I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.
Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.
Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis? https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1
We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.
People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.
A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.
Most of the population lived in rural areas, got up at dawn and slept at dusk and in all weathers got fresh air outside in the day.
Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.
The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge plus St Andrews and Glasgow in Scotland, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools
It looks like a spaghetti carbonara. There must be enough that haven't been built over significantly that can be relaid relatively inexpensively to ease any potential capacity issues on the WCML and any other lines. And they're built in places where people want/ed to go - they were all built by businesses for economical reasons, not as part of a eurocrat feverdream in the 1950's. That means they stand a better than average chance of viability and success.
That pipedream is gone forever. For example to relay the line from Ledbury to Gloucester would cost gazillions. Many years ago I worked with a guy who had an EA exemption to inert landfill a railway cutting he had bought. It's sad, but it's dead, it's gone, and it ain't coming back, a bit like Britain in the EU.
The railways, another great British institution smashed by a Conservative Government
OTOH the same would hgave been true of the Borders Railway in Scotland. The line was disrupted in various ways, not least by the building of the Edinburgh ring road without any consideration for preserving the line. If the Scots can do it ...?
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
My impression is that they've pretty much got all the juice out of that particular orange, and you can't do much more without putting the fast trains on separate tracks to the slower ones.
And if you want that fast track to unclog the three routes to the north, it needs to be super-fast to compensate for some journeys (London-Leeds, say) having to go the longer way round.
Reason for HS2 for dummies. Allows fast passenger trains to avoid the WCML. Which allows the WCML to carry more freight. Which reduces the number of HGVs on the M1 and M6. Which reduces congestion. Which reduces pollution and travelling time for the traffic currently overloading the M1 and M6.
I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.
Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.
Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis? https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1
We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.
People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.
A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.
Most of the population lived in rural areas, got up at dawn and slept at dusk and in all weathers got fresh air outside in the day.
Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.
The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools
On the long watch tonight. My father-in-law, 85, is nearing the end.
As a child, he was orphaned when his disabled father fell into a river, his mother jumped in to try and save him, and both were drowned. He married his childhood sweetheart at 19, and had three daughters. He joined the RAF, served on SAR helicopters, and was the only survivor of a crash as they returned to Tangmere. In 1969, when his youngest child was a few months old, he took his family and set sail from Selsey planning to sail around the world. In the West Indies, he nearly died when the engine on the catamaran exploded while he was working on it. He carried the scars, along with those from the helicopter crash, for the rest of his life. They sailed through the Panama canal, visited Peru, the Galapagos and Easter Island, witnessed a French atom bomb test, and settled in New Zealand. After five years, he set off home, this time alone, and arrived back in Selsey having sailed non stop across the Indian Ocean, around the Cape, and North through the Atlantic. He trained as a chiropractor, settled on the Isle of Wight, and served the community for forty years. Three children, seven grandchildren and two great grandchildren. A life well lived.
Great post!
This is the soundtrack in my head, reading your words;
I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.
Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.
Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis? https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1
We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.
People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.
A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
David Attenborough is a national treasure but has always been a luvvie Leftie.
He is also a patron of the optimum population trust which believes in a hugely reduced human population
A warning that people can be hugely impressive and respected public figures, but also talk shite.
As a naturalist he is impressive, when it comes to area's outside his sphere like many he assumes his expertise in on field makes him an expert on everything else
Humans aren't animals? Population density and so on is the stuff we were taught at Uni alongside other zoology.
Humans are obviously animals however being a naturalist does not give you any particular insight to what amounts to social problems and just waving your hands and saying humans should only be whatever the last claim he made was doesn't answer any of those. Yes he might be right from a naturalist point of view however you tell people well we have 7.8 billion too many people doesn't really help.
If we are talking for example astrophysics and brian cox tells me I am wrong I should listen because he knows more than I.
If he is commenting on how to stop incel culture no he knows no more than I
Doesn't affect the basic maths of population growht and sustainability. Even knowing we have x too many million is a massive start.
I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.
Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.
Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis? https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1
We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.
People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.
A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.
Most of the population lived in rural areas, got up at dawn and slept at dusk and in all weathers got fresh air outside in the day.
Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.
The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools
Stamford and Durham too wer e universities.
Durham University was not formally founded until the 19th century.
Stamford University existed for only 2 years before Edward III closed it and was created by Oxford University tutors anyway
It looks like a spaghetti carbonara. There must be enough that haven't been built over significantly that can be relaid relatively inexpensively to ease any potential capacity issues on the WCML and any other lines. And they're built in places where people want/ed to go - they were all built by businesses for economical reasons, not as part of a eurocrat feverdream in the 1950's. That means they stand a better than average chance of viability and success.
That pipedream is gone forever. For example to relay the line from Ledbury to Gloucester would cost gazillions. Many years ago I worked with a guy who had an EA exemption to inert landfill a railway cutting he had bought. It's sad, but it's dead, it's gone, and it ain't coming back, a bit like Britain in the EU.
The railways, another great British institution smashed by a Conservative Government
I don't agree. Civil servants grossly inflate the drawbacks and costs of projects they don't want to do. If your argument is that the CS isn't fit for purpose, I agree, but that doesn’t affect the idea of reversing some Beeching cuts any more than it affects anything else.
And it was a Tory Government that did it, but it was enabled by nationalisation.
What planet are you on? Beeching looked to the future and saw that the car was king. We invested in motorway after motorway, and as every concentric ring road became as congested as the last we realised, maybe the car isn't king after all. So dreamers like you, as if by magic, decide to turn the clock back.
Blaming nationalisation of the railways for Beeching's axe pushes the envelope to the extreme.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.
Been done. See my post.
Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.
I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.
Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.
Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis? https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1
We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.
People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.
A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.
Most of the population lived in rural areas, got up at dawn and slept at dusk and in all weathers got fresh air outside in the day.
Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.
The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools
It looks like a spaghetti carbonara. There must be enough that haven't been built over significantly that can be relaid relatively inexpensively to ease any potential capacity issues on the WCML and any other lines. And they're built in places where people want/ed to go - they were all built by businesses for economical reasons, not as part of a eurocrat feverdream in the 1950's. That means they stand a better than average chance of viability and success.
That pipedream is gone forever. For example to relay the line from Ledbury to Gloucester would cost gazillions. Many years ago I worked with a guy who had an EA exemption to inert landfill a railway cutting he had bought. It's sad, but it's dead, it's gone, and it ain't coming back, a bit like Britain in the EU.
The railways, another great British institution smashed by a Conservative Government
I don't agree. Civil servants grossly inflate the drawbacks and costs of projects they don't want to do. If your argument is that the CS isn't fit for purpose, I agree, but that doesn’t affect the idea of reversing some Beeching cuts any more than it affects anything else.
And it was a Tory Government that did it, but it was enabled by nationalisation.
What planet are you on? Beeching looked to the future and saw that the car was king. We invested in motorway after motorway, and as every concentric ring road became as congested as the last we realised, maybe the car isn't king after all. So dreamers like you, as if by magic, decide to turn the clock back.
Blaming nationalisation of the railways for Beeching's axe pushes the envelope to the extreme.
Not all concentric ring roads were actually built!
It looks like a spaghetti carbonara. There must be enough that haven't been built over significantly that can be relaid relatively inexpensively to ease any potential capacity issues on the WCML and any other lines. And they're built in places where people want/ed to go - they were all built by businesses for economical reasons, not as part of a eurocrat feverdream in the 1950's. That means they stand a better than average chance of viability and success.
That pipedream is gone forever. For example to relay the line from Ledbury to Gloucester would cost gazillions. Many years ago I worked with a guy who had an EA exemption to inert landfill a railway cutting he had bought. It's sad, but it's dead, it's gone, and it ain't coming back, a bit like Britain in the EU.
The railways, another great British institution smashed by a Conservative Government
Most of the closures were under Labour, and were inevitable in any case, given competition from the car. Similar measures were taken in most developed countries at the same time, and in the others a few decades earlier or later.
It was the car (and lorry), not the Conservative (or Labour) government, that caused many of our railways to close. Only the most partisan and insular can possibly argue otherwise.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
Any resemblance to Mr D. Davis MP's double-decker leadership publicity is purely accidental.
And that design could be improved even more by the floors being dropped lower than the top of the wheels, like the Australian two storey trains. So you could almost get 2 floors.
That does seem to be correct. Nothing below the solebars of the coached - see this:
Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.
There must be labour and lib dems who disagree with you if 50% agree the policy
I'm not trying to party politicise this even if you re.
I think both Sunak and Starmer are being responsible - Sunak is trying to work with the French and others to come up with a suitable and proportionate response and Starmer reminds us it's the people smuggling gangs who are actively profiting from the desperation and misery of others. Targeting them and stopping them (and to be fair some of them appear to be British citizens so our hands aren't exactly clean) seems wholly sensible.
Where I part company with Braverman is her policy continues to inflame sentiment against migrants - once a group is suitably dehumanised and vilified any action aginst them becomes justified. Whatever we may think of them as a group, migrants are individuals and we should treat them with a common decency and humanity.
I don't disagree with any of that but boats have to be stopped to save innocent lives
Your last two words should read 'Tory seats'.
Sorry I just do not have a concern for conservative seats, I have concern for lives lost at sea and the risk my son and his colleagues, as sea going RNLI crew, take every day in rescuing people and children drowning at the hands of people smugglers
Big G, my comment wasn't aimed at you personally - far from it. However, I would take some persuading that Braverman's main concern is to 'save innocent lives' - I reckon that's a long way down her list of priorities.
I genuinely care for the lives of people at sea and am very proud my son who is sea going crew on the verge of getting his first command in just 2 years
I want the boats stopped for this reason and reject Farage style attitudes to Immigrants
On whose watch did the small boat asylum seekers/economic migrant accelerate from 0 to 45,000 pa in around four years?
Can Sir Beer Korma lefty Lawyer fans please explain?
They turned to boats as other routes were closed off.
Simplist way to stop the boats would be to loosen security at the lorry park in France.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.
Been done. See my post.
Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.
It looks like a spaghetti carbonara. There must be enough that haven't been built over significantly that can be relaid relatively inexpensively to ease any potential capacity issues on the WCML and any other lines. And they're built in places where people want/ed to go - they were all built by businesses for economical reasons, not as part of a eurocrat feverdream in the 1950's. That means they stand a better than average chance of viability and success.
That pipedream is gone forever. For example to relay the line from Ledbury to Gloucester would cost gazillions. Many years ago I worked with a guy who had an EA exemption to inert landfill a railway cutting he had bought. It's sad, but it's dead, it's gone, and it ain't coming back, a bit like Britain in the EU.
The railways, another great British institution smashed by a Conservative Government
OTOH the same would hgave been true of the Borders Railway in Scotland. The line was disrupted in various ways, not least by the building of the Edinburgh ring road without any consideration for preserving the line. If the Scots can do it ...?
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.
Been done. See my post.
Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.
I see you’ve adopted a similar approach to Boris when it comes to rational policy ideas.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
Any resemblance to Mr D. Davis MP's double-decker leadership publicity is purely accidental.
And that design could be improved even more by the floors being dropped lower than the top of the wheels, like the Australian two storey trains. So you could almost get 2 floors.
Don't the Australian double decker trains run on broad gauges, which enables it to dip below (between) the wheels? The UK's gauge of 1,435mm doesn't really allow that.
Ukrainian crews have finished their training on Leopard 2 tanks in Poland, and Warsaw has already delivered to Ukraine all 14 Leopard 2A4 tanks it had promised, Polish Defence Minister Mariusz Błaszczak said https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1633922579076620288
I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.
Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.
Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis? https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1
We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.
People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.
A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.
Most of the population lived in rural areas, got up at dawn and slept at dusk and in all weathers got fresh air outside in the day.
Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.
The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools
Stamford and Durham too wer e universities.
Stamford?
Oh yes, if not operating for very long. But Oxford grads had to swear an oath until some time in the C19 not to lecture there.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
Any resemblance to Mr D. Davis MP's double-decker leadership publicity is purely accidental.
And that design could be improved even more by the floors being dropped lower than the top of the wheels, like the Australian two storey trains. So you could almost get 2 floors.
Don't the Australian double decker trains run on broad gauges, which enables it to dip below (between) the wheels? The UK's gauge of 1,435mm doesn't really allow that.
They have double deck trains in the US and in Europe, running on standard gauge.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
Bridges and tunnel, station architecture say no.
I was on one a few days ago, between Paris and Lille. Double decker trains.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
Any resemblance to Mr D. Davis MP's double-decker leadership publicity is purely accidental.
And that design could be improved even more by the floors being dropped lower than the top of the wheels, like the Australian two storey trains. So you could almost get 2 floors.
Don't the Australian double decker trains run on broad gauges, which enables it to dip below (between) the wheels? The UK's gauge of 1,435mm doesn't really allow that.
They have double deck trains in the US and in Europe, running on standard gauge.
Yes: but that's because they have enough clearing under bridges.
I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.
Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.
Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis? https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1
We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.
People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.
A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.
Most of the population lived in rural areas, got up at dawn and slept at dusk and in all weathers got fresh air outside in the day.
Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.
The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools
Stamford and Durham too wer e universities.
Stamford?
update: found it on Wikipedia. Surprised.
There was also a 13th century university at Northampton but, again, short lived.
It looks like a spaghetti carbonara. There must be enough that haven't been built over significantly that can be relaid relatively inexpensively to ease any potential capacity issues on the WCML and any other lines. And they're built in places where people want/ed to go - they were all built by businesses for economical reasons, not as part of a eurocrat feverdream in the 1950's. That means they stand a better than average chance of viability and success.
That pipedream is gone forever. For example to relay the line from Ledbury to Gloucester would cost gazillions. Many years ago I worked with a guy who had an EA exemption to inert landfill a railway cutting he had bought. It's sad, but it's dead, it's gone, and it ain't coming back, a bit like Britain in the EU.
The railways, another great British institution smashed by a Conservative Government
I don't agree. Civil servants grossly inflate the drawbacks and costs of projects they don't want to do. If your argument is that the CS isn't fit for purpose, I agree, but that doesn’t affect the idea of reversing some Beeching cuts any more than it affects anything else.
And it was a Tory Government that did it, but it was enabled by nationalisation.
What planet are you on? Beeching looked to the future and saw that the car was king. We invested in motorway after motorway, and as every concentric ring road became as congested as the last we realised, maybe the car isn't king after all. So dreamers like you, as if by magic, decide to turn the clock back.
Blaming nationalisation of the railways for Beeching's axe pushes the envelope to the extreme.
What part of it do you fail to comprehend? Nationalised industries can be decimated at the behest of the state. Businesses cannot - they compete and do their best to make a profit, and sometimes they fail, but they do not all disappear at once.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
Any resemblance to Mr D. Davis MP's double-decker leadership publicity is purely accidental.
And that design could be improved even more by the floors being dropped lower than the top of the wheels, like the Australian two storey trains. So you could almost get 2 floors.
Don't the Australian double decker trains run on broad gauges, which enables it to dip below (between) the wheels? The UK's gauge of 1,435mm doesn't really allow that.
They have double deck trains in the US and in Europe, running on standard gauge.
Yes: but that's because they have enough clearing under bridges.
But nothing to do with broad gauge v. standard gauge.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
Bridges and tunnel, station architecture say no.
I was on one a few days ago, between Paris and Lille. Double decker trains.
Our tunnels and bridges would need modifying all along the route.
I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.
Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.
Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis? https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1
We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.
People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.
A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.
Most of the population lived in rural areas, got up at dawn and slept at dusk and in all weathers got fresh air outside in the day.
Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.
The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools
Stamford and Durham too wer e universities.
Stamford?
update: found it on Wikipedia. Surprised.
There was also a 13th century university at Northampton but, again, short lived.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
Bridges and tunnel, station architecture say no.
I was on one a few days ago, between Paris and Lille. Double decker trains.
The problem, which is not insurmountable, but which is expensive is that the tunnels and bridges in the UK are lower, and therefore the maximum height of trains is too.
In Australia, they got around that by dipping the carriage floor below the top of the wheels. But they have a wider gauge to play with.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
Any resemblance to Mr D. Davis MP's double-decker leadership publicity is purely accidental.
And that design could be improved even more by the floors being dropped lower than the top of the wheels, like the Australian two storey trains. So you could almost get 2 floors.
Don't the Australian double decker trains run on broad gauges, which enables it to dip below (between) the wheels? The UK's gauge of 1,435mm doesn't really allow that.
They have double deck trains in the US and in Europe, running on standard gauge.
Yes: but that's because they have enough clearing under bridges.
But nothing to do with broad gauge v. standard gauge.
I was specfically referring to @Luckyguy1983's suggestion about dropping the floor below the tops of the wheels. Which I think does require a broader gauge.
It looks like a spaghetti carbonara. There must be enough that haven't been built over significantly that can be relaid relatively inexpensively to ease any potential capacity issues on the WCML and any other lines. And they're built in places where people want/ed to go - they were all built by businesses for economical reasons, not as part of a eurocrat feverdream in the 1950's. That means they stand a better than average chance of viability and success.
That pipedream is gone forever. For example to relay the line from Ledbury to Gloucester would cost gazillions. Many years ago I worked with a guy who had an EA exemption to inert landfill a railway cutting he had bought. It's sad, but it's dead, it's gone, and it ain't coming back, a bit like Britain in the EU.
The railways, another great British institution smashed by a Conservative Government
Most of the closures were under Labour, and were inevitable in any case, given competition from the car. Similar measures were taken in most developed countries at the same time, and in the others a few decades earlier or later.
It was the car (and lorry), not the Conservative (or Labour) government, that caused many of our railways to close. Only the most partisan and insular can possibly argue otherwise.
Transport policy in the UK over the last seventy years has been disastrous. Birmingham Corporation had a sophisticated tram system that traversed the city from the North, South, East and West, I remember the redundant tramlines on Bristol Street and the Bristol Road in Birmingham as late as the 1980s, before the were dug up. Lo and behold twenty years later they were laying tramlines on New Street.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
Any resemblance to Mr D. Davis MP's double-decker leadership publicity is purely accidental.
And that design could be improved even more by the floors being dropped lower than the top of the wheels, like the Australian two storey trains. So you could almost get 2 floors.
Don't the Australian double decker trains run on broad gauges, which enables it to dip below (between) the wheels? The UK's gauge of 1,435mm doesn't really allow that.
They have double deck trains in the US and in Europe, running on standard gauge.
Yes: but that's because they have enough clearing under bridges.
But nothing to do with broad gauge v. standard gauge.
I was specfically referring to @Luckyguy1983's suggestion about dropping the floor below the tops of the wheels. Which I think does require a broader gauge.
You have dropped floors on standard gauge double deck trains in New Mexico and Switzerland among other places.
I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.
Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.
Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis? https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1
We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.
People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.
A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.
Most of the population lived in rural areas, got up at dawn and slept at dusk and in all weathers got fresh air outside in the day.
Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.
The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools
Stamford and Durham too wer e universities.
Stamford?
Oh yes, if not operating for very long. But Oxford grads had to swear an oath until some time in the C19 not to lecture there.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.
Been done. See my post.
Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.
Been done. See my post.
Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.
I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.
Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.
Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis? https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1
We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.
People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.
A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.
Most of the population lived in rural areas, got up at dawn and slept at dusk and in all weathers got fresh air outside in the day.
Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.
The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools
It looks like a spaghetti carbonara. There must be enough that haven't been built over significantly that can be relaid relatively inexpensively to ease any potential capacity issues on the WCML and any other lines. And they're built in places where people want/ed to go - they were all built by businesses for economical reasons, not as part of a eurocrat feverdream in the 1950's. That means they stand a better than average chance of viability and success.
That pipedream is gone forever. For example to relay the line from Ledbury to Gloucester would cost gazillions. Many years ago I worked with a guy who had an EA exemption to inert landfill a railway cutting he had bought. It's sad, but it's dead, it's gone, and it ain't coming back, a bit like Britain in the EU.
The railways, another great British institution smashed by a Conservative Government
I don't agree. Civil servants grossly inflate the drawbacks and costs of projects they don't want to do. If your argument is that the CS isn't fit for purpose, I agree, but that doesn’t affect the idea of reversing some Beeching cuts any more than it affects anything else.
And it was a Tory Government that did it, but it was enabled by nationalisation.
What planet are you on? Beeching looked to the future and saw that the car was king. We invested in motorway after motorway, and as every concentric ring road became as congested as the last we realised, maybe the car isn't king after all. So dreamers like you, as if by magic, decide to turn the clock back.
Blaming nationalisation of the railways for Beeching's axe pushes the envelope to the extreme.
What part of it do you fail to comprehend? Nationalised industries can be decimated at the behest of the state. Businesses cannot - they compete and do their best to make a profit, and sometimes they fail, but they do not all disappear at once.
There is no doubt a logic in your argument,
British Leyland, at the time the fourth biggest automotive group in the world was nationalised to save it. Less than 30 years later it's core was sold for £10 to four privateers who decided to strip the assets directly into their own bank accounts (this was later deemed legal, if amoral) on a spring day in 2005 it all disappeared at once.
Trump attorney admits misrepresenting evidence of election fraud https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3891799-trump-attorney-admits-misrepresenting-evidence-of-election-fraud/ Jenna Ellis, a lawyer who represented former President Trump, admitted in court that she made various misrepresentations on social media and major television appearances about the 2020 presidential election, leading a judge to issue a public censure on Wednesday. Ellis, who was part of the former president’s efforts to challenge the legitimacy of his election loss, admitted to 10 misrepresentations about the election results, including statements made on Twitter and television programs on Fox News, Fox Business, MSNBC and Newsmax....
Should have been disbarred. $200 fine and slap on the wrist.
I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.
Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.
Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis? https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1
We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.
People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.
A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.
Most of the population lived in rural areas, got up at dawn and slept at dusk and in all weathers got fresh air outside in the day.
Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.
The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools
Stamford and Durham too wer e universities.
Durham University was not formally founded until the 19th century.
Stamford University existed for only 2 years before Edward III closed it and was created by Oxford University tutors anyway
Doesn't change the fact that you were wroing about only two mediaeval unis in England.
Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.
There must be labour and lib dems who disagree with you if 50% agree the policy
I'm not trying to party politicise this even if you re.
I think both Sunak and Starmer are being responsible - Sunak is trying to work with the French and others to come up with a suitable and proportionate response and Starmer reminds us it's the people smuggling gangs who are actively profiting from the desperation and misery of others. Targeting them and stopping them (and to be fair some of them appear to be British citizens so our hands aren't exactly clean) seems wholly sensible.
Where I part company with Braverman is her policy continues to inflame sentiment against migrants - once a group is suitably dehumanised and vilified any action aginst them becomes justified. Whatever we may think of them as a group, migrants are individuals and we should treat them with a common decency and humanity.
I don't disagree with any of that but boats have to be stopped to save innocent lives
Your last two words should read 'Tory seats'.
Sorry I just do not have a concern for conservative seats, I have concern for lives lost at sea and the risk my son and his colleagues, as sea going RNLI crew, take every day in rescuing people and children drowning at the hands of people smugglers
Big G, my comment wasn't aimed at you personally - far from it. However, I would take some persuading that Braverman's main concern is to 'save innocent lives' - I reckon that's a long way down her list of priorities.
I genuinely care for the lives of people at sea and am very proud my son who is sea going crew on the verge of getting his first command in just 2 years
I want the boats stopped for this reason and reject Farage style attitudes to Immigrants
On whose watch did the small boat asylum seekers/economic migrant accelerate from 0 to 45,000 pa in around four years?
Can Sir Beer Korma lefty Lawyer fans please explain?
They turned to boats as other routes were closed off.
Simplist way to stop the boats would be to loosen security at the lorry park in France.
Perhaps if we pay the French to take down the fencing we paid them to put up.....
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.
Been done. See my post.
Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.
Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.
There must be labour and lib dems who disagree with you if 50% agree the policy
I'm not trying to party politicise this even if you re.
I think both Sunak and Starmer are being responsible - Sunak is trying to work with the French and others to come up with a suitable and proportionate response and Starmer reminds us it's the people smuggling gangs who are actively profiting from the desperation and misery of others. Targeting them and stopping them (and to be fair some of them appear to be British citizens so our hands aren't exactly clean) seems wholly sensible.
Where I part company with Braverman is her policy continues to inflame sentiment against migrants - once a group is suitably dehumanised and vilified any action aginst them becomes justified. Whatever we may think of them as a group, migrants are individuals and we should treat them with a common decency and humanity.
I don't disagree with any of that but boats have to be stopped to save innocent lives
Your last two words should read 'Tory seats'.
Sorry I just do not have a concern for conservative seats, I have concern for lives lost at sea and the risk my son and his colleagues, as sea going RNLI crew, take every day in rescuing people and children drowning at the hands of people smugglers
Big G, my comment wasn't aimed at you personally - far from it. However, I would take some persuading that Braverman's main concern is to 'save innocent lives' - I reckon that's a long way down her list of priorities.
I genuinely care for the lives of people at sea and am very proud my son who is sea going crew on the verge of getting his first command in just 2 years
I want the boats stopped for this reason and reject Farage style attitudes to Immigrants
On whose watch did the small boat asylum seekers/economic migrant accelerate from 0 to 45,000 pa in around four years?
Can Sir Beer Korma lefty Lawyer fans please explain?
They turned to boats as other routes were closed off.
Like the Dublin Convention?
2017 data on Dublin Convention usage:
UK requested transfers back to EU - 5,712 Granted - 314 94% applications refused
EU requested transfers to UK - 2,137 Granted - 461 78% applications refused
It looks like a spaghetti carbonara. There must be enough that haven't been built over significantly that can be relaid relatively inexpensively to ease any potential capacity issues on the WCML and any other lines. And they're built in places where people want/ed to go - they were all built by businesses for economical reasons, not as part of a eurocrat feverdream in the 1950's. That means they stand a better than average chance of viability and success.
That pipedream is gone forever. For example to relay the line from Ledbury to Gloucester would cost gazillions. Many years ago I worked with a guy who had an EA exemption to inert landfill a railway cutting he had bought. It's sad, but it's dead, it's gone, and it ain't coming back, a bit like Britain in the EU.
The railways, another great British institution smashed by a Conservative Government
I don't agree. Civil servants grossly inflate the drawbacks and costs of projects they don't want to do. If your argument is that the CS isn't fit for purpose, I agree, but that doesn’t affect the idea of reversing some Beeching cuts any more than it affects anything else.
And it was a Tory Government that did it, but it was enabled by nationalisation.
What planet are you on? Beeching looked to the future and saw that the car was king. We invested in motorway after motorway, and as every concentric ring road became as congested as the last we realised, maybe the car isn't king after all. So dreamers like you, as if by magic, decide to turn the clock back.
Blaming nationalisation of the railways for Beeching's axe pushes the envelope to the extreme.
What part of it do you fail to comprehend? Nationalised industries can be decimated at the behest of the state. Businesses cannot - they compete and do their best to make a profit, and sometimes they fail, but they do not all disappear at once.
There is no doubt a logic in your argument,
British Leyland, at the time the fourth biggest automotive group in the world was nationalised to save it. Less than 30 years later it's core was sold for £10 to four privateers who decided to strip the assets directly into their own bank accounts (this was later deemed legal, if amoral) on a spring day in 2005 it all disappeared at once.
But again, you are only reading from the end of the nationalisation onwards. Why did the conglomerate become so useless and ineffective that it required nationalisation?
I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.
Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.
Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis? https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1
We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.
People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.
A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.
Most of the population lived in rural areas, got up at dawn and slept at dusk and in all weathers got fresh air outside in the day.
Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.
The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools
Stamford and Durham too wer e universities.
Stamford?
Oh yes, if not operating for very long. But Oxford grads had to swear an oath until some time in the C19 not to lecture there.
The wiki article reads like a spoof.
It does, doesn't it? But ISTR seeing the site of the Brasenose College on a visit to Stamford many years ago.
On the long watch tonight. My father-in-law, 85, is nearing the end.
As a child, he was orphaned when his disabled father fell into a river, his mother jumped in to try and save him, and both were drowned. He married his childhood sweetheart at 19, and had three daughters. He joined the RAF, served on SAR helicopters, and was the only survivor of a crash as they returned to Tangmere. In 1969, when his youngest child was a few months old, he took his family and set sail from Selsey planning to sail around the world. In the West Indies, he nearly died when the engine on the catamaran exploded while he was working on it. He carried the scars, along with those from the helicopter crash, for the rest of his life. They sailed through the Panama canal, visited Peru, the Galapagos and Easter Island, witnessed a French atom bomb test, and settled in New Zealand. After five years, he set off home, this time alone, and arrived back in Selsey having sailed non stop across the Indian Ocean, around the Cape, and North through the Atlantic. He trained as a chiropractor, settled on the Isle of Wight, and served the community for forty years. Three children, seven grandchildren and two great grandchildren. A life well lived.
That's rather a wonderful sendoff - sympathies, but it sounds as though he's ending with real affection around him - I'm sure he appreciates you.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.
Been done. See my post.
Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.
That's very cool, but I suspect you'd struggle to fit that through British tunnels, and under British bridges.
But the argument is going around in circles. I have already acknowledged that there cannot be two complete storeys with standing room. However, the floor can be dropped, the internal space can be maximised, and a lot of extra interior capacity can be created, and the resulting train would not require any modification of current UK rail infrastructure.
I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.
Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.
Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis? https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1
We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.
People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.
A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.
Most of the population lived in rural areas, got up at dawn and slept at dusk and in all weathers got fresh air outside in the day.
Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.
The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools
Stamford and Durham too wer e universities.
Stamford?
Oh yes, if not operating for very long. But Oxford grads had to swear an oath until some time in the C19 not to lecture there.
The wiki article reads like a spoof.
It does, doesn't it? But ISTR seeing the site of the Brasenose College on a visit to Stamford many years ago.
I believe there were also plans for an ancient university in Northampton but it was blocked by the Oxbridge oligopoly.
Makes for chilling reading. I fear many of the worst details will have been withheld. Worth remembering whenever you hear the likes of Peter Hitchens wittering on about the Ukrainians denying official status to the Russian language.
This policy has completely backfired. Can the Tories even do politics? Have they given up?
More that they're now swimming against the tide in a way that they haven't done for ages. The attack lines that used to work don't work as well any more. And the opposition attacks that used to bounce off are now sticking and detonating.
When the tide runs against you, there's not a lot to be done.
I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.
Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.
Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis? https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1
We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.
People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.
A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce
Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.
Most of the population lived in rural areas, got up at dawn and slept at dusk and in all weathers got fresh air outside in the day.
Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.
The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools
Stamford and Durham too wer e universities.
Durham University was not formally founded until the 19th century.
Stamford University existed for only 2 years before Edward III closed it and was created by Oxford University tutors anyway
Doesn't change the fact that you were wroing about only two mediaeval unis in England.
For 99% of it I was right and the 2 in question were unofficial and lacked royal charter and were swiftly closed down
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.
Been done. See my post.
Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.
That's very cool, but I suspect you'd struggle to fit that through British tunnels, and under British bridges.
But the argument is going around in circles. I have already acknowledged that there cannot be two complete storeys with standing room. However, the floor can be dropped, the internal space can be maximised, and a lot of extra interior capacity can be created, and the resulting train would not require any modification of current UK rail infrastructure.
What is the maximum height of a carriage in the UK? And has anyone managed to produce a double decker train that fits into that limitation? If not, what is the lowest double decker train? And how much lower would ours need to be?
Furthermore, the loading (platform) height matters too, and we'd need to structure around that.
Insight into the caliber of some of the slime & scum the Trump-Putin wing of the GOP (Grifters On Parade) that are polluting some of America's state capitals:
Courthouse News - Rape victim sues Idaho lawmakers for outing and harassing her The victim said former Idaho state Representative Aaron von Ehlinger, who has been convicted of raping her, gave her personal information to the media.
A young woman, who was a teenager when she was raped two years ago by former Idaho state Representative Aaron von Ehlinger, sued him and state Representative Priscilla Giddings for allegedly outing and harassing her after she came forward with her allegations. . .
According to the complaint, Doe worked as an intern at the Idaho Legislature in March 2021 when von Ehlinger started showing an interest in her and took her out to dinner. The lawmaker, who was about twice her age, took her back to his apartment after dinner and raped her.
Doe reported the rape and the House Ethics Committee opened an investigation into her allegations. Von Ehlinger provided a confidential written response to the committee, which according to Doe's lawsuit contained numerous untruthful statements, including that they had consensual sex. The committee wasn't convinced by his response and proceeded with a public ethics complaint process against von Ehlinger.
This in turn prompted von Ehlinger, through his lawyer, to provide unredacted copies of his confidential response to the committee, which contained intimate details about Doe, and to the media. The conservative online publication Redoubt News then ran a story with the headline "Idaho Swamp Trying to Unseat Another Conservative" that included a photo of Doe when she was a minor.
Giddings in turn, according to the lawsuit, posted on her Facebook account a link to the Redoubt News article with a comment, “Follow the money! Idaho’s very own Kavanaugh.” The link posted the image with the picture of Doe as a minor, and the article contained Doe's name and a link to von Ehlinger's unredacted response to the ethics committee. . . .
Von Ehlinger IS SERVING A PRISON SENTANCE OF UP TO TWENTY YEARS [emphasis by SSI] following his conviction last year of raping Doe. He couldn't be reached for comment. Giddings didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment on the lawsuit.
The complaint accuses von Ehlinger and Giddings, both Republicans, of conspiring to violate and violating Doe's equal protection rights, violating her free speech rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, as well as claims for assault and battery against von Ehlinger and defamation against Giddings. . . .
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.
Been done. See my post.
Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.
That's very cool, but I suspect you'd struggle to fit that through British tunnels, and under British bridges.
But the argument is going around in circles. I have already acknowledged that there cannot be two complete storeys with standing room. However, the floor can be dropped, the internal space can be maximised, and a lot of extra interior capacity can be created, and the resulting train would not require any modification of current UK rail infrastructure.
What is the maximum height of a carriage in the UK? And has anyone managed to produce a double decker train that fits into that limitation? If not, what is the lowest double decker train? And how much lower would ours need to be?
Furthermore, the loading (platform) height matters too, and we'd need to structure around that.
The weirdest one is the "gallery car". To allow a conductor to check tickets quickly, there is a gap in the floor, and customers pass their tickets down. In use in Japan and some USA metros.
Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.
Just because a policy is popular also does not make it wrong
The interesting thing, though, is that in the SAME poll with the same people, the Tories have dropped 2 points, to RefUK. Now it's possible that it's random movement, but also possible that by highlighting the issue, they've increased support for a party that more credibly really feels strongly about it (whereas people think, probably rightly, that Sunak is merely trying to get some Red Wall votes). It's as thoutgh Starmer suddenly embraced Extinction Rebellion and made 10 speeches about how vital total greenery is - the effect might not be to boost Labour but to boost the Greens.
Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.
Just because a policy is popular also does not make it wrong
The interesting thing, though, is that in the SAME poll with the same people, the Tories have dropped 2 points, to RefUK. Now it's possible that it's random movement, but also possible that by highlighting the issue, they've increased support for a party that more credibly really feels strongly about it (whereas people think, probably rightly, that Sunak is merely trying to get some Red Wall votes). It's as thoutgh Starmer suddenly embraced Extinction Rebellion and made 10 speeches about how vital total greenery is - the effect might not be to boost Labour but to boost the Greens.
There must be a non negligible proportion of the population who believe in the govts proposed methods and objectives but blame the govt for not being willing to leave the Refugee Convention, which is the logical outcome of their language. So them shifting from Tory to REFUK, probably only temporarily to be realistic, makes sense.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.
Been done. See my post.
Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.
That's very cool, but I suspect you'd struggle to fit that through British tunnels, and under British bridges.
But the argument is going around in circles. I have already acknowledged that there cannot be two complete storeys with standing room. However, the floor can be dropped, the internal space can be maximised, and a lot of extra interior capacity can be created, and the resulting train would not require any modification of current UK rail infrastructure.
What is the maximum height of a carriage in the UK? And has anyone managed to produce a double decker train that fits into that limitation? If not, what is the lowest double decker train? And how much lower would ours need to be?
Furthermore, the loading (platform) height matters too, and we'd need to structure around that.
Tbf, it does seem someone has come up with a fully worked out proposal for a double decker carriage designed for the existing U.K. network. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroLiner3000
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.
Been done. See my post.
Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.
That's very cool, but I suspect you'd struggle to fit that through British tunnels, and under British bridges.
But the argument is going around in circles. I have already acknowledged that there cannot be two complete storeys with standing room. However, the floor can be dropped, the internal space can be maximised, and a lot of extra interior capacity can be created, and the resulting train would not require any modification of current UK rail infrastructure.
What is the maximum height of a carriage in the UK? And has anyone managed to produce a double decker train that fits into that limitation? If not, what is the lowest double decker train? And how much lower would ours need to be?
Furthermore, the loading (platform) height matters too, and we'd need to structure around that.
The real issue is the passenger loading time at stations.
From that link:
The 4DD was more split-level than truly double-deck because the compartments were alternately high and low to ensure that the overall height of the train was exactly within the clearances necessary to safely pass through tunnels and under bridges. A mock-up was displayed at London Marylebone in 1949 shortly before it was first introduced into service,[1] but an assessment after one year in service revealed that the design would not be the optimum solution to the problems of overcrowding, nor would it help increase capacity,
I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.
Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.
Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis? https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1
We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.
People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.
A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
The first designs for wind turbines to generate electricity were when? Late 19th century, early 20th century? A lot of early cars were electric-powered.
It's possible to imagine an early transition away from fossil fuels, and to more sustainable ways of generating and using energy, if research and investment had been directed taking account of environmental damage, and not simply purely on the grounds of short-term profit.
You could have had the industrial revolution, but managed to avoid most of the 20th century burning of fossil fuels.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.
Been done. See my post.
Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.
That's very cool, but I suspect you'd struggle to fit that through British tunnels, and under British bridges.
But the argument is going around in circles. I have already acknowledged that there cannot be two complete storeys with standing room. However, the floor can be dropped, the internal space can be maximised, and a lot of extra interior capacity can be created, and the resulting train would not require any modification of current UK rail infrastructure.
What is the maximum height of a carriage in the UK? And has anyone managed to produce a double decker train that fits into that limitation? If not, what is the lowest double decker train? And how much lower would ours need to be?
Furthermore, the loading (platform) height matters too, and we'd need to structure around that.
The real issue is the passenger loading time at stations.
From that link:
The 4DD was more split-level than truly double-deck because the compartments were alternately high and low to ensure that the overall height of the train was exactly within the clearances necessary to safely pass through tunnels and under bridges. A mock-up was displayed at London Marylebone in 1949 shortly before it was first introduced into service,[1] but an assessment after one year in service revealed that the design would not be the optimum solution to the problems of overcrowding, nor would it help increase capacity,
Yes, I did read the article - they decided on more carriages, which is of course the easier solution if it is possible.
Nevertheless, the ones that did enter service ran satisfactorily and reliably until 1971.
Or are you calling foul because that was a 'split level' train, not 'truly double deck'?? That's very thin - you could just accept that you've learned something new in the discussion.
I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.
Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.
Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis? https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1
We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.
People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.
A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
The first designs for wind turbines to generate electricity were when? Late 19th century, early 20th century? A lot of early cars were electric-powered.
It's possible to imagine an early transition away from fossil fuels, and to more sustainable ways of generating and using energy, if research and investment had been directed taking account of environmental damage, and not simply purely on the grounds of short-term profit.
You could have had the industrial revolution, but managed to avoid most of the 20th century burning of fossil fuels.
Here in the Great Pacific Northwest, the Sound Transit regional transit agency, serving Seattle metro area (King, Pierce & Snohomish counties) runs fleet of express buses (in addition to regular bus services by other local agencies) include number of double-deckers on their busiest commuter routes.
For example, from (current) terminus of Sound Transit Light Rail line in north Seattle, to beautiful, downtown Everett (sarcasm alert). Mostly what you get is a prime view of mostly low-class sprawl either side of I-5 freeway. However, from time to time you can also see some interesting-to-spectacular weather phenomena, especially at sunrise or sunset
Of course, the REALLY fun way to travel via public transit in Seattle and rest of Puget Sound - and also enjoy being perched above the ordinary level so to speak - is via one of the boats operated by Washington State Ferries.
In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away
It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity
If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.
No, it just doesn’t make sense
I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England
We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?
The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.
Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.
I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.
We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.
But this is shite
Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km
London-Manchester is 262km
It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England
I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.
But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.
Such as?
Double decker trains?
That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.
You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.
Been done. See my post.
Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.
That's very cool, but I suspect you'd struggle to fit that through British tunnels, and under British bridges.
But the argument is going around in circles. I have already acknowledged that there cannot be two complete storeys with standing room. However, the floor can be dropped, the internal space can be maximised, and a lot of extra interior capacity can be created, and the resulting train would not require any modification of current UK rail infrastructure.
What is the maximum height of a carriage in the UK? And has anyone managed to produce a double decker train that fits into that limitation? If not, what is the lowest double decker train? And how much lower would ours need to be?
Furthermore, the loading (platform) height matters too, and we'd need to structure around that.
Given Britain's great history of great canals, why not a new fleet of super-hydrofoils zipping up and down the Grand Canal from London & Birmingham?
OF it that's not feasible . . . how's about a Pneumatic Tube linking the Great Wen to the Midlands and parts yonder? Partly underground, but mostly overland, like they used to use at old drive-in banking stations.
Imagine . . . ten minutes from Wapping to Wick - WOOOOOOOOOSH!!!
Here in the Great Pacific Northwest, the Sound Transit regional transit agency, serving Seattle metro area (King, Pierce & Snohomish counties) runs fleet of express buses (in addition to regular bus services by other local agencies) include number of double-deckers on their busiest commuter routes.
For example, from (current) terminus of Sound Transit Light Rail line in north Seattle, to beautiful, downtown Everett (sarcasm alert). Mostly what you get is a prime view of mostly low-class sprawl either side of I-5 freeway. However, from time to time you can also see some interesting-to-spectacular weather phenomena, especially at sunrise or sunset
Of course, the REALLY fun way to travel via public transit in Seattle and rest of Puget Sound - and also enjoy being perched above the ordinary level so to speak - is via one of the boats operated by Washington State Ferries.
From the Bainbridge ferry, you get a very decent view of Seattle. The island isn't bad either.
They should do - a large LD lead in the last election, with the SNP getting the second seat because the Scots have PR. The SNP councillor died, so there's a single seat up, which the LibDems should win - a quirk of how PR interacts with by-elections, since when they're both up for election the SNP will probably get it back.
Off topic, but important: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell suffered a concussion from a fall. A concussion can be serious at any age, but is especially worrisome in someone his age, 81.
'Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is being treated for a concussion after falling Wednesday evening and is expected to remain hospitalized “for a few days,” a spokesperson announced Thursday afternoon.
Recently, I have been speculating that McConnell was not planing to run for re-election in 2028. But I have seen no evidence for, or against, that theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell
(Sadly, we can expect conspiracy theorists to speculate that he was pushed -- and he is hated by Trumpistas, and by pro-abortion fanatics.)
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). said the UK enjoyed the largest improvement in "talent attractiveness" in 2023, moving up nine places to 7th since 2019 and climbing above the US and Canada for the first time.
The OECD said the rankings reflected the UK's decision to abolish its quota for highly skilled workers as well as the success enjoyed by many overseas workers in the country.
Since the media don't seem to be reporting it much, here's a report about the Post Office Horizon scandal.
"IT worker evidence reveals a toxic Post Office IT helpdesk that discriminated against subpostmasters IT worker tells public inquiry that the Post Office Horizon helpdesk was toxic, rudderless and racist"
Off topic, but important: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell suffered a concussion from a fall. A concussion can be serious at any age, but is especially worrisome in someone his age, 81.
'Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is being treated for a concussion after falling Wednesday evening and is expected to remain hospitalized “for a few days,” a spokesperson announced Thursday afternoon.
Recently, I have been speculating that McConnell was not planing to run for re-election in 2028. But I have seen no evidence for, or against, that theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell
(Sadly, we can expect conspiracy theorists to speculate that he was pushed -- and he is hated by Trumpistas, and by pro-abortion fanatics.)
Who are the "pro-abortion fanatics"? I am aware of pro-choice individuals, but nobody campaigning for forced abortions. There are some campaigning - and legislating - for forced births.
I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.
Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.
Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis? https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1
We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.
People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.
I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.
I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.
A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.
David Attenborough is a national treasure but has always been a luvvie Leftie.
He is also a patron of the optimum population trust which believes in a hugely reduced human population
A warning that people can be hugely impressive and respected public figures, but also talk shite.
As a naturalist he is impressive, when it comes to area's outside his sphere like many he assumes his expertise in on field makes him an expert on everything else
Humans aren't animals? Population density and so on is the stuff we were taught at Uni alongside other zoology.
Humans are obviously animals however being a naturalist does not give you any particular insight to what amounts to social problems and just waving your hands and saying humans should only be whatever the last claim he made was doesn't answer any of those. Yes he might be right from a naturalist point of view however you tell people well we have 7.8 billion too many people doesn't really help.
If we are talking for example astrophysics and brian cox tells me I am wrong I should listen because he knows more than I.
If he is commenting on how to stop incel culture no he knows no more than I
Doesn't affect the basic maths of population growht and sustainability. Even knowing we have x too many million is a massive start.
Didn't claim it did and I for one am much in favour of the thought there are far too many people in the world. However the optimum population trust do seem to want a pretty extreme reduction where as I would be aiming for maybe 25 to 50%, getting below a billion would require some rather extreme measures I suspect
Has been a battleground for some time, as fact that poor parts of town in US are generally down-wind of whatever pollution is happening in the city or metro area. Thus usually on the east side, as most weather comes from the west in North America. PLUS things like dumps, incinerators, smokestacks, freight yards, etc, etc tend to end up in poorer hoods NOT the high-hat districts.
So NOT the latest, but still a big deal. In terms of equity AND environment.
Off topic, but important: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell suffered a concussion from a fall. A concussion can be serious at any age, but is especially worrisome in someone his age, 81.
'Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is being treated for a concussion after falling Wednesday evening and is expected to remain hospitalized “for a few days,” a spokesperson announced Thursday afternoon.
Recently, I have been speculating that McConnell was not planing to run for re-election in 2028. But I have seen no evidence for, or against, that theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell
(Sadly, we can expect conspiracy theorists to speculate that he was pushed -- and he is hated by Trumpistas, and by pro-abortion fanatics.)
Who are the "pro-abortion fanatics"? I am aware of pro-choice individuals, but nobody campaigning for forced abortions. There are some campaigning - and legislating - for forced births.
Without being a mind-reader, my guess is that Jim is referring to activists & politicos who make pro-choice on abortion an absolute litmus test of ideological purity, and political orthodoxy esp. of course for Democrats.
Has been a battleground for some time, as fact that poor parts of town in US are generally down-wind of whatever pollution is happening in the city or metro area. Thus usually on the east side, as most weather comes from the west in North America. PLUS things like dumps, incinerators, smokestacks, freight yards, etc, etc tend to end up in poorer hoods NOT the high-hat districts.
So NOT the latest, but still a big deal. In terms of equity AND environment.
What does equity mean in this context? I don't understand.
Off topic, but important: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell suffered a concussion from a fall. A concussion can be serious at any age, but is especially worrisome in someone his age, 81.
'Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is being treated for a concussion after falling Wednesday evening and is expected to remain hospitalized “for a few days,” a spokesperson announced Thursday afternoon.
Recently, I have been speculating that McConnell was not planing to run for re-election in 2028. But I have seen no evidence for, or against, that theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell
(Sadly, we can expect conspiracy theorists to speculate that he was pushed -- and he is hated by Trumpistas, and by pro-abortion fanatics.)
Who are the "pro-abortion fanatics"? I am aware of pro-choice individuals, but nobody campaigning for forced abortions. There are some campaigning - and legislating - for forced births.
Without being a mind-reader, my guess is that Jim is referring to activists & politicos who make pro-choice on abortion an absolute litmus test of ideological purity, and political orthodoxy esp. of course for Democrats.
'Fanatical'-ness could also be measured in how long into the term you're happy to allow abortions.
I hadn't previously realised that Braverman's proposed anti-asylum seekers law, which critics - and even Braverman herself - is likely to contravene international law and/or the ECHR - is actually officially entitled "the Illegal Migration Bill".
Comments
Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the
Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.
The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge plus St Andrews and Glasgow in Scotland, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools
Allows fast passenger trains to avoid the WCML.
Which allows the WCML to carry more freight.
Which reduces the number of HGVs on the M1 and M6.
Which reduces congestion.
Which reduces pollution and travelling time for the traffic currently overloading the M1 and M6.
Stamford University existed for only 2 years before Edward III closed it and was created by Oxford University tutors anyway
Blaming nationalisation of the railways for Beeching's axe pushes the envelope to the extreme.
update: found it on Wikipedia. Surprised.
https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways
https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways/ringway1
https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways/ringway2
https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways/ringway3
https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways/ringway4
It was the car (and lorry), not the Conservative (or Labour) government, that caused many of our railways to close. Only the most partisan and insular can possibly argue otherwise.
https://dart75.tripod.com/bddscut.htm
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1633922579076620288
In Australia, they got around that by dipping the carriage floor below the top of the wheels. But they have a wider gauge to play with.
Horrible.
Targeting Jehovah’s Witnesses, though?
I can’t recall another violent attack on the JW’s.
British Leyland, at the time the fourth biggest automotive group in the world was nationalised to save it. Less than 30 years later it's core was sold for £10 to four privateers who decided to strip the assets directly into their own bank accounts (this was later deemed legal, if amoral) on a spring day in 2005 it all disappeared at once.
https://twitter.com/SiDedman/status/1633953955893092352
Is this Thames Tunnel project being kicked into the long grass as well as HS2?
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3891799-trump-attorney-admits-misrepresenting-evidence-of-election-fraud/
Jenna Ellis, a lawyer who represented former President Trump, admitted in court that she made various misrepresentations on social media and major television appearances about the 2020 presidential election, leading a judge to issue a public censure on Wednesday.
Ellis, who was part of the former president’s efforts to challenge the legitimacy of his election loss, admitted to 10 misrepresentations about the election results, including statements made on Twitter and television programs on Fox News, Fox Business, MSNBC and Newsmax....
Should have been disbarred.
$200 fine and slap on the wrist.
UK requested transfers back to EU - 5,712
Granted - 314
94% applications refused
EU requested transfers to UK - 2,137
Granted - 461
78% applications refused
2018 saw 1,218 into the UK, vs 209 out of the UK.
And if Sunak blocks that he’ll be in trouble with the DM .
Makes for chilling reading. I fear many of the worst details will have been withheld. Worth remembering whenever you hear the likes of Peter Hitchens wittering on about the Ukrainians denying official status to the Russian language.
When the tide runs against you, there's not a lot to be done.
Furthermore, the loading (platform) height matters too, and we'd need to structure around that.
Courthouse News - Rape victim sues Idaho lawmakers for outing and harassing her
The victim said former Idaho state Representative Aaron von Ehlinger, who has been convicted of raping her, gave her personal information to the media.
A young woman, who was a teenager when she was raped two years ago by former Idaho state Representative Aaron von Ehlinger, sued him and state Representative Priscilla Giddings for allegedly outing and harassing her after she came forward with her allegations. . .
According to the complaint, Doe worked as an intern at the Idaho Legislature in March 2021 when von Ehlinger started showing an interest in her and took her out to dinner. The lawmaker, who was about twice her age, took her back to his apartment after dinner and raped her.
Doe reported the rape and the House Ethics Committee opened an investigation into her allegations. Von Ehlinger provided a confidential written response to the committee, which according to Doe's lawsuit contained numerous untruthful statements, including that they had consensual sex. The committee wasn't convinced by his response and proceeded with a public ethics complaint process against von Ehlinger.
This in turn prompted von Ehlinger, through his lawyer, to provide unredacted copies of his confidential response to the committee, which contained intimate details about Doe, and to the media. The conservative online publication Redoubt News then ran a story with the headline "Idaho Swamp Trying to Unseat Another Conservative" that included a photo of Doe when she was a minor.
Giddings in turn, according to the lawsuit, posted on her Facebook account a link to the Redoubt News article with a comment, “Follow the money! Idaho’s very own Kavanaugh.” The link posted the image with the picture of Doe as a minor, and the article contained Doe's name and a link to von Ehlinger's unredacted response to the ethics committee. . . .
Von Ehlinger IS SERVING A PRISON SENTANCE OF UP TO TWENTY YEARS [emphasis by SSI] following his conviction last year of raping Doe. He couldn't be reached for comment. Giddings didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment on the lawsuit.
The complaint accuses von Ehlinger and Giddings, both Republicans, of conspiring to violate and violating Doe's equal protection rights, violating her free speech rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, as well as claims for assault and battery against von Ehlinger and defamation against Giddings. . . .
https://www.courthousenews.com/rape-victim-sues-idaho-lawmakers-for-outing-and-harassing-her/
For more background, check out this previous report . . . keep your barf bag handy:
https://kfor.com/news/idaho-lawmaker-accused-of-raping-19-year-old-intern-pleads-the-fifth-at-ethics-hearing/
The weirdest one is the "gallery car". To allow a conductor to check tickets quickly, there is a gap in the floor, and customers pass their tickets down. In use in Japan and some USA metros.
And that's without dropping the floor.
The real issue is the passenger loading time at stations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroLiner3000
Quite how practical it is, I don’t know.
The 4DD was more split-level than truly double-deck because the compartments were alternately high and low to ensure that the overall height of the train was exactly within the clearances necessary to safely pass through tunnels and under bridges. A mock-up was displayed at London Marylebone in 1949 shortly before it was first introduced into service,[1] but an assessment after one year in service revealed that the design would not be the optimum solution to the problems of overcrowding, nor would it help increase capacity,
It's possible to imagine an early transition away from fossil fuels, and to more sustainable ways of generating and using energy, if research and investment had been directed taking account of environmental damage, and not simply purely on the grounds of short-term profit.
You could have had the industrial revolution, but managed to avoid most of the 20th century burning of fossil fuels.
Nevertheless, the ones that did enter service ran satisfactorily and reliably until 1971.
Or are you calling foul because that was a 'split level' train, not 'truly double deck'?? That's very thin - you could just accept that you've learned something new in the discussion.
For example, from (current) terminus of Sound Transit Light Rail line in north Seattle, to beautiful, downtown Everett (sarcasm alert). Mostly what you get is a prime view of mostly low-class sprawl either side of I-5 freeway. However, from time to time you can also see some interesting-to-spectacular weather phenomena, especially at sunrise or sunset
Of course, the REALLY fun way to travel via public transit in Seattle and rest of Puget Sound - and also enjoy being perched above the ordinary level so to speak - is via one of the boats operated by Washington State Ferries.
OF it that's not feasible . . . how's about a Pneumatic Tube linking the Great Wen to the Midlands and parts yonder? Partly underground, but mostly overland, like they used to use at old drive-in banking stations.
Imagine . . . ten minutes from Wapping to Wick - WOOOOOOOOOSH!!!
'Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is being treated for a concussion after falling Wednesday evening and is expected to remain hospitalized “for a few days,” a spokesperson announced Thursday afternoon.
“The Leader is grateful to the medical professionals for their care and to his colleagues for their warm wishes,” spokesman David Popp said. McConnell is expected to remain in the hospital for observation and treatment, he added.'
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/09/mitch-mcconnell-fall-hospitalized/
Recently, I have been speculating that McConnell was not planing to run for re-election in 2028. But I have seen no evidence for, or against, that theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell
(Sadly, we can expect conspiracy theorists to speculate that he was pushed -- and he is hated by Trumpistas, and by pro-abortion fanatics.)
https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1633840062160072707
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). said the UK enjoyed the largest improvement in "talent attractiveness" in 2023, moving up nine places to 7th since 2019 and climbing above the US and Canada for the first time.
The OECD said the rankings reflected the UK's decision to abolish its quota for highly skilled workers as well as the success enjoyed by many overseas workers in the country.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/09/brexit-freedoms-make-uk-magnet-highly-skilled-migrants-says/
"IT worker evidence reveals a toxic Post Office IT helpdesk that discriminated against subpostmasters
IT worker tells public inquiry that the Post Office Horizon helpdesk was toxic, rudderless and racist"
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/365532063/IT-worker-evidence-reveals-a-toxic-Post-Office-IT-helpdesk-that-discriminated-against-subpostmasters
YouTube channel featuring videos of each day's hearings.
https://www.youtube.com/@postofficehorizonitinquiry947/videos
So NOT the latest, but still a big deal. In terms of equity AND environment.