Fast Train To Nowhere?

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 20 May 2010, 06:24

George Monbiot - 17/05/10

Before the UK commissions a high speed rail network, we should ask ourselves some big questions.

Article continues ...

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 20 May 2010, 07:32

An excellent piece. I particularly like:

George Monbiot wrote:what’s it all for? The department argues that high speed rail is necessary because economic growth encourages people to travel more. High speed rail, it says, will stimulate economic growth. This will encourage people to travel more, which will … For how much longer can this go on? At what point do we decide that this crowded little island is busy enough?

The answer from old and new governments appears to be never. The Department for Transport expects flying to increase by 178% between 2008 and 2033, driving by 43% and train journeys by 150%(12). It does not seek to reduce this demand, only to accommodate it, until England becomes a giant transport corridor. Progress is measured by the number of people in transit. Civilisation will have reached its apogee when the entire population of Manchester takes the train every day to London and the entire population of London takes the train every day to Manchester. Perhaps we should resolve Britain’s railway network into a single orbital system, so that we can all remain in constant circulation. Then we’ll know we’re getting somewhere.

Why do we all want to be somewhere else, very soon? Should we not be content with where we are?

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 20 May 2010, 08:45

Defiantly not, travel broadens the mind, lets you meet new and interesting people, stops wars; remember lots of resource wars were started by politicians telling us how bad other people were. It is antithesis to parochialism, stops people breeding with cousins, give us a healthier diet: all the exotics in my polytunnel at the mo’ are the result of eating abroad.

Remember, monbiot is an eco-feminist!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofeminism

Nothing against eco feminism, I should imagine quite a few males on this board are overt eco feminists!

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 20 May 2010, 09:27

I have nothing against travel as a means of personal discovery. The hard way. With a backpack and bicycle, or using bus services, or a horse.

Two weeks on the beach on Thailand does not count.

Commuting 10,000 miles a year in a single occupant car is a complete waste of resources.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 20 May 2010, 10:18

stumuzz wrote:travel broadens the mind, lets you meet new and interesting people, stops wars;

I'm not sure that rushing back and forth at speed between London and Manchester is quite the sort of travel you have in mind.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 20 May 2010, 12:04

When I was travelling I could easily have spent a month getting from London to Manchester, and would still have missed meeting lots of interesting people on the way!

Post by **adam2** » 20 May 2010, 14:39

I would agree that travel broadens the mind and also provides social and employment possibilities, therefore trains and other public transport should be encouraged.

I dont however agree that we need to move ever faster. Moderate speed increases on existing rail routes are to be encouraged.

Of much greater importance than speed, IMHO is passenger comfort and on board facilities.
The journey should be part of the holiday or leisure trip, to be enjoyed, rather than an ordeal to be endured.
Every few weeks I travel from London to Taunton by rail, the journey takes about 2 hours, which is reasonable, and certainly quicker than driving.
At present they use 30 year old trains that have restaurants, leg room and luggage space and are comfortable in first class, and acceptable in standard. Very few, if any, new trains are as good as the old ones.
New trains introduced at vast public expense are normally shorter, with high density bus seats, no tables, no restaurant, reduced leg room and almost no luggage space.
I dont cycle, but for those who do, the old trains can accomadate numerous cycles, new trains normally only take 1 or2.

I would accept a SLOWER journey, if promised a seat (preferably in the restaurant

) in a proper train with decent seat spacing and luggage space.

Whilst packing in more high density bus seats may be greener (since more people may be compressed into the same space) there is no gain if it encourages people to drive, or to fly instead.

OrraLoon · Post by **OrraLoon** » 20 May 2010, 20:12

biffvernon wrote:An excellent piece. I particularly like:
George Monbiot wrote:what’s it all for? The department argues that high speed rail is necessary because economic growth encourages people to travel more. High speed rail, it says, will stimulate economic growth. This will encourage people to travel more, which will … For how much longer can this go on? At what point do we decide that this crowded little island is busy enough?

The answer from old and new governments appears to be never. The Department for Transport expects flying to increase by 178% between 2008 and 2033, driving by 43% and train journeys by 150%(12). It does not seek to reduce this demand, only to accommodate it, until England becomes a giant transport corridor. Progress is measured by the number of people in transit. Civilisation will have reached its apogee when the entire population of Manchester takes the train every day to London and the entire population of London takes the train every day to Manchester. Perhaps we should resolve Britain’s railway network into a single orbital system, so that we can all remain in constant circulation. Then we’ll know we’re getting somewhere.
Why do we all want to be somewhere else, very soon? Should we not be content with where we are?

I suppose the article confirmed my prejudice against the big project inter-city type stuff.

It's a personal annoyance that a so-called nationalist administration in Edinburgh should be begging for the project to be extended to Scotland in 2025...or 2035or... Talk about "Hangin' on the Line".

It's not just a nationalist gripe. I feel that something like the Borders railway should be linking the small towns in the area with a freight-standard track before trying to justify itself by saying that Edinburgh commuters will pay £££ for ??,000 extra houses in the country. Let's see how stupid that business plan looks in a few years [or months].

When you already have a network how do go about growing things out from local clusters of rail? Opportunity for some theorist.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 21 May 2010, 03:35

If they build a new line it should be normal speed and capable of handling double decker trains (just in case). A cheaper option, and a saver of even more time for business, would be a truly national high speed broadband network for video conferencing. The trouble with that is it doesn't get business fellows away on free junkets with the secretary. If I go on a junket I have to pay and I don't have a secretary. Bummer!!