High Speed Trains in the UK Page 2

  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

  • fergal_oc 10 Jan 2012 12:31:05 2,763 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Grunk wrote:
    Alternatively:

    In periods of high unemployment, public infrastructure projects can be used as a means to create jobs and develop skills, providing the capital for such projects out of public funds ensures a wages will be paid and and injects cash flow into the economy at a time when the private sector is unwilling to take on large projects.

    The bonus is that we get a nice new train line as well.
    I'm totally with investing public money in to infrastructure projects to help keep the country out of recession but in this case the UK wide benefits seem slim to me.
  • President_Weasel 10 Jan 2012 12:32:25 9,295 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    If they want to spend bajillions on infrastructre, how about a massive tidal plant on the Severn? the Severn Estuary gets some of the biggest tides in the world.
  • Fab4 10 Jan 2012 12:33:44 6,059 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    President_Weasel wrote:
    If they want to spend bajillions on infrastructre, how about a massive tidal plant on the Severn? the Severn Estuary gets some of the biggest tides in the world.
    The tree-huggers would be up in arms.;)
  • disusedgenius 10 Jan 2012 12:36:01 5,314 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I'd love to get ourselves some honking great hydro-electric infrastructure. Something massive, awesome and steampunk please, something which really looks like it's truly harnessing the power of THE MOON!!!! and everything.
  • President_Weasel 10 Jan 2012 12:38:06 9,295 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Fab4 wrote:
    President_Weasel wrote:
    If they want to spend bajillions on infrastructre, how about a massive tidal plant on the Severn? the Severn Estuary gets some of the biggest tides in the world.
    The tree-huggers would be up in arms.;)
    They'd be confused and conflicted. It would be awesome!
    It reduces carbon pollution and should cut down on the UK's contribution to global warming - it's great! But it's messing with the nature, it's terrible!
    I could watch them fight for months.
  • faux_carnation 10 Jan 2012 12:44:53 9,335 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    We were discussing this in another thread the other day. I think it's great that money is being invested in capital projects, but I'm really unsure about this HS2 business. Why are they spending more money on trains from London to X, when local and regional services are underfunded and neglected? The Beeching report destroyed the rail network in this country and nothing is being done to fix that.

    If they want more capacity, ban first class carriages.
  • FairgroundTown 10 Jan 2012 13:12:47 2,522 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    faux_carnation wrote:
    Why are they spending more money on trains from London to X, when local and regional services are underfunded and neglected?
    This WILL improve the local / regional services, to an extent, because it will free up capacity on the 'old' tracks.
  • Madder-Max 10 Jan 2012 13:21:25 11,649 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    No it wont. The HS2 will priced too high for many and current train services reduced to try and force people onto the HS2, which will lead to more overcrowding and delays on curretn services

    Ih and there is no way it will only cost 32b. te governemtn spouts on abpout Austerity and then instead of investing in infrastructure they go and approve an rich mans toy train track. Fucking arseholes.

    plus, this thing wont be ready fr a minimum of 14 years and will be delayed further with having to dig tunnels through hills etc.

    Edited by Madder-Max at 13:22:36 10-01-2012

    99 problems and being ginger is one

  • TheSaint 10 Jan 2012 13:24:58 14,371 posts
    Seen 40 seconds ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Rich man's toy train track?

    Hardly the case with HS1 which is used by a wide variety of people including commuters and has dragged our side of the tunnel into the 21st century.
  • DaM 10 Jan 2012 13:35:28 13,140 posts
    Seen 27 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    I'd love to get ourselves some honking great hydro-electric infrastructure. Something massive, awesome and steampunk please, something which really looks like it's truly harnessing the power of THE MOON!!!! and everything.
    They built lots in Scotland in the 30s. Visited one last year (Cruachan), tunnelled into a mountain. The generating hall was like a Bond baddies base, it's ace, hewed out of the rock. When everyone turns on the kettle after Eastenders, they open the gates and water comes crashing down from the top of the mountain and turns the huge generators. Then at night, when leccy is cheap, it gets pumped back up.

    Edited by DaM at 13:36:03 10-01-2012
  • Fab4 10 Jan 2012 13:44:32 6,059 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I once saw in Norway a hyrdo plant that used the sea's own tide to pump water up to a reservoir. They just concreted a fjord so that the tide channelled itself up the height of the cliff. It was green energy with a a slightly non-green engineering angle to it. Free electricity though.
  • rudedudejude 10 Jan 2012 14:08:32 2,173 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    So are any bookies doing odds on this going over budget then?

    I forecast 42% over the initial budget outlined.

    Putting down 500 on that one.
  • senso-ji 10 Jan 2012 14:57:28 5,905 posts
    Seen 52 seconds ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Oh, it'll definitely go over. Most of the extra cash will be handed out to consultants and lawyers who'll want extra time to think it through (i.e take as much public money as they can).
  • dsmx 10 Jan 2012 15:10:31 7,601 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I'm not getting why people think it's risky or a bad idea, Britain has needed high speed rail for decades, finally after decades of road building and traffic only getting worse a government actually invests money into the railways and were moaning about it? Yes there's always going to be areas where the money could arguably be better spent on the railways but at least someone is doing something beneficial for the railways and after 20 or so years of the clusterfuck that was privatisation at least we have something to look forward to.

    "If we hit that bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a a house of cards, checkmate." Zapp Brannigan

  • faux_carnation 10 Jan 2012 15:16:39 9,335 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Why does Britain need high speed rail?

    I can currently get home from London to Wigan (that's 200 miles) in 2 hours. Why does it need to be any quicker than that?

    Does anyone know who is going to run/own the new route?
  • disusedgenius 10 Jan 2012 15:19:39 5,314 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Time is money, faux, time is money.

    Or, well, time with the kids I suppose...
  • Dougs 10 Jan 2012 15:22:46 67,672 posts
    Seen 44 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Madder-Max wrote:

    Ih and there is no way it will only cost 32b. te governemtn spouts on abpout Austerity and then instead of investing in infrastructure they go and approve an rich mans toy train track. Fucking arseholes.
    Errm, what is investing in infrastructure if it's not investing in a new rail network? Along with roads, it's a pretty big part of our infrastructure...

    Edited by Dougs at 15:23:36 10-01-2012
  • Fab4 10 Jan 2012 15:27:52 6,059 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    faux_carnation wrote:
    Why does Britain need high speed rail?

    I can currently get home from London to Wigan (that's 200 miles) in 2 hours. Why does it need to be any quicker than that?

    Does anyone know who is going to run/own the new route?
    What about journeys that are longer than 200 miles? Could they not benefit from a speedier section?
  • faux_carnation 10 Jan 2012 15:29:49 9,335 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Fab4 wrote:
    faux_carnation wrote:
    Why does Britain need high speed rail?

    I can currently get home from London to Wigan (that's 200 miles) in 2 hours. Why does it need to be any quicker than that?

    Does anyone know who is going to run/own the new route?
    What about journeys that are longer than 200 miles? Could they not benefit from a speedier section?
    Yeah they could, but that has nothing to do with this new track which is designed to go really fast from London to Birmingham. You think that'll be stopping much in between the two?
  • disusedgenius 10 Jan 2012 15:31:03 5,314 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Then it's being extended up to Scotland once this first phase is done, last I heard anyway.
  • Fab4 10 Jan 2012 15:31:50 6,059 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    faux_carnation wrote:
    Fab4 wrote:
    faux_carnation wrote:
    Why does Britain need high speed rail?

    I can currently get home from London to Wigan (that's 200 miles) in 2 hours. Why does it need to be any quicker than that?

    Does anyone know who is going to run/own the new route?
    What about journeys that are longer than 200 miles? Could they not benefit from a speedier section?
    Yeah they could, but that has nothing to do with this new track which is designed to go really fast from London to Birmingham. You think that'll be stopping much in between the two?
    Part 2 of HS2 will end in Manchester. I can imagine quite a few Scots and Northern English who could like a fast travel from Manchester to London as part of their journey.

    Fuck, here in Holland it takes over 2 hours to get 110 miles, and I would pay extra to speed that up.
  • TheSaint 10 Jan 2012 15:38:33 14,371 posts
    Seen 40 seconds ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    faux_carnation wrote:
    Why does Britain need high speed rail?

    I can currently get home from London to Wigan (that's 200 miles) in 2 hours. Why does it need to be any quicker than that?

    Does anyone know who is going to run/own the new route?
    Why do you hate progress?
  • rudedudejude 10 Jan 2012 15:54:30 2,173 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    This isn't just about speed though it's about modernisation, reliability, capacity etc..

    I think the fact is being reported like high speed is the only reason it's needed is a little deceiving.
  • faux_carnation 10 Jan 2012 15:57:59 9,335 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    TheSaint wrote:
    faux_carnation wrote:
    Why does Britain need high speed rail?

    I can currently get home from London to Wigan (that's 200 miles) in 2 hours. Why does it need to be any quicker than that?

    Does anyone know who is going to run/own the new route?
    Why do you hate progress?
    Because it's only for a centralised band of the country taking in at most 4 cities.
  • disusedgenius 10 Jan 2012 16:00:57 5,314 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Think of it as a road bypass, it frees up the local network from the bulk of the traffic.
  • TheSaint 10 Jan 2012 16:06:08 14,371 posts
    Seen 40 seconds ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    faux_carnation wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    faux_carnation wrote:
    Why does Britain need high speed rail?

    I can currently get home from London to Wigan (that's 200 miles) in 2 hours. Why does it need to be any quicker than that?

    Does anyone know who is going to run/own the new route?
    Why do you hate progress?
    Because it's only for a centralised band of the country taking in at most 4 cities.
    As much as I would like the money to be spent on a Maglev for the South East surely high speed rail along the spine of the country is the ideal route.
  • faux_carnation 10 Jan 2012 16:07:00 9,335 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    What about the towns that have been cut off completely from the rail network? I maintain they should be brought back onto it rather than pissing money up the wall on a vanity project.

    Before

    After
  • disusedgenius 10 Jan 2012 16:09:18 5,314 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Well then it wouldn't be a high speed railway diverting the bulk of the traffic. It's amazing how much better and more efficiently trains run when they don't have to be filled to capacity at each stop, if the HS2 can take the strain of the city-city commuters.
  • threemoh 10 Jan 2012 16:11:23 206 posts
    Seen 11 months ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Grunk wrote:
    I would like to see the government commissioning a 2-5 year project to develop a machine that can lay 1 mile of track a day, (it could run on the tacks that it lays).
    They could call it "Project Gromit".
  • President_Weasel 10 Jan 2012 16:18:41 9,295 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    faux_carnation wrote:
    What about the towns that have been cut off completely from the rail network? I maintain they should be brought back onto it rather than pissing money up the wall on a vanity project.

    Before

    After
    Sadly it would be ridiculously difficult and expensive as people have built houses and businesses and roads and so on on chunks of the former track.
  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

Log in or register to reply