PowerSwitch

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 20 May 2012, 13:26

So despite no mention in the Queen's speech, it's BAU.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 21 May 2012, 03:22

biffvernon wrote:Corruption at HS2

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -deal.html

Why are you surprised? It's a European project so a bit of corruption is par for the course.

I don't think they put stuff that is mandated by Europe in the Queen's Speech because it will go ahead no matter how stupid or damaging it is. You don't want any debate on such things. It's one of the joys of being a European.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 May 2012, 06:43

Eh? Trying to deflect criticism of our government by finding a Belgian scapegoat? Come off it.

Pepperman · Post by **Pepperman** » 21 May 2012, 16:44

Yes I'm pretty sure it's not required by Europe. Good transport connections are European policy but it's not mandated.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 28 Jan 2013, 15:04

So will it go ahead?

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 28 Jan 2013, 15:25

This is probably the best report I've seen so far. I hadn't realised they'd turned into a serious news site!
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 3012857772

Post by **clv101** » 28 Jan 2013, 15:40

Here's my blog on HS2:
http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2013/01/high-speed-2/

Post by **adam2** » 28 Jan 2013, 16:15

I can see some merit in HS2, but would also suggest that the money could be better spent elswhere.
Despite the economic situation, rail travel is growing significantly, and something needs to be done to relieve overcrowding.
The options are either price people of the railways, or "predict and provide" as was the policy with roads until recently.

The present West coast main line is effectively full for most of the day, and the proponents of HS2 point this out, and suggest that the transfer of fast passenger traffic to the new line would make room on the old route for freight and local services.
So the new line is not just about greater speed, but also about increasing capacity.
In my view though, extra capacity could be provided more cheaply. Options include much longer trains on the existing route, not farting around with lengthening 9 car trains to 11 car, but building new trains of 24 or more vehicles, this would need hugely expensive platform extensions at Euston and at Birmingham, but surely not as costly as a complete new railway (the trains would divide at Birmingham to serve different destinations in the north, so no platform lengthening north of Birmingham)

Another option is to 6 track the busy bits of the existing route, and 4 track some of the 2 track bits.
This would also be expensive and would require land purchase and demolitions, but would also be cheaper than a complete new route.

And of course some of the money saved by not building HS2 could be spent on other UK railways.
There are many routes that could benifit from longer trains, at RELATIVELY modest cost.

A new build of intercity trains is being proposed, these could benifit from being 12 car rather than the 8 proposed, and so on.

Post by **clv101** » 28 Jan 2013, 17:23

adam2 wrote:Despite the economic situation, rail travel is growing significantly, and something needs to be done to relieve overcrowding.

I would argue something needs to done to address the growth in travel. Addressing overcrowding is treating the symptom not the disease. I don't mean higher prices, I mean finding other ways for people to meet their wants and needs (housing, employment, leisure etc.) without having to travel as much as they do now.

Very few people travel for travellings sake - they reluctantly travel because they have to meet their wants and needs.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 28 Jan 2013, 21:47

Modern travel seems to be about getting there as fast as possible, so surely sitting in your office looking at someone sitting in their office on a screen, is a far faster way to do it. It's modern and it uses new technology, and trains are an old technology, so surely people should jump at the chance of using it, especially as everyone now seems glued to their iPhones. Until teleportation is invented, teleconferencing seems like a good way to do business. The railways are still there for infrequent face to face meetings.

Of course the opportunity for meals out on expenses, and nights away with the secretary are lost, but is that really a reason to spend all that money on one project?

Having spent a while doing it, I've learned that travelling is as much about the the journey as it is about arriving, and rushing somewhere only to come back a few hours latter is pointless. Spend some of those billions on decent broadband in rural areas instead, so I can use video on Skype!

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 29 Jan 2013, 09:49

JohnB wrote:Having spent a while doing it, I've learned that travelling is as much about the the journey as it is about arriving, and rushing somewhere only to come back a few hours latter is pointless. Spend some of those billions on decent broadband in rural areas instead, so I can use video on Skype!

Yep. The journey is the enjoyment, not the end of the road.

And Skype (drat fecking M$) has saved me a few euro in its time.

Post by **adam2** » 04 Feb 2013, 09:23

emordnilap wrote:Yep. The journey is the enjoyment, not the end of the road.

And Skype (drat fecking M$) has saved me a few euro in its time.

Rail trips certainly USED to be an enjoyable part of a day out or longer holiday, but increasingly rail travel is something to be endured in order to get somwhere else, not something to enjoy.
As more and more rail routes are downgraded from "proper" trains to new, shorter trains with high density seating, no tables, minimal catering, and little luggage space, it is something to endure, a bit like flying , though not as bad for the enviroment.

I still enjoy my trips to West country, but I save up to go First class, and the trains are nearly 40 years old, cant expect standards like that on new trains
Standard class on these trains used to be reasonable, but the railway realised that they were too good for todays railway and modernised them. This consisted of removing the tables, moving the seats closer together, and removing the buffet. Just like a new train !

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 04 Feb 2013, 17:21

I still enjoy going by rain and it's even better with a senior railcard (or any railcard for that matter). I usually prebook for the cheapest journey and you can usually book a seat with a table and often one with power outlet so I can use my tablet for music and an e-book. I usually take my own sandwiches but the longer journeys all have a buffet car so fresh coffee and a bite are available as long as you don't leave it till the end of the journey. Even some of the local trains have a catering trolley on board.

The seats on an Intercity 125 aren't that big but travelling off peak for the cheapest fair means that you don't often have to share a pair of seats and when you do you can book the inside side. Maybe a broad chap like me doesn't invite sharing unless absolutely necessary! And I do put my rucksack on the floor if someone needs a seat. If you're there first you usually get the most comfortable position.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 04 Feb 2013, 20:32

I particularly like the line "almost all forecasts of the costs and benefits of almost all infrastructure projects are almost always completely wrong."

http://www.moneyweek.com/blog/hs2-a-dis ... king-62500

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 04 Feb 2013, 22:54

From one of the links in the above web page. Sums it up.

Tories don't care about the environment - look at how gideon osborne's father was busted being secretly recorded declaring how his son was going to 'put pressure' on cameron to ignore environmental issues.

Tories don't care about anything, except themselves and their rich friends.