|
|
Post by metrailway on Jun 13, 2012 18:41:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tecchy on Jun 13, 2012 19:18:02 GMT
To shelve both of these ideas is just so stupid! We need both, a new runway and HS2!
They have been talking about a third runway for as long as I can remember, by the time any consultation has been completed we'll need a 4th runway to keep up demand!
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jun 13, 2012 21:55:46 GMT
To shelve both of these ideas is just so stupid! We need both, a new runway and HS2! They have been talking about a third runway for as long as I can remember, by the time any consultation has been completed we'll need a 4th runway to keep up demand! It just seems to take so long in this country to make a decision to build anything, let alone ACTUALLY build it! HS1 was a case in point - we were years behind the French! |
|
|
|
Post by redsetter on Jun 13, 2012 22:54:44 GMT
the environmental impact on areas of outstanding natural beauty such as the chilterns,hs2 puts this in threat.the effects are entirely negative,the dithering,the delays,the uncertain outcome together with much local opposition at government and public level.david cameron's position is not good he cannot afford anymore disasters and with questions to leadership beginning to emerge its not a good time to become even more unpopular,inflaming grass route support along this route also if construction began. according to lbc radio the opening ceremony of the Olympics is to focus on Britain's countryside,hs2 hardly complements this portrayal.it may go ahead it might not but in these times it looks a long way off. www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/local-news/pm-s-hs2-comments-spark-twitter-debate-1-3946308 |
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Jun 13, 2012 23:02:30 GMT
We had the makings of HS2 years ago with the Great Central main line which was built to continental loading gauge and ran up the centre of the country from London to Sheffield and Manchester, but as usual our enlightened forward thinking politicians closed it instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 6:30:53 GMT
Building railways has always been emotive and we seem not have learnt mistakes from the past. The facts are Oil is a finite product and it's extraction will become harder and thus more expensive. Therefore we need to be more efficient with the product we use and look into good quality alternatives.
HS2 has the ability with further growth & development to provide an internal alternative to use of oil.
HS2 if planned properly, has the ability to remove a significant amount of internal flights - thus freeing up capacity at major airports to provide long haul direct flights to many emerging and developing nations viewed as essential to our economy.
HS2 if planned properly has the ability to improve social mobility with people from different communities being directly linked to an improved job market in different areas.
Sadly HS2 goes through some important back gardens and it'll be this and not the need for HS2 that will win the day. Sad but true.
I believe the UK and Europe need proper planned and integrated high speed passenger and freight lines. The UK must be onboard or risk, as we seem to do, being on the edge of the action. The UK needs to be a fully involved at the party. We seem to pay for our ticket but then sit on the kiddies table why the grown ups talk politics. Sadly if we need to annoy a few important people to do that then its a price worth paying. The alternative is we for ever have that branch line, miles from anywhere important, that everybody says "what if".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 8:15:03 GMT
A lot of what I’ve read and heard suggests that the economic benefits of HS2 are vastly overhyped, spending £65bn (http://fullfact.org/factchecks/high_speed_two_train_costs-3227) so that in 2026 we can get to Birmingham 20 minutes quicker than today seems utterly ridiculous but as Zac Goldsmith pointed out at PMQs yesterday a third runway isn’t necessary either.
Maximising the capacity at Heathrow by moving more short-haul flights there would be a start but a second runway at Gatwick would cause far less disruption while a fast rail link between the two airports would ease congestion on services in and out of London. Similarly resurrecting the E-W Varsity Line would further reduce congestion and negate the need to cram onto the Tube to get from one London Terminal to another.
Sadly the civil servants who come up with these ideas seem totally focused on their own commuting experience and see everything in terms of getting in and out of the capital.
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Jun 14, 2012 8:34:00 GMT
A lot of what I’ve read and heard suggests that the economic benefits of HS2 are vastly overhyped, spending £65bn (http://fullfact.org/factchecks/high_speed_two_train_costs-3227) so that in 2026 we can get to Birmingham 20 minutes quicker than today seems utterly ridiculous but as Zac Goldsmith pointed out at PMQs yesterday a third runway isn’t necessary either. But, if you read that report, £65bn won't be 'spent' by 2026. Half that money is for rolling stock and operating costs (over a 60 year period). Much of these costs will be covered by the passengers. The current WCML rolling stock would be needing replacement soon after anyway. The time savings to Birmingham are NOT the main reason that HS2 is needed, but the capacity released on the WCML. However, time will also be saved to destinations further north via the link near Lichfield. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 9:47:32 GMT
I don't think it is dither, it is being afraid of making the wrong decision. If you don't make a decision then you can't make a wrong one.
This seems to me to be common in almost all walks of public life.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jun 14, 2012 10:09:00 GMT
The case for HS2 along the 2012 proposed route has been over-hyped.
I agree that more airport capacity is needed, as it a higher speed, higher capacity North-South link, but it should be done by expanding Stanstead and continuing HS1 up the East Coast, picking up Stanstead on the way, and linking Stanstead to Luton as well as Gatwick to Heathrow. Effectively, creating an M25-like ring-rail between the suburban airports.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 12:26:14 GMT
A third runway means the destruction of a whole village and misery of hundreds of thousands of resdients of west London, with planes taking off over their heads. HS2 means several trains an hour running through tunnels and a cutting.
We seem to accept the environmental impact of Heathrow, in the middle of a town, with no question, and some people want to increase it by 50%, yet when we want to run trains through a bit of countryside, the nimbys are up in arms.
If they don't like the idea of trains through the Chilterns they can move to Sipson.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jun 14, 2012 16:16:02 GMT
I thought using the existing (where possible) trackbed of the old GCR would have been a good plan. Use the little used track from Acton through Ruslip and on to the old route through Wotton, Calvert and up towards Brackley, Loughboro' and Sheffield!
|
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Jun 14, 2012 16:33:03 GMT
Unfortunately a lot of the old GC route has gone. Another alternative would be the old GE/GN joint line via March and Spalding, this could easily connect with what remains of the GC in the Doncaster area and with the now closed Woodhead route to Manchester. An added bonus is that it starts at Stratford with its connections to HS1 and goes past Stanstead.
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,257
|
Post by roythebus on Jun 15, 2012 8:32:56 GMT
In France there were protests BECAUSE the planned TGV route DIDN'T go through particular areas!
Bear in mind we built the channel tunnel, and the French and Germans built their high speed routes in the time it took us to plan and build HS1.
|
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Jun 15, 2012 9:05:10 GMT
the French and Germans built their high speed routes in the time it took us to plan and build HS1. This is true,and I share the frustration over delays to projects which I support.... But bear in mind that,compared to Britain,Germany and France are very sparsely populated....even if we believe the official figures for population,SE England is,I understand,the most densely populated part of the whole of Europe....and the official figures are hotly disputed (as an underestimate) by those who actually provide the services (Education,sewerage,other utilities) and the perception is of a corner of England bursting at the seams. In light of this,it is unsurprising that local residents oppose any encroachment upon the precious remaining bits of green space (which,for cost reasons,are always the preferred route)...it feels as if crunch-time has been reached in the South East,and it will become increasingly difficult tto push large projects through. |
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Jun 15, 2012 10:23:35 GMT
In my opinion, phase 1 and phase 2 of HS2 are the wrong way round. If they planned to build the lines to Manchester and Leeds first, there would be less intense NIMBYism, and if there was the London - centric press would not have picked it up. Once you build the northern part of HS2, there would be even greater pressure to build to London. Any subsequent NIMBYism from the Chilterns would look silly as the northern lines would have been built through even more beautiful countryside. However, the main reason HS2 is dead is NOT because of NIMBYism; it is because of the economic case for HS2 is likely to be poor. George Osborne was in favour of HS2 but The Treasury has always been sceptical of the project hence it's exclusion from the Queen's Speech. the French and Germans built their high speed routes in the time it took us to plan and build HS1. This is true,and I share the frustration over delays to projects which I support.... But bear in mind that,compared to Britain,Germany and France are very sparsely populated....even if we believe the official figures for population,SE England is,I understand,the most densely populated part of the whole of Europe....and the official figures are hotly disputed (as an underestimate) by those who actually provide the services (Education,sewerage,other utilities) and the perception is of a corner of England bursting at the seams. In light of this,it is unsurprising that local residents oppose any encroachment upon the precious remaining bits of green space (which,for cost reasons,are always the preferred route)...it feels as if crunch-time has been reached in the South East,and it will become increasingly difficult tto push large projects through. Depending on your sources, if you exclude micro-nations, small islands etc, England (not whole of UK) is either the most densely populated country or 2nd (after Holland) most densely populated country in Europe and the 5th or 6th most densely populated country in the World. The official population for the UK is around 62 million but there are about 80 million active National Insurance numbers. Based on food consumption, supermarkets believe the population is 77 million+. Thus, population is likely to be around the 80 million mark. Based on official population figures, England's population makes up about 5/6 of the 62 million in the UK. Assuming this ratio, England has approximately 67 million people living if there are 80 million in the UK. The population density would be about 613 people/km 2 pushing England to the 3rd most densely populated country in the World (excluding small islands etc). |
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Jun 15, 2012 19:04:18 GMT
The spectator article should be viewed in the context of inter-party politics. Its not the first time that those with an agenda wish to spread rumours of HS2's demise, and it wont be the last...
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Jun 15, 2012 21:10:41 GMT
In my opinion, phase 1 and phase 2 of HS2 are the wrong way round. If they planned to build the lines to Manchester and Leeds first, there would be less intense NIMBYism, and if there was the London - centric press would not have picked it up. Once you build the northern part of HS2, there would be even greater pressure to build to London. Any subsequent NIMBYism from the Chilterns would look silly as the northern lines would have been built through even more beautiful countryside. The trouble with building the northern section first is that the capacity is needed at the southern end to accommodate any new services (as well as coping with the expected growth in the next 10 - 15 years). HS2 wasn't planned to be in queen's speech, at least according to Justin Greening the Transport Secretary. The hybrid bill is due in 2013. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 22:25:16 GMT
....... the Great Central main line which was built to continental loading gauge. I think this is an urban myth as there was no continental loading gauge when the GC was built. |
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Jul 1, 2012 8:30:12 GMT
The Berne Convention was in 1912 but it is well documented that Watkin built the GC to an expanded loading guage. This is always said to be for compatibility with continental rolling stock but as there was no common standard at the time it would be interesting know which railways it would have been compatible with.
|
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Jul 1, 2012 9:01:26 GMT
Probably French loading-gauge as Watkin had substantial interests in French railways,and,pre-Berne,French railways had the most constricted loading-gauge on Continental Europe (though still more generous than our loading-gauge here in the UK) so any stock built to French standard could,after travelling the GC,Watkin's Channel Tunnel onto French metals,proceed onward to anywhere in Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Jul 2, 2012 22:36:32 GMT
As great as the whole Channel Tunnel influence sounds, i've read enough now to realise that if anything influenced the GCR's relatively large loading gauge it was the GWR's.
Chris
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2012 13:04:48 GMT
I am for HS2, but I feel the destruction around Euston is a bit too much for what it is worth. 'So farewell ugly Network Rail buildings, The Ibis, St James’ Gardens, the Cottage Hotel, The Bree Louise Pub and most of Cardington Street, the sad loss of an original, if disused, Leslie Green Station Building on Drummond Street, there are also a fair few houses on the site and around 200 flats will go in the Regents Park Estate to widen the approach tracks.' I never realised it was going to literally plough through such a densely populated part of Camden Borough. londonist.com/2010/03/hs2_has_terminal_consequences_aroun.phpCould they not put it underneath Euston, or even on top of it? |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jul 4, 2012 14:04:30 GMT
I can't see how they can keep the station functioning whilst demolishing the old concourse. The whole place is going to have to close down, surely.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jul 4, 2012 18:15:25 GMT
Not necessarily  Sure I read somewhere that the first part to be built will be the eastern side, which is where the other buildings are now, such as the housing estate. When thats ready the services will transfer over and the old concourse will be rebuilt. Wouldn't suprise me if various services, where able, are diverted away from Euston aswell to ease things. Considering the size of the site, a lot will be built in replacement. Its sad to see a lot of whats there go, but the aspiration and vision, and sympathy for whats good there now is far greater than that during the period which reduced Euston to a carbunkle in the first place. Whatever happens, now is the time to safeguard and put pressure on providing things proximate that people want. So for Euston, rebuilding the total number of dwellings lost/sq footage of such dwellings, replacement green space for the community, and the **ARCH** For Ruislip, hows about the Central line curve to Uxbridge, and the couple of North-South express busways that TfL recon are too expensive at £1.3mil a pop. Further north, some sort of provision for a future Calvert interchange, and a promise to replant trees and other plants at a rate of at least 2 for every 1 pulled down. Regrettably, I'm not too savvy with the exact plans in Birmingham, but similar demands should be voiced there. Its not blackmail, its shrewd bargaining |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Jul 4, 2012 21:14:44 GMT
I am for HS2, but I feel the destruction around Euston is a bit too much for what it is worth. So, if not Euston then where? Without HS2, you will need to rebuild Euston anyway, as it is close to the maximum capacity it can cope with. If you look at the area west of Euston station, it is actually one of the least populated parts of Camden. Sure, I'll miss the Bree Louise too, but some of the other buildings in the area are not really being used (e.g. the NHS building on Hampstead Road or the carriage shed). And how much more would that cost? |
|
Sure I read somewhere that the first part to be built will be the eastern side, which is where the other buildings are now, such as the housing estate. When thats ready the services will transfer over and the old concourse will be rebuilt.
