|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2023 14:52:03 GMT
For the benefit of pedants. High speed rail makes sense in 'mainland' Europe, not so much in the UK. As when and if HS2 comes on line in 2026 it is claimed it will take 3 hours and 56 mins from London to Glasgow, from Manchester to London 1 hour 11 mins , but who the hell wants to go Glasgow  Quite right H. £180 billion to reduce journey time by 20 minutes, it's insane. Anyhoo, I suspect Sunak will shortly announce it's being scrapped. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 2, 2023 15:45:30 GMT
Paris to Amsterdam 514 km; London to Edinburgh 660 km. An LNER train links London & Edinburgh at up to 125mph almost every 30 minutes through the day, 393 miles in 4 hours 20 minutes. Spending £billions on a new high speed rail link is a complete waste of time and money. I thought your underlying argument was that distances are too short in the UK to justify high speed rail, compared to the continent.
I'm just correcting your mis-perception. That's all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2023 16:07:38 GMT
An LNER train links London & Edinburgh at up to 125mph almost every 30 minutes through the day, 393 miles in 4 hours 20 minutes. Spending £billions on a new high speed rail link is a complete waste of time and money. I thought your underlying argument was that distances are too short in the UK to justify high speed rail, compared to the continent. I'm just correcting your mis-perception. That's all.
LOL, you can be a pompous git sometimes Dan, but I quite like you all the same. Distances are quite obviously too short for high speed rail in the UK. Spending £180 billion on a high speed railway that covers 393 miles and reduces journey times by a whopping 20 minutes is ridiculous. As I said previously if you're traveling from Hamburg to Rome or Berlin to Barcelona a high speed railway makes sense. In spite of vested interests distances in the UK are quite obviously too short to justify the massive cost. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 2, 2023 16:41:09 GMT
Well it wasn't actually - defence spending was slashed after WW2 except for a slight uptick during the korean war. What the UK spent the Marshall Aid money on was the creation of the Welfare State and the NHS. Britain actually received more than a third more Marshall Aid than West Germany — $2.7 billion as against $1.7 billion — the largest share of any European nation. Post-war Labour chose not to use Marshall Aid for industrial modernisation. Britain’s Marshall Aid dollars gave it a chance to modernise as an industrial power. But Britain retained steam haulage, semaphore signalling and clapped-out track until the 1960s. Road and telecommunications network in Britain remained equally inadequate, ill-maintained and out-of-date. The modernisation of Britain as an industrial country for the sake of using Marshall Aid to support a world power role — strategic and financial. Britain's estimated defence expenditure for 1950-1 — the final year of Marshall Aid - amounted to 7.7 per cent of GNP, while other Marshall Aid recipients spent nothing on defence… Yes - military spending was falling year on year. The rest of it you are quite correct about. What the freed up military spending and the aid money was spent on was creating the Welfare State and the NHS - I'd suggest that most people would think that money well spent. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 2, 2023 16:49:50 GMT
I wasn't actually suggesting spending £180 billion on a high speed line to save 20 minutes on a 400-mile journey, but what I was pointing out is that high-speed rail journeys on the continent are not all on the scale of Hamburg to Rome (> 1300 km). Many journeys are much shorter lasting 2-3 hours, as in the case of Paris to Amsterdam which I mentioned earlier. Paris to Bordeaux is around 500 km while the Eurostar travels just 340km between London and Paris. I've never heard anyone complain that it was ridiculous to build it.
I'd suggest that any destination 200 miles or more distant would be a viable candidate for high-speed rail even in the UK. But I'd also suggest that the UK brings its rail network infrastructure up to 21st century European standards before investing in High-speed rail. Learn to walk gain before starting to run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 2, 2023 16:55:46 GMT
I wasn't actually suggesting spending £180 billion on a high speed line to save 20 minutes on a 400-mile journey, but what I was pointing out is that high-speed rail journeys on the continent are not all on the scale of Hamburg to Rome (> 1300 km). Many journeys are much shorter lasting 2-3 hours, as in the case of Paris to Amsterdam which I mentioned earlier. Paris to Bordeaux is around 500 km while the Eurostar travels just 340km between London and Paris. I've never heard anyone complain that it was ridiculous to build it. I'd suggest that any destination 200 miles or more distant would be a viable candidate for high-speed rail even in the UK. But I'd also suggest that the UK brings its rail network infrastructure up to 21st century European standards before investing in High-speed rail. Learn to walk gain before starting to run.It's because of years of under investment, and maximizing profits, from privatization, nothing to do with any government, it's what happens when you let profits come before investing in infrastructure, we know the script by now, once they've 'drained' the pot of all its cash, the good old UK tax payers come to the rescue, you could write the book by now. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 2, 2023 16:59:27 GMT
I wasn't actually suggesting spending £180 billion on a high speed line to save 20 minutes on a 400-mile journey, but what I was pointing out is that high-speed rail journeys on the continent are not all on the scale of Hamburg to Rome (> 1300 km). Many journeys are much shorter lasting 2-3 hours, as in the case of Paris to Amsterdam which I mentioned earlier. Paris to Bordeaux is around 500 km while the Eurostar travels just 340km between London and Paris. I've never heard anyone complain that it was ridiculous to build it. I'd suggest that any destination 200 miles or more distant would be a viable candidate for high-speed rail even in the UK. But I'd also suggest that the UK brings its rail network infrastructure up to 21st century European standards before investing in High-speed rail. Learn to walk gain before starting to run.It's because of years of under investment, and maximizing profits, from privatization, nothing to do with any government, it's what happens when you let profits come before investing in infrastructure, we know the script by now, once they've 'drained' the pot of all its cash, the good old UK tax payers come to the rescue, you could write the book by now. ...and yet.. when the railway was under public ownership they closed half the network to save money.. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 2, 2023 17:06:53 GMT
It's because of years of under investment, and maximizing profits, from privatization, nothing to do with any government, it's what happens when you let profits come before investing in infrastructure, we know the script by now, once they've 'drained' the pot of all its cash, the good old UK tax payers come to the rescue, you could write the book by now. ...and yet.. when the railway was under public ownership they closed half the network to save money.. Maybe, but when you can see a golden opportunity for maximum profits you go for it, they never bothered to up-date the trains, the tracks, the stations, it was all take take take, the same can be said for the Water utilities, that's why they are pissing our shit into the rivers, because they don't want to invest in infrastructure, it bites in to dividends and profits. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 2, 2023 17:27:27 GMT
The French government has banned domestic flights where there is an existing rail connection taking no more than 2 1/2 hours. This includes flights from Paris to Lyon, Bordeaux and Toulouse. Next step will be to ban short international flights, including Paris to London (just over 2 hours on Eurostar).
Perhaps the UK ought to consider following suit. I was stunned recently to see on Skyscanner that there are over 270 flights every day between London airports and Manchester, a journey which takes little more than two hours by rail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 2, 2023 17:35:04 GMT
London to Manchester by air takes 30 minutes - so we already have a service (that comes at no cost to the taxpayer) which is much better than the service that we would be getting if we went ahead and spent £150 Billion of taxpayers money on a fast train set...  |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 2, 2023 17:37:01 GMT
As when and if HS2 comes on line in 2026 it is claimed it will take 3 hours and 56 mins from London to Glasgow, from Manchester to London 1 hour 11 mins , but who the hell wants to go Glasgow Quite right H. £180 billion to reduce journey time by 20 minutes, it's insane. Anyhoo, I suspect Sunak will shortly announce it's being scrapped. He might he might not if he does scrap or delays it he could lose the Red Wall voters in the North on the run up to the GE |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2023 17:40:14 GMT
I wasn't actually suggesting spending £180 billion on a high speed line to save 20 minutes on a 400-mile journey, but what I was pointing out is that high-speed rail journeys on the continent are not all on the scale of Hamburg to Rome (> 1300 km). Many journeys are much shorter lasting 2-3 hours, as in the case of Paris to Amsterdam which I mentioned earlier. Paris to Bordeaux is around 500 km while the Eurostar travels just 340km between London and Paris. I've never heard anyone complain that it was ridiculous to build it. I'd suggest that any destination 200 miles or more distant would be a viable candidate for high-speed rail even in the UK. But I'd also suggest that the UK brings its rail network infrastructure up to 21st century European standards before investing in High-speed rail. Learn to walk gain before starting to run. Dan, it has long been argued that the £billions spent on HS2 which will benefit relatively few people should have been spent on upgrading current Victorian rail infrastructure. Particularly east west routes. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2023 17:48:20 GMT
The French government has banned domestic flights where there is an existing rail connection taking no more than 2 1/2 hours. This includes flights from Paris to Lyon, Bordeaux and Toulouse. Next step will be to ban short international flights, including Paris to London (just over 2 hours on Eurostar). Perhaps the UK ought to consider following suit. I was stunned recently to see on Skyscanner that there are over 270 flights every day between London airports and Manchester, a journey which takes little more than two hours by rail. I assume presidents the wealthy and anyone with a private jet will be exempt this 2½ hour rule? And does the EU parliament still up sticks and move from Brussels to Strasbourg for a couple of days, every month? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Oct 2, 2023 17:58:36 GMT
London to Manchester by air takes 30 minutes - so we already have a service (that comes at no cost to the taxpayer) which is much better than the service that we would be getting if we went ahead and spent £150 Billion of taxpayers money on a fast train set... That gave me a thought, 30 minutes of jet fuel compared with the cost of the power for hs2 plus the damage to the environment building it, making its carbon footprint huge, how many flights would it take to come near it in environmental damage. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 2, 2023 18:02:59 GMT
The French government has banned domestic flights where there is an existing rail connection taking no more than 2 1/2 hours. This includes flights from Paris to Lyon, Bordeaux and Toulouse. Next step will be to ban short international flights, including Paris to London (just over 2 hours on Eurostar). Perhaps the UK ought to consider following suit. I was stunned recently to see on Skyscanner that there are over 270 flights every day between London airports and Manchester, a journey which takes little more than two hours by rail. There are nothing like 270 flights per day between London and Manchester each day Dan. There are few flights each day between Paris and London - I believe all of them are operational positioning flights - needed for maintenance etc - rather than aimed commercially although they will sell the odd ticket. |
|
