Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2023 18:47:26 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 I've just read on Trainline website that Brum to Manchester is about 1h 40m and that is for 70 miles. (40mph) From our local train station averages 4 hours to London a distance of 38 miles. (<10mph) It's not just the North that needs better public transport. If public transport was better there might be less cars on the roads. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2023 18:52:14 GMT
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. Quote: High Speed Rail 2 (HS2) is a proposed rail link between London, Manchester and Leeds with further, later, extensions to Glasgow and Edinburgh. If mentioned at all by the last or present Government, it is put forward as an entirely British idea, but it is not. And if there are complaints about the proposed rail line, no matter how many times the Government says it will ‘re-consider’ – nothing will be done. Because nothing can be done.
The whole project is down to the Government in Brussels
www.theeuroprobe.org/2015-088-hs2-controlled-by-eu-not-our-gov/ |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 2, 2023 18:52:32 GMT
Finding it hard to believe that a direct rail service of 38 miles takes four hours. What is the name of the station?
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 2, 2023 18:54:45 GMT
You do realise Red that Europrobe is hardly a credible source Red.
Let’s try to keep it credible.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 2, 2023 18:59:42 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 - linkYour link says nothing official to support your bizarre idea that the purpose of this line is/was because of an EU directive. But whatever the reasoning for this rail link, it seems ludicrous for it not to have the southern link terminating in Central London, with no proposed links through to Europe… |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 2, 2023 19:02:04 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. There are 179 flights from London airports including the City of London Airport every week done it got the T shirt |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 2, 2023 19:10:58 GMT
According to the Independent Newspaper today the PM Sunak will either tell the Tory Conference tomorrow of Wednesday
The northern leg of HS2 has been scrapped due to spiralling costs weeks after The Independent revealed the prime minister and chancellor were in talks about shelving it.
The Manchester leg of the high-speed rail project has been pushed back by at least seven years, The Independent understands.
The revelation comes after The Independent first revealed top-level talks were taking place between Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt about whether to scrap parts of the high-speed rail project HS2, on 13 September.
The much-delayed and overbudget scheme was for a line linking some of the country’s largest cities, intended to connect London, the Midlands and the north of England, with construction split into three phases.
Downing Street was evasive when approached for comment – but refused to deny discussions were taking place. Our story even appeared to be news to HS2’s project managers, as well as the Department for Transport.
The next day, the rest of the press pack caught up. The prime minister’s spokesperson was subjected to relentless in-person questioning at a regular briefing of political journalists in Westminster.
Still, No 10 would not deny the discussions had taken place.
If they have called it correctly or not we will know by Wednesday at the latest
RECOMMENDED
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 2, 2023 19:17:18 GMT
I'm sorry. Its those inconvenient facts I keep relating, that shoot down or ill thought through logic. Why can't I just be like the rest and shout Hear hear, bloody EU. 🤣
High Speed Rail 2 (HS2) is a proposed rail link between London, Manchester and Leeds with further, later, extensions to Glasgow and Edinburgh. And if there are complaints about the proposed rail line, no matter how many times the Government says it will ‘re-consider’ – nothing will be done. Because nothing can be done. The whole project is down to the Government in Brussels www.theeuroprobe.org/2015-088-hs2-controlled-by-eu-not-our-gov/Well if you will read comics. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2023 19:20:52 GMT
No, you're quite wrong. The primary purpose of the line was to comply with EU legislation - linkYour link says nothing official to support your bizarre idea that the purpose of this line is/was because of an EU directive. But whatever the reasoning for this rail link, it seems ludicrous for it not to have the southern link terminating in Central London, with no proposed links through to Europe… Nothing 'official' lol, are you for real? Do I assume too much if I assume you didn't read it? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 2, 2023 19:23:32 GMT
It's a very curious argument to be making. The reason why our railways are so crap is because no kindly enemy bombed them to bits for us. If only they'd had done that we could have rebuilt them all by now in a form more suitable for modern times. Doesn’t seem such a curious proposition when you consider the importance of railway in WWII Britain. Because railways were an integral part of Britain’s defence — transporting military personnel, equipment and supplies, civilian survival goods like food and survival essentials, and children to safety — a great deal of effort was put into (and expertise developed) repairing bombed track and keeping trains running. A story to be proud of. But the result was that at the end of the War, Britain still had an operating rail system. After the expense of the War, the country had little money to spare for anything but essentials. For decades after, Britain’s nationalised railways were largely maintained on a limited make do and mend budget. The Marshall Plan aided Europe where most mainland recipients used it to repair and develop their infrastructure and industry. Britain spent most of its considerable aid on revamping its military. As a result, the UK fell behind its European competitors on many fronts — of which an ageing rail system was just one example… The war ended 78 years ago. And we still haven't upgraded ? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 2, 2023 19:24:26 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 can't remember its run by the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2023 19:26:57 GMT
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 can't remember its run by the EU. No ZG, it 'was' run by the nasty EU, but we are no longer in the nasty EU which means the government are allowed to scrap it if they so choose. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 2, 2023 19:26:59 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. Indeed. Anyone who flies often knows you arrive at the airport at least 90 minutes before your boarding time. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2023 19:33:57 GMT
The war ended 78 years ago. And we still haven't upgraded ? ZG, if you're genuinely interested in this subject a book you will find very interesting is 'The Great Railway Conspiracy' by David Henshaw. It's an extremely revealing read. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 2, 2023 19:37:27 GMT
Your link says nothing official to support your bizarre idea that the purpose of this line is/was because of an EU directive. But whatever the reasoning for this rail link, it seems ludicrous for it not to have the southern link terminating in Central London, with no proposed links through to Europe… Nothing 'official' lol, are you for real? Do I assume too much if I assume you didn't read it? I did, and here’s a bit: A Trans-European Rail Network (TEN-R) is only part of a larger project because an entire Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) is also planned. Its aim is to establish a series of interconnected European transport networks and these were laid down under Decision No. 1692/96/EC on 23 July 1996 with amendments to the scheme being made later. Along with energy and telecommunications, it is intended to cover a Trans-European Road Network, Inland Waterway and Seaport Network, Trans-European Airports Network and – added by Decision No. 884/2004/EC in September 2001 – a ‘Motorways of the Sea’. The whole project was originally outlined in the Treaty of Rome, signed in 1958 which established the European Economic Community that led to the current European Union.
There’s nothing there, or anywhere else, about forcing the UK into massive cost overruns if it wants to bring its rail network up to date or attract passengers and cargo away from air and road… |
|
