Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Do We Really Need Hs2?
20 Answers
http://
It has gone through more than three years of scrutiny, now the parliamentary Bill to build the line from London to Birmingham is due to receive royal assent, opening the way for construction work to begin.
But not due to open until December 2026 at the cost of £56m, and that figure will be much greater by the time of completion.
It has gone through more than three years of scrutiny, now the parliamentary Bill to build the line from London to Birmingham is due to receive royal assent, opening the way for construction work to begin.
But not due to open until December 2026 at the cost of £56m, and that figure will be much greater by the time of completion.
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No.
What we do need is a radical overhaul of the railway system, but that should be massive investment in repairing and updating existing infrastructure, lengthening platforms, re-opening closed lines and stations, and addressing the wilful incompetence of companies who put profit before customers or safety.
All of this could be achieved at a fraction of the cost of HS2, which is nothing more than a vanity project designed to feed the myth that if we open the 'northern powerhouse', that money and jobs will stream north, whereas the reality is of course, that they will stream south.
Years go, if people wanted a legacy to live on after their death, they built a cathedral, now we have this nonsense instead.
Millennium Dome anyone?
What we do need is a radical overhaul of the railway system, but that should be massive investment in repairing and updating existing infrastructure, lengthening platforms, re-opening closed lines and stations, and addressing the wilful incompetence of companies who put profit before customers or safety.
All of this could be achieved at a fraction of the cost of HS2, which is nothing more than a vanity project designed to feed the myth that if we open the 'northern powerhouse', that money and jobs will stream north, whereas the reality is of course, that they will stream south.
Years go, if people wanted a legacy to live on after their death, they built a cathedral, now we have this nonsense instead.
Millennium Dome anyone?
Have we lost the skills we once had?
Primitive man built Stonehenge.
The Normans built gigantic castles.
Men in the Middle-ages, built colossal Cathedrals.
The Victorians, built railways to almost every city and hamlet in Britain, built viaducts, bridges, tunnels, ornate buildings and much much more, both here and abroad.
60's man gave us the motorways.
But with the aid of 21st century technology, we are still messing about over a high Speed train from London to Birmingham.
Primitive man built Stonehenge.
The Normans built gigantic castles.
Men in the Middle-ages, built colossal Cathedrals.
The Victorians, built railways to almost every city and hamlet in Britain, built viaducts, bridges, tunnels, ornate buildings and much much more, both here and abroad.
60's man gave us the motorways.
But with the aid of 21st century technology, we are still messing about over a high Speed train from London to Birmingham.
The existing track is near full to capacity, so there is a demand for it.
The alternative is restrict peoples' rail travel, to put more cars onto the congested roads, or to fly in polluting aeroplanes.
Most of Europe have high speed routes, and that aids business and tourist travel. But many in the UK have a third world mentality and want to hold us back.
The alternative is restrict peoples' rail travel, to put more cars onto the congested roads, or to fly in polluting aeroplanes.
Most of Europe have high speed routes, and that aids business and tourist travel. But many in the UK have a third world mentality and want to hold us back.
mikey4444
/// Jack....it would probably be cheaper to move Brum 30 mins closer to London ! ///
Won't be any need to, it is already extending it's size and so is London.
•
ONS
forecasts that Birmingham’s population will grow by 150,000
residents (14%) between 2011-
2031.
•
The wards in Birmingham with the largest expected
population growth
(based on historical growth) are:
Ladywood (38%)
Soho (37%)
Washwood Heath (31%)
Nechells (30%)
/// Jack....it would probably be cheaper to move Brum 30 mins closer to London ! ///
Won't be any need to, it is already extending it's size and so is London.
•
ONS
forecasts that Birmingham’s population will grow by 150,000
residents (14%) between 2011-
2031.
•
The wards in Birmingham with the largest expected
population growth
(based on historical growth) are:
Ladywood (38%)
Soho (37%)
Washwood Heath (31%)
Nechells (30%)
Hopkirk - every suit who pops up on the news to trumpet the wonders of HS2 mentions the wonders of shaving twenty minutes (wow! yippee!) off the journey time.
That doesn't allow for the fact that the commuters who use the service use the time to work, and having settled down and powered up their laptops and settled into something, may not be too impressed at being stopped twenty minutes earlier than usual because some egotist in Westminster wants to waste billions of public money in vanity project.
That doesn't allow for the fact that the commuters who use the service use the time to work, and having settled down and powered up their laptops and settled into something, may not be too impressed at being stopped twenty minutes earlier than usual because some egotist in Westminster wants to waste billions of public money in vanity project.
The main plank of support for this Mickey Mouse project is this bizarre notion that the nation is going to shift its powerbase from London to 'the north' - as politicians who rarely venture north of Watford like to call it.
Remember the BBC and the hugely expensive 'media city' in 'Manchester'?
One small problem, it's not in Manchester, it's in Salford, the city next door, which is like advertising your new job as being in Mayfair, when it's actually in Dalston.
And of course, the majority of the heavyweight 'talent' simply refused to move!
I always recall the sobering lesson of 'Richard And Judy'.
The show began in Liverpool, and ended in London. Why? Because they couldn't persuade in-for-two-days film stars to schelp two hundred miles north to be interviewed, so they had to shift it to London which has been, is, and always will be the power centre of this country, regardless of some hair-brained politicians talking about a 'northern powerhouse' - which is another product of their expense-fuelled gin-addled imaginations.
Remember the BBC and the hugely expensive 'media city' in 'Manchester'?
One small problem, it's not in Manchester, it's in Salford, the city next door, which is like advertising your new job as being in Mayfair, when it's actually in Dalston.
And of course, the majority of the heavyweight 'talent' simply refused to move!
I always recall the sobering lesson of 'Richard And Judy'.
The show began in Liverpool, and ended in London. Why? Because they couldn't persuade in-for-two-days film stars to schelp two hundred miles north to be interviewed, so they had to shift it to London which has been, is, and always will be the power centre of this country, regardless of some hair-brained politicians talking about a 'northern powerhouse' - which is another product of their expense-fuelled gin-addled imaginations.
Andy-Hughes: //What we do need is a radical overhaul of the railway system, but that should be massive investment in repairing and updating existing infrastructure, lengthening platforms, re-opening closed lines and stations, and addressing the wilful incompetence of companies who put profit before customers or safety. //
we've been there before. the modernization of the west coast mainline began at the very end of BR in the 1990s, and still isn't finished more than 20 years later. the alleged "future proof" extra capacity this modernization was meant to bring has already been used up, and there are no more train paths available between London and Stafford. are you really suggesting that the way to "mend" the railways is another 20-30 years of continuous disruption, and commuting on bertie the railway replacement bus?
we've been there before. the modernization of the west coast mainline began at the very end of BR in the 1990s, and still isn't finished more than 20 years later. the alleged "future proof" extra capacity this modernization was meant to bring has already been used up, and there are no more train paths available between London and Stafford. are you really suggesting that the way to "mend" the railways is another 20-30 years of continuous disruption, and commuting on bertie the railway replacement bus?
mushroom - //we've been there before. the modernization of the west coast mainline began at the very end of BR in the 1990s, and still isn't finished more than 20 years later.//
No-one with even a passing acquaintance with the railway system in the country would dispute that the reason why it is in such a state is chronic underinvestment, and that is down fairly and squarely to the way private companies run - I know, I work for one.
If you run for profit, and have a management structure who have salaries, bonuses, promotions etc. tied into shareholder profits, then that concentrates their minds seriously narrowly, in fact, to one aim - profit.
The way to maximise profit is to minimise outlay - so you have top-end managers who will do anything to save money and secure dividends, including their own, plus bonuses etc.
Saving money does not equate with service, safety, and those other annoying expensive things that make a national rail network operate safely and efficiently.
The answer is to re-nationalise the entire network on a not-for-profit basis, slash the defence budget and pump the money into the rail network, and problems will be solved.
Not overnight, but still a sight quicker than trying to wring money out of corporate fat cats with eyes fixed firmly on year-end targets - and bonuses to come.
No-one with even a passing acquaintance with the railway system in the country would dispute that the reason why it is in such a state is chronic underinvestment, and that is down fairly and squarely to the way private companies run - I know, I work for one.
If you run for profit, and have a management structure who have salaries, bonuses, promotions etc. tied into shareholder profits, then that concentrates their minds seriously narrowly, in fact, to one aim - profit.
The way to maximise profit is to minimise outlay - so you have top-end managers who will do anything to save money and secure dividends, including their own, plus bonuses etc.
Saving money does not equate with service, safety, and those other annoying expensive things that make a national rail network operate safely and efficiently.
The answer is to re-nationalise the entire network on a not-for-profit basis, slash the defence budget and pump the money into the rail network, and problems will be solved.
Not overnight, but still a sight quicker than trying to wring money out of corporate fat cats with eyes fixed firmly on year-end targets - and bonuses to come.
//The answer is to re-nationalise the entire network on a not-for-profit basis, slash the defence budget and pump the money into the rail network, and problems will be solved. //
none of that will magic more capacity out of thin air, and whilst cash can be used to modify, etc, it will still be at the expense of years of disruption; building sites and operational railways don't mix. trying to upgrade won't work. the only way to get more capacity at this time would be to limit line speeds to that of the slowest services, ie freight, which would make London to Manchester 5 hours plus. when the journey can be done by car in less that that, and at a fraction of the cost..... well I think you can see some of the problems.
none of that will magic more capacity out of thin air, and whilst cash can be used to modify, etc, it will still be at the expense of years of disruption; building sites and operational railways don't mix. trying to upgrade won't work. the only way to get more capacity at this time would be to limit line speeds to that of the slowest services, ie freight, which would make London to Manchester 5 hours plus. when the journey can be done by car in less that that, and at a fraction of the cost..... well I think you can see some of the problems.
The main reason that we do not need HS2 is self-drive cars. Governments around the world need to consider this inevitable change in our lives and make appropriate investment decisions.
Although nothing to do with HS2, the government is currently spending a fortune replacing miles of motorway central crash barriers with a solid concrete division between the opposing traffic lanes.
With the sturdy concrete barriers, there is minimal cost (or resultant traffic delay) as a result of a vehicle impacting the structure. Further, the barrier is less likely to fail, where in the past the integrity of the barrier has been suspect – following a major impact.
And so it appears to make financial sense to upgrade the barriers, but with self-drive vehicles no longer crashing into the barriers (or far, far less often than when humans control the vehicle) – the financial returns on this investment will no longer be as projected.
Although nothing to do with HS2, the government is currently spending a fortune replacing miles of motorway central crash barriers with a solid concrete division between the opposing traffic lanes.
With the sturdy concrete barriers, there is minimal cost (or resultant traffic delay) as a result of a vehicle impacting the structure. Further, the barrier is less likely to fail, where in the past the integrity of the barrier has been suspect – following a major impact.
And so it appears to make financial sense to upgrade the barriers, but with self-drive vehicles no longer crashing into the barriers (or far, far less often than when humans control the vehicle) – the financial returns on this investment will no longer be as projected.
1 to 20 of 20
