London to Manchester in just 55 minutes?

[biffvernon]

Adding the true price of their environmental impact to the ticket would sort that out.

[JohnB]

I suppose it may reduce the demand for internal flights though?

By the time it's built, will there still be internal flights?

[adam2]

I suppose it may reduce the demand for internal flights though?

By the time it's built, will there still be internal flights?

Bound to a be a few, for those with plenty of money and in a great hurry, but I suspect that internal flights will be far less in the relatively near future, than at present.
I believe that much of the present demand for internal flights is when the railway is closed for engineering works or on strike.

As I have previously posted, I am pro rail.
I doubt that rail will ever be as quick as flying, for most trips, therefore it needs to be either cheaper, or more attractive in some other way.
Peak rail fares are already several times the air fare.
Rail travel used to be far more comfortable and pleasent than air, but the difference is regretably declining.
Modern trains are a backward step compared to old, as regards passenger comfort.
The prevalence of high densisty bus seats, minimal legroom, luggage restrictions, and withdrawal of restaurants, all make a modern train more like a budget airline, but slower and more expensive.

I would not mind it being slower on a proper train, as posted above, this gives to time to enjoy the view, relax, read a book, or perhaps use a laptop.
On a new train, the view is often minimal as seats dont align with windows, the absence of proper tables makes reading, eating or use of a laptop awkward.
Provision of catering is minimal, which is just as well, as what is ingested must be eliminated, and the toilets dont work well or reliably.

And as for bulky luggage, forget it, better to drive ! One used to be allowed 50KG in second class, and 75KG in first. (though they never weighed it )
The new rules are "one large item such as suitacse or rucksack, plus 2 small items such as carrier bags, briefcases or hand bags"
This is enforced with some vigour on the new shorter trains with minimal lugage space. Virgin trains have turned away housewives with 4 or 5 carrier bags of shopping.

I recently saw a most interesting episode at Taunton station.
Owing to a shortage of modern DMUs, a locomotive and some 30 year old coaches where used instead, on a service to Cardiff I believe.
A large family complained that the train was "all first class, with no standard class coaches" In fact it was all standard class, but passengers used to more modern trains could not believe that the comfortable seats, all with full size tables, aligned with the windows, could be standard class !

First class on a new train is comparable to second on an old one.

[emordnilap]

Adding the true price of their environmental impact to the ticket would sort that out.

Nail+head.

[Pepperman]

Personally I think we need new high speed

Why? Medium speed uses less fuel and allows time to read or talk or look at the countryside.

I've used high speed rail extensively in Europe and found I have plenty of time to admire the countryside, talk and read

I think we need new track as it will enable much higher capacity trains (longer and double deck potentially) and will free up capacity elsewhere so I guess I just assume it should be high speed capable.

The speed we actually end up operating trains at will depend on electricity prices in the future so it may well transpire that medium speed is what we get.

I suppose if air travel becomes unviable then there won't be a need for HSR because rail will be the quickest thing in town.

[biffvernon]

I think we need to question why so many people need to be somewhere else very soon. I don't think they do need to be. When travel is cheap then we invent reasons to use it. Reasons like "Oh, it's only an hour from A to B so I can live in A and work in B" or "What's the point of eating local food when I can import it from Spain so cheaply?".

Meanwhile, what we really need is a complete revolution in local transport, like this: http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk/ULR.html

[Pepperman]

Fair points, however when there are faster alternatives of equal price then people will opt for quicker. I guess I'm still working on the basis of capturing market share from airlines but that's going to be taken out of our hands.

[JohnB]

Fair points, however when there are faster alternatives of equal price then people will opt for quicker. I guess I'm still working on the basis of capturing market share from airlines but that's going to be taken out of our hands.

But it's using a massive amount or resources, taking valuable land and disrupting people's lives for something that may only have a short term benefit, or may even be obsolete by the time it's finished. What about someone who lives in, say, West Wales and has an equally valid need to be in Manchester? Not that I can think of any reason to go there!

[Pepperman]

I'm yet to reach the point of not advocating large infrastructure projects that could lead to substantial shifts from high to low carbon.

If we postpone these sorts of projects and it turns out we do have sufficient energy to benefit from them then we'll have lost valuable time.

A form of cognitive dissonance? Possibly, but if it does turn out that you're right, building an unnecessary HSR line will be the least of our worries.

[JohnB]

I'm yet to reach the point of not advocating large infrastructure projects that could lead to substantial shifts from high to low carbon.

But even if BAU continues, why put so much into infrastructure that only connects part of the country? Surely high speed broadband to every part of the country would be a better investment, so that anyone, anywhere can have equal access to video conferencing and high speed data transfer. It would transfer some of the wealth out of London and into places that need it.

[Pepperman]

I don't expect BAU.

High speed broadband is also important but I don't think it's an either/or decision.

Although you could say do we really need ultra fast broadband?

Skype works perfectly well on a 2mb line, 100mb only really seems necessary for streaming high definition video as far as I can make out.

[JohnB]

Although you could say do we really need ultra fast broadband?

Skype works perfectly well on a 2mb line, 100mb only really seems necessary for streaming high definition video as far as I can make out.

I agree. I teleworked from home for years with 64k ISDN and then 2mb ADSL, with a VPN that couldn't have run at more than 256k! The 3.something mb I've got now is fine. But for those that like these things, extra speed seems a better alternative to travel.

[emordnilap]

We in the west of Ireland are just 'catching up' so to speak, road-wise, where certain people were clamouring for better roads so you could get from, say, Limerick to Galway 20 minutes sooner.

Why would you want to? What does it really achieve? You can now work further from home? You can now shop further from home? Wha?

Short-termism at its best, it has meant that, in order to extract most money from the EU, whole new roads had to be created running parallel to existing and upgradeable roads. There weren't the EU grants for simple bypasses of congested villages.

So as we 'catch up' and face both financial and resource realism, it will mean double (well, more like treble) the amount of tarmac to maintain - or not, which is more likely.

The only positive outcome is the sheer vast quantity of trees that have have been planted alongside these new roads. Always look on the bright side!