Not sure, but there has to be a better case for spending money on something that has practical utility over something that has none

 

Indeed. The Argentinians will be worried about the damage that a high speed trainline could inflict upon their military.

 

That's such a daft comment

They barely have a military. And last time I checked Trident was strategic not a tactical weapon designed to be used on troops. Are you suggesting a pre-preemptive nuclear strike on Buenos Aires if they threaten to invade (or even if they do)?

Our deterrent didn't 'deter' the Argies last time did it?

 

It won't, but it will provide a fast way out for the ones in power when London gets nuked

 

(bites tongue frantically........)

 

HS2 is clearly a complete waste of money, they have not even rebuilt the east west train line that has been derelict for years because of lack of funds but they have billions to waste on this ? This HS2 project is clearly a vanity project for some and a massive money maker for others and that is why it is being built. It is a terrible idea when so much more important work needs doing to the rail network.

 

Yes of course.

Les

 

The people responsible for the planning and execution of HS2 with no real thought for those who will be so badly adversely affected want stuffing!

Les

 

Expand?

 

Yes. I made it to highlight your daft comment

 

Really?

'there has to be a better case for spending money on something that has practical utility over something that has none'

That one?

 

Go for it i say.

 

What he said.

If we really need a high speed continental gauge railway up the centre of the country this badly, why the **** was the decision taken to close the old one

And why aren't the people responsible for closing it being held to account

 

It might not have deterred them, but it certainly sank their only battleship

Which in turn definitely deterred them from deploying their only aircraft carrier

 

The most convincing argument I've heard for it so far was one they came out with this week, which is that if it doesn't go ahead, the disruption caused to travel on the existing main line by the upgrades they'd need to do to that instead would be enormous (years and years of coach-replacement services at weekends, over-crowding, delays etc).

All the same, it needs to stay in budget to remain credible.

 

It's not all about trimming 20 minutes journey time for rich businessmen, but also to increase capacity to enable more freight to travel by train reducing congestion on the roads.

I agree that it is more likely to encourage people to travel to London to work rather than distributing the work up North. Perhaps the fares should be like the Severn crossing, free for northbound travel, you only pay to travel south

 

[QUOTE]What did?

 

Upgrades ? shouldn't that be done every so often or when needed,where has all the money gone for it then if the rail hasn't been updated.

 

Why not spend the money on our completely bu99ered road network?

 

So the alternative would mean "HS2 alternative 'would mean years of rail disruption'" (of merely weekend route closures), yet full blown HS2, due to open on 2027 (er, 14 years away) will mean 7-day-a-week disruption to existing (car, train, passenger, cyclist etc.) traffic, for, er, 14 years (or more!).

I hope that nobody has shares in Atkins, 'cos they seem to be thicker than a very thick thing!!!

mb

 

A new railway line has just been announced that is 2771km long - from Kuwait right down to Oman passing through 6 GCC countries.
http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/tr...2018-1.1248632
This is going to cost $200 billion and will be open by 2018!
HS2 is going to be about a quarter that length, cost $60billion and first phase will be ready 2026 (if we are lucky)!
By the time HS2 is ready - it will be over-budget, outdated and probably not needed!
Cheers
Steve

 

All depends if you think our current network will be fit for purpose in 50 years time!

 

You could save 1/2 hour by making the motor ways unrestricted that would cost nothing and save billions

 

The old railways lines have too many curves (or something like that) for 'high speed' services.

 

How many people need to save an hour on their journey to London from Manchester?

Would it have not been more sensible to use the £40bn to create "Hubs" for industry all over the country, maybe even "Free Zones" to attract oversea's business? Also as somebody else mentioned, get the canals going again.

 

I really thought you could work that one out for yourself Martin!

Les

 

I think it is all down to the PM trying to make some kind of a name for himself! He is obviously quite happy to spend all that money and inconvenience so many people in an effort to get us to recognise his existence. Nothing else seems to be working anyway.

Les

 

Er, if the current network is upgraded (which is what the article is all about) then why not (over a couple of tens of years - not the FIFTY that you suddenly decided to introduce!)?

Indeed, maybe if the "network" performed even basic maintenance (never mind upgrades) - you know, things like trimming overhanging trees and removing ones that might fall over, we might not have to close the entire South of England because a bit of wind (that was forecast days ago and madly hyped by the BBC/Met Orrifice) occurred a few days ago.

mb

 

Not sure what your point is.

Are you saying that we should never have high speed rail, or just not now?

I'm not entirely signed on to this at present, but I dop believe a modern economy needs a modern and effective public transport system.

I mentioned 50 years (I could just as easily said 100 years) because we shouldn't base a decision on something that will benefit the country for decades/generations to come on the inconvenience in may casue in the shorter term. Overwise we'd never of built the motorway network, sewage system and the rest of our modern infastructure.

Are we really going to say 'high-speed rail not here thanks...ever'!

btw well done for weaving your usual rant against the Met Office and BBC into this thread, that took some contortions - but you got there in the end

 

The ones we have left do, but the old Great Central main line didn't, it was engineered from the start to enable high speed running, and through running from the continent.

Ironically, the Beeching report highlighted it as one of the core routes that should be retained. Unfortunately, internal British Railways politics at the time decided otherwise