High Speed Trains in the UK Page 4

  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

  • mcmonkeyplc 29 Jan 2013 09:40:54 39,567 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Wow, just realised the Conservative backbenchers are revolting against this?!

    They really need to let that party fall apart.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • GiarcYekrub 29 Jan 2013 09:44:56 3,857 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    £32 billion on existing rail system + digital communications + a nice little packet for me = why HS2?
    Cause the existing rail system is a broken 19th century system, Even the victorians reconised the need for a high speed rail line with the Great Central, If it wasn't for the short sightedness of politicials closing important transport links upgrading may have worked. However it is breaking at the seems and needs more capacity
  • elstoof 29 Jan 2013 10:53:58 8,306 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    DaM wrote:

    122 million users in 2009. I don't know why they don't just ask the French to do it for us, TGVUK, they clearly know what they are doing. They seemed to build theirs very quickly in chunks. With the timelines being put out for this, half of us will be dead before it's ready.
    France is more than twice the size of Britain though, with double the population and a generally higher level of tax that heavily subsidises their nationalised rail network. It's a great system though, and it makes sense when 300+ mile journeys like Paris to Lyon or Nantes are involved but no one's made it clear why we need to spend 32bn on shaving 20 odd minutes off a journey to Birmingham.
  • DaM 29 Jan 2013 11:07:43 13,529 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    DaM wrote:

    122 million users in 2009. I don't know why they don't just ask the French to do it for us, TGVUK, they clearly know what they are doing. They seemed to build theirs very quickly in chunks. With the timelines being put out for this, half of us will be dead before it's ready.
    France is more than twice the size of Britain though, with double the population and a generally higher level of tax that heavily subsidises their nationalised rail network. It's a great system though, and it makes sense when 300+ mile journeys like Paris to Lyon or Nantes are involved but no one's made it clear why we need to spend 32bn on shaving 20 odd minutes off a journey to Birmingham.
    Totally agree with this, I'm not sure I see the point of it all (except for the population of France, it's not much more than the UK, 65 million). It would be nice to have, but I don't think it's worth the time/effort. Maybe it's just George trying to put some money into the economy, but I just imagine it will inflate demand on London even more.

    Though efforts to increase rail travel should not be sniffed at in England. When I am driving up to Glasgow from my in-laws on the south coast, the roads are packed until past Preston.

    They are talking about one between Glasgow and Edinburgh, to save 20 minutes off the 50 minute trip. And it wouldn't stop inbetween, so would bypass the commuter belt. Just have a coffee and read a book for 20 minutes FFS!
  • SClaw 29 Jan 2013 11:09:28 826 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    It’s also about building integrity into the system. What we have right now is old and shit, and costs more every year to maintain. Upgrading it takes the line out of action and costs a fortune in simply lost man hours of people being cut-off from the capital. Having a second line in place – a modern one – will take some pressure off the old line, meaning that it can be upgraded and maintained without adversely affecting services.
  • glaeken 29 Jan 2013 11:13:39 11,265 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Post deleted
  • rudedudejude 29 Jan 2013 11:15:15 2,254 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Hmmm...Hard to see how shaving 30 - 45 minutes off a journey is going to revolutionise the balance of the country for what will likely amount to 50billion+

    Commuting into London will be much more appealing for sure. Not sure business out to other cities will benefit so much.

    Seems like a hell of a lot of investment and there's a lot of other options to spend that amount of money on. 5 waterparks, for example.

    And as for this bullshit argument that is being touted everywhere "We NEED a high speed rail line, Europe have all had one for years" is no argument whatsoever.
  • elstoof 29 Jan 2013 11:45:16 8,306 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    DaM wrote:
    (except for the population of France, it's not much more than the UK, 65 million)
    Had Japan's population in my mind for some reason, you're right.

    Speaking of which, this technology is starting to knock on already, Japan are working on a MagLev system already, how crinkly will HS2 look in comparison 30-40 years from now when it's all finished? Or how efficient will air travel be?
  • Dougs 29 Jan 2013 11:51:01 69,498 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Has air travel really changed all that much? Had some great innovations with Concorde, fuel/emmission efficiencies, larger craft but has the general tech is the same no?
  • TheSaint 29 Jan 2013 11:57:40 14,827 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Dougs wrote:
    Has air travel really changed all that much? Had some great innovations with Concorde, fuel/emmission efficiencies, larger craft but has the general tech is the same no?
    I find the whole Concorde thing quite depressing. It's one of the only times we've taken a technological step backwards.
  • mcmonkeyplc 29 Jan 2013 11:57:56 39,567 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    So people commuting to London where they can get paid more won't benefit the local economies of where these people live?

    People won't spend their money locally at all? Won't be able to afford bigger housing? Won't be able to afford newer cars? Won't shop at their local supermarkets...

    Companies won't want to operate in area's where the land is cheaper, office space is cheaper but they still have easy fast access to the capital?

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • DaM 29 Jan 2013 11:59:01 13,529 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    DaM wrote:
    (except for the population of France, it's not much more than the UK, 65 million)
    Had Japan's population in my mind for some reason, you're right.

    Speaking of which, this technology is starting to knock on already, Japan are working on a MagLev system already, how crinkly will HS2 look in comparison 30-40 years from now when it's all finished? Or how efficient will air travel be?
    That's why I was suggesting a TGV - it works well, and will be cheaper.
    But yes, we need a maglev. Or vacuum tunnels and MACH 2 trains.
  • RedSparrows 29 Jan 2013 12:12:54 24,225 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    GiarcYekrub wrote:
    RedSparrows wrote:
    £32 billion on existing rail system + digital communications + a nice little packet for me = why HS2?
    Cause the existing rail system is a broken 19th century system, Even the victorians reconised the need for a high speed rail line with the Great Central, If it wasn't for the short sightedness of politicials closing important transport links upgrading may have worked. However it is breaking at the seems and needs more capacity
    Hence the £32 billion spent on the existing system? To be honest I'm not up to speed on HS2 et al, but the normal rail network could be spruced up here and there (i.e. by adding more services...).
  • RedSparrows 29 Jan 2013 12:14:10 24,225 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    TheSaint wrote:
    Dougs wrote:
    Has air travel really changed all that much? Had some great innovations with Concorde, fuel/emmission efficiencies, larger craft but has the general tech is the same no?
    I find the whole Concorde thing quite depressing. It's one of the only times we've taken a technological step backwards.
    No, 'we' took an economic step in a different direction.

    Edited by RedSparrows at 12:14:44 29-01-2013
  • elstoof 29 Jan 2013 12:30:49 8,306 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Chances are, when this is built, the concept of going to an office for work will be as outdated as making an appointment with your bank manager to withdraw your monthy cash is in today's chip and pin world.
  • disusedgenius 29 Jan 2013 13:10:47 5,614 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    You seem to be placing a lot of faith in BT there!

    Even so, I don't buy the 'most people working from home' thing. Still seems way too inefficient and without any oversight to me, not to mention undesirable from a pure 'social animal' pov.

    Edited by disusedgenius at 13:11:33 29-01-2013
  • GiarcYekrub 29 Jan 2013 13:12:06 3,857 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Apart from the NIMBY's I can't see reason to object to this it:
    *creates jobs building the thing
    *creates jobs running the thing
    *eases pressure on the existing system
    *expanding London commuter belt will put pressure on local wages
    *London commuters will have more cash to spend in the local area

    As for home working, the technology maybe there, but the trust of employers isn't, they like control and allowing home working is a step many aren't prepared to take
  • meggsy 29 Jan 2013 14:08:18 1,628 posts
    Seen 7 days ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @GiarcYekrub

    More or less my exact thoughts. It's just short-sighted to put it off any longer. We need new rail infrastructure; there's not much capacity left in the overworked and increasingly expensive existing system. Our loading gauge means that trains can't become wider or taller without altering every bridge and tunnel, they can only get longer.

    A new high-speed network can address this. It's a clean sheet and can be designed for the future needs, we rarely get a chance to do this.

    As for alternatives? Bigger airports and wider motorways would surely aggravate NIMBYs even more, and still rely heavily on oil.

    3DS: 3454-0647-5991

  • FWB 29 Jan 2013 23:45:57 45,580 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Sorry if posted, but this is a good read as to why it will twenty years:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21231044

    To sum up, things take time in a democracy.

    As for the question of shaving times off. I am guessing there is more to this than knocking 20min off from Birmingham.

    1) It will allow for more frequent trains, increasing capacity.
    2) It will lay down an infrastructure that I assume will be easily upgradable allowing for even quicker trains way beyond 2032.
    3) It will allow more individuals to live outside the capital but commute in when needed. This would help tackle housing issues. Might encourage growth outside of London too.
    4) All of this should take loads off the roads and air. Not just environmentally friendly, necessary as the population and traffic grows.

    Of course for this to be taken up by the public the travel costs needed to be reasonable. Given how incompetent the government is at dividing up control and managing these (and refusing to accept that some areas of the country cannot be run at a profit), I question whether this will all pan out well after it is built. Will probably be totally mismanaged.

    I suspect that these links are being pushed in Brussels too, and dare I say it may even be partially funded from there? They've been urging for greater train connections across the continent and stitching up to Northern UK for a while.
  • Phily50 30 Jan 2013 00:18:53 2,219 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Not sure why they decided to run it from Euston. Surely Stratford would have been a bit bet for the links to the continent, not to mention the fact that HS1 is already up and running there.

    Plus Euston really is a shithole of a train station.
  • teamHAM 30 Jan 2013 00:31:45 3,151 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    A woman, who recently had her house valued at 275k, has now been told it has a value of £0 due to it's proximity to the proposed HS2 route.

    Absolutely astonishing.

    XBox Live, Origin, PSN and Steam: teamHAM

  • dsmx 30 Jan 2013 00:39:52 7,727 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    As part of HS2 euston station is getting redeveloped though, something it's badly needed since they got rid of that kick ass arch in the 50's.

    It doesn't matter where you build the line your going to piss off people, the fact remains the country needs a new railway line, the west coast mainline is at breaking point and has been for some time.

    With the line built trains come off the existing line making way for more freight and local commuter trains which means there's more capacity and less overcrowding and the fact that the new line is a high speed one is not really the point, the point is that they are building new infrastructure which the country needs, desperately.

    I would have a guess though that picking Euston may be a result of it having a direct tube link to westminster and if you want to understand any infrastructure network plans in the UK follow the path of ministers and civil servants.

    Edited by dsmx at 00:45:06 30-01-2013

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

  • Psychotext 30 Jan 2013 00:59:55 55,032 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    teamHAM wrote:
    A woman, who recently had her house valued at 275k, has now been told it has a value of £0 due to it's proximity to the proposed HS2 route.

    Absolutely astonishing.
    That's fucking ridiculous.
  • Khanivor 30 Jan 2013 01:03:56 41,261 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I would hope they are planning on buying enough property to ensure they can expand the lines further in the future. If not, then they are fucking retarded.
  • mal 30 Jan 2013 02:10:54 22,830 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Phily50 wrote:
    Plus Euston really is a shithole of a train station.
    Whereas Stratford is just a shithole.

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • elstoof 30 Jan 2013 10:43:59 8,306 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    It's not just a simple redevelopment of euston that's planned, they intend raising all the platforms a la St Pancras apparently for the sole reason of being able to put retail units underneath and to do this they'll also have to demolish several housing blocks near the station and rehouse all the tenants. When you add in the hassle of dragging all your shit down the Euston road when you want to take the train from Birmingham to Paris for the weekend, it starts to look like a pretty shit idea.
  • mcmonkeyplc 30 Jan 2013 10:54:23 39,567 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Basically the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • DaM 30 Jan 2013 11:03:26 13,529 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    teamHAM wrote:
    A woman, who recently had her house valued at 275k, has now been told it has a value of £0 due to it's proximity to the proposed HS2 route.

    Absolutely astonishing.
    That has to be complete bollocks. Next time you are on a train look out the window and see if you think every house you can spot is worthless.
  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

Log in or register to reply