|
|
Post by wapentake on Oct 2, 2023 18:06:47 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..  cobblers,they closed so much because Ernest Marples who was as bent as a nine nob note was transport minister with shares in a road transport company and marples ridgeway who built motorways. He ran away and hid on the continent from the long arm of the law. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 2, 2023 18:07:18 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...  London to Manchester takes about an hour and five minutes block to block. You then need to add travel time to the airport , check in, get through security, get to the gate, board the aircraft. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 2, 2023 18:09:41 GMT
...and yet.. when the railway was under public ownership they closed half the network to save money.. cobblers,they closed so much because Ernest Marples who was as bent as a nine nob note was transport minister with shares in a road transport company and marples ridgeway who built motorways. He ran away and hid on the continent from the long arm of the law. LOL... |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Oct 2, 2023 18:15:27 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. 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. It’s not about speed but capacity,this could cost Sunak dearly. I have mixed views about HS2 but what I can say is the north does miss out so often |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2023 18:15:31 GMT
...and yet.. when the railway was under public ownership they closed half the network to save money.. cobblers,they closed so much because Ernest Marples who was as bent as a nine nob note was transport minister with shares in a road transport company and marples ridgeway who built motorways. He ran away and hid on the continent from the long arm of the law. You're quite right, but that's not the half of it. Ernie Marples, later Sir Ernie, later Lord Ernie, later convict on the run - was a slum landlord, a thug and a genuine criminal. And people accuse todays politicians of dishonesty. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2023 18:19:19 GMT
Well, theres 8 more constituencies which the Tories will lose next year Bolton NE, Bolton W, Leigh, Heywood & Middleton, Hazel Grove, Cheadle, Bury N, Altrincham & Sale W.
All Tory held, all in Greater Manchester
Kamikaze Sunak
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2023 18:19:28 GMT
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. It’s not about speed but capacity,this could cost Sunak dearly. I have mixed views about HS2 but what I can say is the north does miss out so often It's not about capacity, few people are desperate to pay the extra cost involved to get to London 20 minutes quicker. The capacity argument is fantasy. If you want more people to travel by train you make train travel more accessible to the masses, not faster for a few. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 2, 2023 18:24:42 GMT
cobblers,they closed so much because Ernest Marples who was as bent as a nine nob note was transport minister with shares in a road transport company and marples ridgeway who built motorways. He ran away and hid on the continent from the long arm of the law. You're quite right, but that's not the half of it. Ernie Marples, later Sir Ernie, later Lord Ernie, later convict on the run - was a slum landlord, a thug and a genuine criminal. And people accuse todays politicians of dishonesty. Well that's what we do best, if Savile hadn't have popped his clogs when he did, he would have been Lord Savile, it's not what you know 'it's who you know', and when we have lame DPP like Starmer it makes it even easier. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Oct 2, 2023 18:27:20 GMT
It’s not about speed but capacity,this could cost Sunak dearly. I have mixed views about HS2 but what I can say is the north does miss out so often It's not about capacity, few people are desperate to pay the extra cost involved to get to London 20 minutes quicker. The capacity argument is fantasy. If you want more people to travel by train you make train travel more accessible to the masses, not faster for a few. That’s not a fantasy the west coast line cannot take any more traffic,more capacity is needed especially as the not so smart motorways are full to overflowing,the ***** operating the over head gantries switch the speeds to lower apparently it cuts pollution (does it ****) You can’t make it more accessible if there’s no room to travel,also that **** Burnham is a gob who doesn’t give a stuff about Manchester but sees it as a stepping stone to leading the lab party when Mr Punch loses the leadership. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 2, 2023 18:27:28 GMT
Well, theres 8 more constituencies which the Tories will lose next year Bolton NE, Bolton W, Leigh, Heywood & Middleton, Hazel Grove, Cheadle, Bury N, Altrincham & Sale W. All Tory held, all in Greater Manchester Kamikaze Sunak Wait until the ULEZ 20mph hit them, it's almost like Labour have already threw in the towel. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 2, 2023 18:28:18 GMT
The primary purpose of the line was about capacity Red. Existing lines were full.
Unfortunately egos got in the way and the Government got obsessed by speed. If we had remembered the objective, we’d have made it slightly slower and routes it via Heathrow to get maximum economic benefit linking the North to Heathrow. But the Tory leadership were worried about losing seats if that lead to a third runway.
Poor politicians messed up the project.
As I have said above though, the fact that the total cost of the project is probably more than the total economic benefit of the project is not a good reason to abandon the project part way through.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 2, 2023 18:32:09 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. Well I did say I was stunned to read it:
But further on they make a different claim: 143 flights per week which seems more credible, given there are five London airports and half a dozen airlines offering flights.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2023 18:39:09 GMT
The primary purpose of the line was about capacity Red. Existing lines were full. Unfortunately egos got in the way and the Government got obsessed by speed. If we had remembered the objective, we’d have made it slightly slower and routes it via Heathrow to get maximum economic benefit linking the North to Heathrow. But the Tory leadership were worried about losing seats if that lead to a third runway. Poor politicians messed up the project. As I have said above though, the fact that the total cost of the project is probably more than the total economic benefit of the project is not a good reason to abandon the project part way through. No, you're quite wrong. The primary purpose of the line was to comply with EU legislation - link |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 2, 2023 18:42:39 GMT
Believe I am right in saying there are only BA flights from Heathrow to. Manchester. Don’t think there are any from Gatwick Stansted or City. If you can find others do let me know. I think it’s six flights a day each way.
Sky scanner gives all sorts of possible routes you can follow. You can fly LHR to Boston and then connect to a Boston to Manchester flight but it would be a pretty dumb thing to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 2, 2023 18:43:39 GMT
The primary purpose of the line was about capacity Red. Existing lines were full. Unfortunately egos got in the way and the Government got obsessed by speed. If we had remembered the objective, we’d have made it slightly slower and routes it via Heathrow to get maximum economic benefit linking the North to Heathrow. But the Tory leadership were worried about losing seats if that lead to a third runway. Poor politicians messed up the project. As I have said above though, the fact that the total cost of the project is probably more than the total economic benefit of the project is not a good reason to abandon the project part way through. No, you're quite wrong. The primary purpose of the line was to comply with EU legislation - linkNo we have done this before. Nothing to do with the EU. Our decision for capacity. |
|
