justify the horrendous cost of HS2.
At the same time they've announced that plans to electrify the main line west from London to Bristol and S Wales will still go ahead.
How the feck is there going to be any hope of regnerating the North, and stopping the drift of poulation and jobs to the south east, when the Government refuses to commit to improving the transport infrastructure. I wonder if it's because elections are won and lost south of the Pennines!
If they can cite costs as the reason for kicking the electrfication of the relatively short trans pennine route between Manchester and Leeds in to the proverbial long grass for the forseeable future, how can they justify the horrendous cost of HS2.
At the same time they've announced that plans to electrify the main line west from London to Bristol and S Wales will still go ahead.
How the feck is there going to be any hope of regnerating the North, and stopping the drift of poulation and jobs to the south east, when the Government refuses to commit to improving the transport infrastructure. I wonder if it's because elections are won and lost south of the Pennines!
4
1
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Yep, only a third of the people voted for it, but the tories won several key northern marginals on the back of their "Northern Powerhouse" promise. Now it's been revealed that not only are they "pausing" the railway work, they had planned to do it all along. Spending on public transport is already 10x per capita in the south east than that in the north.
> No it's not
Yep, only a third of the people voted for it, but the tories won several key northern marginals on the back of their "Northern Powerhouse" promise. Now it's been revealed that not only are they "pausing" the railway work, they had planned to do it all along. Spending on public transport is already 10x per capita in the south east than that in the north.
5
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Yes yes yes, thats as maybe,but its not what I was responding to. Watch out behind you.....
> Yep, only a third of the people voted for it, but the tories won several key northern marginals on the back of their "Northern Powerhouse" promise.
>Yes yes yes, thats as maybe,but its not what I was responding to. Watch out behind you.....
In reply to Chris the Tall:
No, its been canceled due to old faulty signals
> Why ? Is there a train coming ?
No, its been canceled due to old faulty signals
1
In reply to GrahamD:
They are making the same mistake as Japan did with the bullet trains and Tokyo - building a high speed rail network designed to take people to London. The result will be more people and business being sucked into London.
What they should actually do is build out bridges and railways to improve connectivity between other cities and regions while stopping investment in links to London so that the balance shifts away from London.
> Says all you need to know about this country's short term perspective on infrastucture spending and why Japan has the bullet train and we have Mega Bus
They are making the same mistake as Japan did with the bullet trains and Tokyo - building a high speed rail network designed to take people to London. The result will be more people and business being sucked into London.
What they should actually do is build out bridges and railways to improve connectivity between other cities and regions while stopping investment in links to London so that the balance shifts away from London.
Post edited at 18:10
11
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Yes - and its so sensible no government in this country is ever going to do it!
The best way of reversing the population and jobs drift is to make commuting in the South East so unpleasant and time consuming that fewer will want to live and work there.
At the moment all that seems to be happening is that commuting to places inside the M25 is being encouraged whilst the rest of the country slips back into the the 19th century - without the traditional heavy industries to fall back on!
With modern communications surely the way forward is for fewer huge centralised offices and more people working from home.
The company I work for has no difficulty with me working 100 miles away from our office and factory, and only having to go there a handful of times a year.
Yes - and its so sensible no government in this country is ever going to do it!
The best way of reversing the population and jobs drift is to make commuting in the South East so unpleasant and time consuming that fewer will want to live and work there.
At the moment all that seems to be happening is that commuting to places inside the M25 is being encouraged whilst the rest of the country slips back into the the 19th century - without the traditional heavy industries to fall back on!
With modern communications surely the way forward is for fewer huge centralised offices and more people working from home.
The company I work for has no difficulty with me working 100 miles away from our office and factory, and only having to go there a handful of times a year.
4
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Absolutely. And then do a *proper* job of installing real high-speed broadband over the whole country....on the lines of what South Korea has, not the sorry excuse we have over most of the country. Maybe then there wouldn't be quite the need for so many people to move long distances physically.
> What they should actually do is build out bridges and railways to improve connectivity between other cities and regions while stopping investment in links to London so that the balance shifts away from London.
Absolutely. And then do a *proper* job of installing real high-speed broadband over the whole country....on the lines of what South Korea has, not the sorry excuse we have over most of the country. Maybe then there wouldn't be quite the need for so many people to move long distances physically.
1
In reply to Phil79:
UK train problems are rooted a very long time ago, when it chose too narrow a gauge and kept its windy slow track. We bombed much of Europe's and it was rebuilt straighter etc..
UK train problems are rooted a very long time ago, when it chose too narrow a gauge and kept its windy slow track. We bombed much of Europe's and it was rebuilt straighter etc..
1
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
Wales? That's because MPs travel from London to Cardiff.
When westminister gets a rebuild, make all MPs work in manchester for a year. Things will improve quickly in the north then.
Wales? That's because MPs travel from London to Cardiff.
When westminister gets a rebuild, make all MPs work in manchester for a year. Things will improve quickly in the north then.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
There really is no need for HS2, but there is a major need for a revamp of the technology on our railways. Printing out tickets - why, you don't need them for airlines. Crappy seats, London Midland 1st class seems like the seats I remember from Network Southeast in the 90s.
I occasionally have to travel from the north Midlands to London. The 'easiest' route seems to be to drive along the A50 to East Midland Parkway. 600 parking spaces in a dedicate and relatively secure car park, trains only stops a couple of times and takes 80-90 minutes. Free Wifi onboard and In the lounges, comfy seats on some trains and breakfast. It costs about £30 extra in advance for all that - well worth it.
Now if they could just make a few things easier. I book online but still have to get there early enough to print the tickets. I have to queue to pay for parking afterwards even though I know in advance I need it and I have 9 pieces of cardboard as part of the train ticket - surely one of those could be modified to work. Why not put in vehicle reg recognition like Manchester airport and allow online pay.
Contrast with getting the train from Stoke. Less parking, London Midland is as expensive and less good, Virgin is far more expensive. I've had more delays on that line and the trains stop more often = more often late.
So perhaps a few £100 million to upgrade existing services.
The other problem with the trains are that they are too expensive when compared with driving for 2 or more people in a group who own a car.
There really is no need for HS2, but there is a major need for a revamp of the technology on our railways. Printing out tickets - why, you don't need them for airlines. Crappy seats, London Midland 1st class seems like the seats I remember from Network Southeast in the 90s.
I occasionally have to travel from the north Midlands to London. The 'easiest' route seems to be to drive along the A50 to East Midland Parkway. 600 parking spaces in a dedicate and relatively secure car park, trains only stops a couple of times and takes 80-90 minutes. Free Wifi onboard and In the lounges, comfy seats on some trains and breakfast. It costs about £30 extra in advance for all that - well worth it.
Now if they could just make a few things easier. I book online but still have to get there early enough to print the tickets. I have to queue to pay for parking afterwards even though I know in advance I need it and I have 9 pieces of cardboard as part of the train ticket - surely one of those could be modified to work. Why not put in vehicle reg recognition like Manchester airport and allow online pay.
Contrast with getting the train from Stoke. Less parking, London Midland is as expensive and less good, Virgin is far more expensive. I've had more delays on that line and the trains stop more often = more often late.
So perhaps a few £100 million to upgrade existing services.
The other problem with the trains are that they are too expensive when compared with driving for 2 or more people in a group who own a car.
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
> Yes - and its so sensible no government in this country is ever going to do it!
> The best way of reversing the population and jobs drift is to make commuting in the South East so unpleasant and time consuming that fewer will want to live and work there.
>
I can only guess that you are not a regular commuter into London then?
1
In reply to GrahamD:
True - but are we holding up Japan as somewhere we want to emulate? Sure, they have bullet trains, but they also have in excess of 200% debt to GDP and a stagnant economy. I'll stick with my Mega Bus thanks.
> Says all you need to know about this country's short term perspective on infrastucture spending and why Japan has the bullet train and we have Mega Bus
True - but are we holding up Japan as somewhere we want to emulate? Sure, they have bullet trains, but they also have in excess of 200% debt to GDP and a stagnant economy. I'll stick with my Mega Bus thanks.
In reply to petellis:
I came at this pretty sceptical but in the end I think the proposed scheme is a good long term solution to our ageing railways. The last upgrade to the WCML was very disruptive and these will be required more frequently as time goes by. New straighter track should have been done years ago but long term infrastructure outside London has been neglected.
All the talk of this being a London thing is wrong, we live on a long thin island, and our neighbours are off the South coast. We need a good north south trunk railway. In time I believe air travel subsidies will switch to rail, so I don't agree with the 'minority' argument.
This should not happen at the expense of other rail improvements, but we are dealing with years of neglect. I've not done the sums but scrapping Trident would be a politically acceptable alternative to me, if the numbers stack up.
> Its probably unaffordable not to build it in the long term. I'm not sure HS2 is exactly the right scheme but this level of investment in infrastructure is needed.
I came at this pretty sceptical but in the end I think the proposed scheme is a good long term solution to our ageing railways. The last upgrade to the WCML was very disruptive and these will be required more frequently as time goes by. New straighter track should have been done years ago but long term infrastructure outside London has been neglected.
All the talk of this being a London thing is wrong, we live on a long thin island, and our neighbours are off the South coast. We need a good north south trunk railway. In time I believe air travel subsidies will switch to rail, so I don't agree with the 'minority' argument.
This should not happen at the expense of other rail improvements, but we are dealing with years of neglect. I've not done the sums but scrapping Trident would be a politically acceptable alternative to me, if the numbers stack up.
Post edited at 11:50
In reply to Offwidth:
Spend the money on road infrastructure and motorways. When we have driverless many cars people who currently travel by train will opt for that as it will take them to their destination rather than a station in the middle of a city. People who might opt for this would be those too elderly to drive and those that currently cannot drive, or cannot afford a car.
As usual our Government is not looking ahead or taking into account technological advances.
I am sure underground and Metro systems in cities would not be affected by these developments.
Spend the money on road infrastructure and motorways. When we have driverless many cars people who currently travel by train will opt for that as it will take them to their destination rather than a station in the middle of a city. People who might opt for this would be those too elderly to drive and those that currently cannot drive, or cannot afford a car.
As usual our Government is not looking ahead or taking into account technological advances.
I am sure underground and Metro systems in cities would not be affected by these developments.
In reply to Root1:
It spent 50 years "looking ahead and taking account technological advances" when it promoted road infrastructure at the expense of rail infrastructure. Hence 19thC railways we have now.
So driverless cars will make no difference to urban transport and you're sure of that?
> As usual our Government is not looking ahead or taking into account technological advances.
It spent 50 years "looking ahead and taking account technological advances" when it promoted road infrastructure at the expense of rail infrastructure. Hence 19thC railways we have now.
> I am sure underground and Metro systems in cities would not be affected by these developments.
So driverless cars will make no difference to urban transport and you're sure of that?
In reply to
There's no such thing as absolute.
> So driverless cars will make no difference to urban transport and you're sure of that?
There's no such thing as absolute.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...