As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
Why not spend £300bn on roads if it makes sense.
Just make up a number and spend that much.
It would make far more sense than HS2 👍
The entire road budget combined is less than HS2 - but far more transport is done in cars than rails.
So why are the government not doing it then ?
If it makes so much sense to spend £300bn what is holding them back ?
The Civil Service has a quasi religious devotion to public transport and a notion that roads are bad for the environment.
Primarily by people who spend all day living and working in and around London that think the Tube is the way to live and don't realise that most people in this country drive.
London generates a huge amount of wealth & would be impossible to run without public transport - there’s no way you could get that many workers to & from their places of with without buses & trains. You could turn the entirety of the SE into an LA like motorway hellscape I suppose.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
Why not spend £300bn on roads if it makes sense.
Just make up a number and spend that much.
It would make far more sense than HS2 👍
The entire road budget combined is less than HS2 - but far more transport is done in cars than rails.
So why are the government not doing it then ?
If it makes so much sense to spend £300bn what is holding them back ?
Mostly because of fear of the green lobby, and bad media coverage that may come form it.
But also, because all the money has been spent of HS2 and other ;green' projects.
They have borrowed £300bn in the last 300 days.
They have an 80 seat majority, why worry about the 'green lobby'?
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
Why not spend £300bn on roads if it makes sense.
Just make up a number and spend that much.
It would make far more sense than HS2 👍
The entire road budget combined is less than HS2 - but far more transport is done in cars than rails.
So why are the government not doing it then ?
If it makes so much sense to spend £300bn what is holding them back ?
The Civil Service has a quasi religious devotion to public transport and a notion that roads are bad for the environment.
Primarily by people who spend all day living and working in and around London that think the Tube is the way to live and don't realise that most people in this country drive.
Actually, £150 billion being invested in charging infrastructure would go a long way to making electric cars and motor scooters more viable. It is range anxiety that is the biggest reason that puts people off electric vehicles.
In an electric car world, roads are not so bad for the environment.
What’s rather depressing about the debate on here over HS2 is that even intelligent and well informed posters are engaging on the basis of what they want to be true rather than what’s likely to happen. So we have Foxy’s suggestion that trains will be slower on the classic network. Well, yes, as Sandy and I have discussed some current very fast services will have a slightly reduced speed due to the withdrawal of tilting trains, but most services will be unaffected, and more frequent. Or the suggestion from Philip that motorways are cheaper. Well, no, not really, and they cause problems of their own, plus they take up more space. Or Richard Tyndall banging the Berkeley drum and refusing to engage with the evidence presented by Oakervee, because Berkeley criticised HS2 and Oakervee recommended the green light.
I can see why Joe Rukin made a good living out of being the head honcho at Stop HS2, during which time he never knowingly told the truth. There are too many people deeply invested in stopping the project at all costs, because they dislike it for more or less visceral reasons.
And yet, it is by far the most effective way to solve a huge problem - how do we create capacity on the WCML and particularly at crunch points such as Birmingham New Street, Stafford and Rugby, that are throttling the railway network?
It’s also quite instructive, as I noted above, to compare them to the arguments advanced against the London and Birmingham, the Great Western Main Line and indeed the North Eastern Railway, nearly strangled at birth by Lord Howick because he wanted it to be nearer his house. I begin to understand more clearly the fierceness of the debates over the issue.
Ultimately, the arguments however passionately advanced are moot. HS2 is going ahead in its entirety. My guess is it will eventually run 12tph at around 190 mph, and allow an extra 10-15 tph on the WCML, meaning overall around 43 tph instead of the 16 at present. Which should help freight and passenger numbers and give the antis plenty of ammunition to say it didn’t achieve what it was supposed to. Again, like every railway ever built.
And on that cheering thought that everyone might get what they want, good night.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
Why not spend £300bn on roads if it makes sense.
Just make up a number and spend that much.
It would make far more sense than HS2 👍
The entire road budget combined is less than HS2 - but far more transport is done in cars than rails.
So why are the government not doing it then ?
If it makes so much sense to spend £300bn what is holding them back ?
The Civil Service has a quasi religious devotion to public transport and a notion that roads are bad for the environment.
Primarily by people who spend all day living and working in and around London that think the Tube is the way to live and don't realise that most people in this country drive.
The government have an 80 seat majority.
They can do what they wish.
Indeed and they've got £27bn pledged for roads over the next few years, while 4+ times that gets spent on HS2.
The £27bn will do far more and than HS2 ever will - and includes multiple plans specific for Manchester for what its worth.
The HS2 budget spent on this would have done far more for levelling up but for far too many people its almost anathema to suggest new or upgraded roads at the minute.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
Why not spend £300bn on roads if it makes sense.
Just make up a number and spend that much.
It would make far more sense than HS2 👍
The entire road budget combined is less than HS2 - but far more transport is done in cars than rails.
So why are the government not doing it then ?
If it makes so much sense to spend £300bn what is holding them back ?
The Civil Service has a quasi religious devotion to public transport and a notion that roads are bad for the environment.
Primarily by people who spend all day living and working in and around London that think the Tube is the way to live and don't realise that most people in this country drive.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
It has always struck me as bizarre that the A1 is now a motorway for huge chunks of its length, and yet they’ve never gone the whole hog and dualled the lot.
Particularly since the alternative roads across the hills are so very bad.
Somehow we ended up with three lanes on the west coast and one lane on the east coast, when two lanes on each coast would seem to be obviously optimal.
What’s rather depressing about the debate on here over HS2 is that even intelligent and well informed posters are engaging on the basis of what they want to be true rather than what’s likely to happen. So we have Foxy’s suggestion that trains will be slower on the classic network. Well, yes, as Sandy and I have discussed some current very fast services will have a slightly reduced speed due to the withdrawal of tilting trains, but most services will be unaffected, and more frequent. Or the suggestion from Philip that motorways are cheaper. Well, no, not really, and they cause problems of their own, plus they take up more space. Or Richard Tyndall banging the Berkeley drum and refusing to engage with the evidence presented by Oakervee, because Berkeley criticised HS2 and Oakervee recommended the green light.
I can see why Joe Rukin made a good living out of being the head honcho at Stop HS2, during which time he never knowingly told the truth. There are too many people deeply invested in stopping the project at all costs, because they dislike it for more or less visceral reasons.
And yet, it is by far the most effective way to solve a huge problem - how do we create capacity on the WCML and particularly at crunch points such as Birmingham New Street, Stafford and Rugby, that are throttling the railway network?
It’s also quite instructive, as I noted above, to compare them to the arguments advanced against the London and Birmingham, the Great Western Main Line and indeed the North Eastern Railway, nearly strangled at birth by Lord Howick because he wanted it to be nearer his house. I begin to understand more clearly the fierceness of the debates over the issue.
Ultimately, the arguments however passionately advanced are moot. HS2 is going ahead in its entirety. My guess is it will eventually run 12tph at around 190 mph, and allow an extra 10-15 tph on the WCML, meaning overall around 43 tph instead of the 16 at present. Which should help freight and passenger numbers and give the antis plenty of ammunition to say it didn’t achieve what it was supposed to. Again, like every railway ever built.
And on that cheering thought that everyone might get what they want, good night.
Not all roads need to be motorways. How many miles is HS2 covering for over £100bn?
Not all of that will be new roads, some of that will be fixing potholes etc but that's still valuable work.
I don't believe for one second that £100bn in roads would have provided less of an impact than £100bn for HS2 - but HS2 is shiny rails to play with, while roads are considered dirty but are the arteries of how the nation lives.
I do wish journalists wouldn't resort to hyperbole saying that London will be "unrecognisable" by the mid 2020s. I've seen those images too and London looks very recognisable. And outside the City and Canary Wharf, and to a far lesser extent Nine Elms/Battersea, there really aren't any skyscrapers in London.
The only one that sticks out (inappropriately, in my view) is The Shard.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
Why not spend £300bn on roads if it makes sense.
Just make up a number and spend that much.
It would make far more sense than HS2 👍
The entire road budget combined is less than HS2 - but far more transport is done in cars than rails.
So why are the government not doing it then ?
If it makes so much sense to spend £300bn what is holding them back ?
The Civil Service has a quasi religious devotion to public transport and a notion that roads are bad for the environment.
Primarily by people who spend all day living and working in and around London that think the Tube is the way to live and don't realise that most people in this country drive.
Actually, £150 billion being invested in charging infrastructure would go a long way to making electric cars and motor scooters more viable. It is range anxiety that is the biggest reason that puts people off electric vehicles.
In an electric car world, roads are not so bad for the environment.
If you ignore the current energy generation mix, and the production of batteries. Pluses and minuses.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
As an observer of HS2 from day one
Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?
Yes
And no doubt as someone interested in the scheme you are able to understand the reasons those early estimates were so far from the reality and so far from being problematic to the scheme proceeding.
The reason why they were wrong being the same why they are so often wrong on any big government scheme.
They are deliberately underestimated and after approval is given they are steadily increased because governments almost never pull the plug.
But again, you are showing your ignorance as to the reasons for those increases.
It's like you have not been paying attention.
HS2 themselves estimate that scope changes such as the Chiltern tunnelling increased costs by £1 billion.
Meanwhile the estimated cost for HS2 has increased from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £110 billion in the Berkley Review in 2019.
The Berkley (sic) Review run by a long standing and vocal critic of HS2?
The Berkley (sic) Review written by a man ho resigned from the Oakervee review because he didn’t like its conclusions, but was unable to show where they were wrong other than to make vague statements that he believed Oakervee was too conservative in his estimates?
The Berkley (sic) Review that said the solution was to upgrade existing infrastructure, which actually forgot we had recently upgraded the WCML at vast expense and enormous disruption while signally (😀) failing to achieve a single one of the objectives of the upgrade?
That Berkeley review?
Because I’m not altogether sold on its accuracy.
Of course not. You would rather believe the claims of those who actually have a massive financial interest in making sure the project goes ahead - HS2 themselves. And yet even their estimates have now more than doubled.
I would rather believe the claims of those who use actual evidence to support their statements. As Berkeley does not.
They may be wrong. However, so may Berkeley be, and given he’s been wrong all the way through and clearly has the largest of ideological axes to grind he has the bigger credibility gap.
Well the Institute for Government - whilst pointing out some areas they think Berkeley may be wrong - are happy to include his estimates.
Meanwhile HS2 themselves have now doubled their estimates.
Please provide any links to show that HS2 think that costs have doubled on their estimates,
£46bn the original P95 is more than half of £86bn, the current P95.
I’m generally on your side
But arguing that “doubling” is wrong because it has only gone up 87% is a bus-sized mistake
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
Why not spend £300bn on roads if it makes sense.
Just make up a number and spend that much.
It would make far more sense than HS2 👍
The entire road budget combined is less than HS2 - but far more transport is done in cars than rails.
So why are the government not doing it then ?
If it makes so much sense to spend £300bn what is holding them back ?
The Civil Service has a quasi religious devotion to public transport and a notion that roads are bad for the environment.
Primarily by people who spend all day living and working in and around London that think the Tube is the way to live and don't realise that most people in this country drive.
Actually, £150 billion being invested in charging infrastructure would go a long way to making electric cars and motor scooters more viable. It is range anxiety that is the biggest reason that puts people off electric vehicles.
In an electric car world, roads are not so bad for the environment.
Yes absolutely! I'd include ensuring there is sufficient charging infrastructure within my proposal for road infrastructure.
Getting our roads moving, eliminating road congestion, and ensuring our cars, HGVs etc on the roads are electric would do far more for the economy, most people's livelihoods and lifestyles, "levelling up" and the environment than any amount of trains in the same time will do.
I hear a lot of strange arguments that infrastructure like HS2 will "drain" more investment into London from the provinces.
It's a weird one. On that basis you'd rip up all the existing motorways, A-roads and domestic aviation links on the basis they did too.
You build better communications and infrastructure around a country to link it up, allow it to partake in the wider economy, and facilitate future investment. There's evidence going back hundreds of years on this. Otherwise, we'd never have industralised.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
The powers that be didn't want to build passport control etc. at the HS2 stations.
What’s rather depressing about the debate on here over HS2 is that even intelligent and well informed posters are engaging on the basis of what they want to be true rather than what’s likely to happen. So we have Foxy’s suggestion that trains will be slower on the classic network. Well, yes, as Sandy and I have discussed some current very fast services will have a slightly reduced speed due to the withdrawal of tilting trains, but most services will be unaffected, and more frequent. Or the suggestion from Philip that motorways are cheaper. Well, no, not really, and they cause problems of their own, plus they take up more space. Or Richard Tyndall banging the Berkeley drum and refusing to engage with the evidence presented by Oakervee, because Berkeley criticised HS2 and Oakervee recommended the green light.
I can see why Joe Rukin made a good living out of being the head honcho at Stop HS2, during which time he never knowingly told the truth. There are too many people deeply invested in stopping the project at all costs, because they dislike it for more or less visceral reasons.
And yet, it is by far the most effective way to solve a huge problem - how do we create capacity on the WCML and particularly at crunch points such as Birmingham New Street, Stafford and Rugby, that are throttling the railway network?
It’s also quite instructive, as I noted above, to compare them to the arguments advanced against the London and Birmingham, the Great Western Main Line and indeed the North Eastern Railway, nearly strangled at birth by Lord Howick because he wanted it to be nearer his house. I begin to understand more clearly the fierceness of the debates over the issue.
Ultimately, the arguments however passionately advanced are moot. HS2 is going ahead in its entirety. My guess is it will eventually run 12tph at around 190 mph, and allow an extra 10-15 tph on the WCML, meaning overall around 43 tph instead of the 16 at present. Which should help freight and passenger numbers and give the antis plenty of ammunition to say it didn’t achieve what it was supposed to. Again, like every railway ever built.
And on that cheering thought that everyone might get what they want, good night.
Not all roads need to be motorways. How many miles is HS2 covering for over £100bn?
Not all of that will be new roads, some of that will be fixing potholes etc but that's still valuable work.
I don't believe for one second that £100bn in roads would have provided less of an impact than £100bn for HS2 - but HS2 is shiny rails to play with, while roads are considered dirty but are the arteries of how the nation lives.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
Why £150 billion? Even Berkeley isn’t suggesting HS2 will cost 70% of that.
It is possible the full network will. There's almost certainly some optimism bias, inflation and unknown unknowns accounted for in there.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
I hear a lot of strange arguments that infrastructure like HS2 will "drain" more investment into London from the provinces.
It's a weird one. On that basis you'd rip up all the existing motorways, A-roads and domestic aviation links on the basis they did too.
You build better communications and infrastructure around a country to link it up, allow it to partake in the wider economy, and facilitate future investment. There's evidence going back hundreds of years on this. Otherwise, we'd never have industralised.
The evidence going back hundreds of years is hundreds of years out of date, is your problem. And the fact that we have now deindustrialised. Back then there was a point to ports like Liverpool and Manchester and Glasgow; now there isn't.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
What’s rather depressing about the debate on here over HS2 is that even intelligent and well informed posters are engaging on the basis of what they want to be true rather than what’s likely to happen. So we have Foxy’s suggestion that trains will be slower on the classic network. Well, yes, as Sandy and I have discussed some current very fast services will have a slightly reduced speed due to the withdrawal of tilting trains, but most services will be unaffected, and more frequent. Or the suggestion from Philip that motorways are cheaper. Well, no, not really, and they cause problems of their own, plus they take up more space. Or Richard Tyndall banging the Berkeley drum and refusing to engage with the evidence presented by Oakervee, because Berkeley criticised HS2 and Oakervee recommended the green light.
I can see why Joe Rukin made a good living out of being the head honcho at Stop HS2, during which time he never knowingly told the truth. There are too many people deeply invested in stopping the project at all costs, because they dislike it for more or less visceral reasons.
And yet, it is by far the most effective way to solve a huge problem - how do we create capacity on the WCML and particularly at crunch points such as Birmingham New Street, Stafford and Rugby, that are throttling the railway network?
It’s also quite instructive, as I noted above, to compare them to the arguments advanced against the London and Birmingham, the Great Western Main Line and indeed the North Eastern Railway, nearly strangled at birth by Lord Howick because he wanted it to be nearer his house. I begin to understand more clearly the fierceness of the debates over the issue.
Ultimately, the arguments however passionately advanced are moot. HS2 is going ahead in its entirety. My guess is it will eventually run 12tph at around 190 mph, and allow an extra 10-15 tph on the WCML, meaning overall around 43 tph instead of the 16 at present. Which should help freight and passenger numbers and give the antis plenty of ammunition to say it didn’t achieve what it was supposed to. Again, like every railway ever built.
And on that cheering thought that everyone might get what they want, good night.
The problem you have is that 5 or 6 years ago we were all on here arguing about whether the costs would be £50 billion as the supporters claimed or £80 billion as the detractors claimed. Now a few years later with the programme under way even the HS2 chairman is estimating the costs at over the £80 billion which all the supporters said was scare mongering.
So why should we believe that Berkeley is wrong in his £110 billion claims?
What’s rather depressing about the debate on here over HS2 is that even intelligent and well informed posters are engaging on the basis of what they want to be true rather than what’s likely to happen. So we have Foxy’s suggestion that trains will be slower on the classic network. Well, yes, as Sandy and I have discussed some current very fast services will have a slightly reduced speed due to the withdrawal of tilting trains, but most services will be unaffected, and more frequent. Or the suggestion from Philip that motorways are cheaper. Well, no, not really, and they cause problems of their own, plus they take up more space. Or Richard Tyndall banging the Berkeley drum and refusing to engage with the evidence presented by Oakervee, because Berkeley criticised HS2 and Oakervee recommended the green light.
I can see why Joe Rukin made a good living out of being the head honcho at Stop HS2, during which time he never knowingly told the truth. There are too many people deeply invested in stopping the project at all costs, because they dislike it for more or less visceral reasons.
And yet, it is by far the most effective way to solve a huge problem - how do we create capacity on the WCML and particularly at crunch points such as Birmingham New Street, Stafford and Rugby, that are throttling the railway network?
It’s also quite instructive, as I noted above, to compare them to the arguments advanced against the London and Birmingham, the Great Western Main Line and indeed the North Eastern Railway, nearly strangled at birth by Lord Howick because he wanted it to be nearer his house. I begin to understand more clearly the fierceness of the debates over the issue.
Ultimately, the arguments however passionately advanced are moot. HS2 is going ahead in its entirety. My guess is it will eventually run 12tph at around 190 mph, and allow an extra 10-15 tph on the WCML, meaning overall around 43 tph instead of the 16 at present. Which should help freight and passenger numbers and give the antis plenty of ammunition to say it didn’t achieve what it was supposed to. Again, like every railway ever built.
And on that cheering thought that everyone might get what they want, good night.
The problem you have is that 5 or 6 years ago we were all on here arguing about whether the costs would be £50 billion as the supporters claimed or £80 billion as the detractors claimed. Now a few years later with the programme under way even the HS2 chairman is estimating the costs at over the £80 billion which all the supporters said was scare mongering.
So why should we believe that Berkeley is wrong in his £110 billion claims?
By the way as an aside I would happily see all of that money spent on railways. I think they are fab and we should have far more of them. But HS2 is not the way to go. It will never do what is claimed and will cost far more than was originally estimated. It is the very definition of a white elephant.
Despite having a resounding mandate from members to introduce more transparency into the party’s finances, I have not received the support or financial information to carry out the fiduciary duties of National Treasurer. Regretfully I have resigned with immediate effect 1/2
I do not intend to make a further statement on this issue. 2/2
The SNP's accounts must be hiding something very interesting, seems to be exceptionally hard for anyone not sleeping with Mrs Sturgeon to access them. This is what, 4th or 5th SNP resignation over it?
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I'm not really for or against HS2 either way but I almost expect commercial teleportation will probably be along about 20 minutes before it's completed in full.
I hear a lot of strange arguments that infrastructure like HS2 will "drain" more investment into London from the provinces.
It's a weird one. On that basis you'd rip up all the existing motorways, A-roads and domestic aviation links on the basis they did too.
You build better communications and infrastructure around a country to link it up, allow it to partake in the wider economy, and facilitate future investment. There's evidence going back hundreds of years on this. Otherwise, we'd never have industralised.
The evidence going back hundreds of years is hundreds of years out of date, is your problem. And the fact that we have now deindustrialised. Back then there was a point to ports like Liverpool and Manchester and Glasgow; now there isn't.
I think people like you start from the fact you don't want HS2, and work backwards from there.
Did I get the wrong night? I thought tonight was the screening of Starmer's massive mega jar dropping interview with Piers Moron? Nobody seems to be talking about it on here, no mention on the front pages of the newspapers, can't see it trending on twitter.
I hear a lot of strange arguments that infrastructure like HS2 will "drain" more investment into London from the provinces.
It's a weird one. On that basis you'd rip up all the existing motorways, A-roads and domestic aviation links on the basis they did too.
You build better communications and infrastructure around a country to link it up, allow it to partake in the wider economy, and facilitate future investment. There's evidence going back hundreds of years on this. Otherwise, we'd never have industralised.
The evidence going back hundreds of years is hundreds of years out of date, is your problem. And the fact that we have now deindustrialised. Back then there was a point to ports like Liverpool and Manchester and Glasgow; now there isn't.
I think people like you start from the fact you don't want HS2, and work backwards from there.
I genuinely can't think of a subject on which I am more neutral.
I hear a lot of strange arguments that infrastructure like HS2 will "drain" more investment into London from the provinces.
It's a weird one. On that basis you'd rip up all the existing motorways, A-roads and domestic aviation links on the basis they did too.
You build better communications and infrastructure around a country to link it up, allow it to partake in the wider economy, and facilitate future investment. There's evidence going back hundreds of years on this. Otherwise, we'd never have industralised.
The evidence going back hundreds of years is hundreds of years out of date, is your problem. And the fact that we have now deindustrialised. Back then there was a point to ports like Liverpool and Manchester and Glasgow; now there isn't.
I think people like you start from the fact you don't want HS2, and work backwards from there.
Whereas the Tories started from the fact that they needed a credible excuse for opposing a third runway at Heathrow in the 2010 GE and went from there...
Did I get the wrong night? I thought tonight was the screening of Starmer's massive mega jar dropping interview with Piers Moron? Nobody seems to be talking about it on here, no mention on the front pages of the newspapers, can't see it trending on twitter.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
What’s rather depressing about the debate on here over HS2 is that even intelligent and well informed posters are engaging on the basis of what they want to be true rather than what’s likely to happen. So we have Foxy’s suggestion that trains will be slower on the classic network. Well, yes, as Sandy and I have discussed some current very fast services will have a slightly reduced speed due to the withdrawal of tilting trains, but most services will be unaffected, and more frequent. Or the suggestion from Philip that motorways are cheaper. Well, no, not really, and they cause problems of their own, plus they take up more space. Or Richard Tyndall banging the Berkeley drum and refusing to engage with the evidence presented by Oakervee, because Berkeley criticised HS2 and Oakervee recommended the green light.
I can see why Joe Rukin made a good living out of being the head honcho at Stop HS2, during which time he never knowingly told the truth. There are too many people deeply invested in stopping the project at all costs, because they dislike it for more or less visceral reasons.
And yet, it is by far the most effective way to solve a huge problem - how do we create capacity on the WCML and particularly at crunch points such as Birmingham New Street, Stafford and Rugby, that are throttling the railway network?
It’s also quite instructive, as I noted above, to compare them to the arguments advanced against the London and Birmingham, the Great Western Main Line and indeed the North Eastern Railway, nearly strangled at birth by Lord Howick because he wanted it to be nearer his house. I begin to understand more clearly the fierceness of the debates over the issue.
Ultimately, the arguments however passionately advanced are moot. HS2 is going ahead in its entirety. My guess is it will eventually run 12tph at around 190 mph, and allow an extra 10-15 tph on the WCML, meaning overall around 43 tph instead of the 16 at present. Which should help freight and passenger numbers and give the antis plenty of ammunition to say it didn’t achieve what it was supposed to. Again, like every railway ever built.
And on that cheering thought that everyone might get what they want, good night.
Not all roads need to be motorways. How many miles is HS2 covering for over £100bn?
Not all of that will be new roads, some of that will be fixing potholes etc but that's still valuable work.
I don't believe for one second that £100bn in roads would have provided less of an impact than £100bn for HS2 - but HS2 is shiny rails to play with, while roads are considered dirty but are the arteries of how the nation lives.
Not for freight
Oh really?
In 2017, 5% of all freight lifted in Great Britain was on rail (76.4 million tonnes). The proportion of freight lifted on the rail network was the same as it was in 2016. Freight lifted by road (HGV) was 89% and 6% was taken by water.
Did I get the wrong night? I thought tonight was the screening of Starmer's massive mega jar dropping interview with Piers Moron? Nobody seems to be talking about it on here, no mention on the front pages of the newspapers, can't see it trending on twitter.
Tuesday 9.30pm.
I did think it was weird. I saw that it said Moron tonight at 9pm with his life stories and I presumed it was the big one.
The PM was insistent that commuting will come back and that "it needs to come back".
Although it appears that the Govt have just stumbled upon a wizard idea to “solve” their dilemmas over June 21st. Ie. Open up everything, but don’t change the guidance on home working... (which may well be the real driving force behind the apparent popularity of lockdowns...)
It’s amazing how many scientists the Guardian can dig up from Britain, and now the wider world, who believe that the U.K. is on the brink of a catastrophic third wave as a result of its incautious reopening plans, but apparently the US and the rest of Europe have got it licked.
I hear a lot of strange arguments that infrastructure like HS2 will "drain" more investment into London from the provinces.
It's a weird one. On that basis you'd rip up all the existing motorways, A-roads and domestic aviation links on the basis they did too.
You build better communications and infrastructure around a country to link it up, allow it to partake in the wider economy, and facilitate future investment. There's evidence going back hundreds of years on this. Otherwise, we'd never have industralised.
The evidence going back hundreds of years is hundreds of years out of date, is your problem. And the fact that we have now deindustrialised. Back then there was a point to ports like Liverpool and Manchester and Glasgow; now there isn't.
I think people like you start from the fact you don't want HS2, and work backwards from there.
I genuinely can't think of a subject on which I am more neutral.
Suddenly I turned around and she was standing there. With silver bracelets on her wrists And flowers in her hair. She walked up to me so gracefully, Took my crown of thorns. "Come in," she said "I'll give you Shelter from the storm.
I think that we can now conclude that the primary purpose of public transport in the south east of England is to deliver customers to branches of Pret in central London. HS2 is therefore one hell of a subsidy for a sandwich shop.
I hear a lot of strange arguments that infrastructure like HS2 will "drain" more investment into London from the provinces.
It's a weird one. On that basis you'd rip up all the existing motorways, A-roads and domestic aviation links on the basis they did too.
You build better communications and infrastructure around a country to link it up, allow it to partake in the wider economy, and facilitate future investment. There's evidence going back hundreds of years on this. Otherwise, we'd never have industralised.
Except that's a falsehood.
The motorways, A-roads etc are what is actually used by 90% of the country.
The rails are what is used by about 10% of the country, and apparently about 5% of freight.
Yet the London-based people think the best way to level up the north is not to improve the heavily congested roads etc that are actually used, but instead to take decades to build shiny new express rails to get to London.
How about upgrading or improving the M62? Or building new equivalents? I bet you far more people in the M62 corridor and far more freight from there too is moved on the M62 than will ever be moved on HS2.
Don't rip up the motorways that are actually used, expand them and improve them. You can improve London by upgrading the Tube network, you can improve the North by improving its road network.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
It's not much further than between the RER and metro platforms at Châtelet–Les Halles in Paris.
The PM was insistent that commuting will come back and that "it needs to come back".
Although it appears that the Govt have just stumbled upon a wizard idea to “solve” their dilemmas over June 21st. Ie. Open up everything, but don’t change the guidance on home working... (which may well be the real driving force behind the apparent popularity of lockdowns...)
It’s amazing how many scientists the Guardian can dig up from Britain, and now the wider world, who believe that the U.K. is on the brink of a catastrophic third wave as a result of its incautious reopening plans, but apparently the US and the rest of Europe have got it licked.
That's a very sensible compromise.
Eliminate all legal restrictions but advise that where its possible to work from home then do so.
Especially for those who are currently unvaccinated, if they're fine to work from home why should they be compelled back early?
But let those who want to live as normal eliminate all social distancing mandated by law. Let distancing instead be a choice.
I hear a lot of strange arguments that infrastructure like HS2 will "drain" more investment into London from the provinces.
It's a weird one. On that basis you'd rip up all the existing motorways, A-roads and domestic aviation links on the basis they did too.
You build better communications and infrastructure around a country to link it up, allow it to partake in the wider economy, and facilitate future investment. There's evidence going back hundreds of years on this. Otherwise, we'd never have industralised.
Except that's a falsehood.
The motorways, A-roads etc are what is actually used by 90% of the country.
The rails are what is used by about 10% of the country, and apparently about 5% of freight.
Yet the London-based people think the best way to level up the north is not to improve the heavily congested roads etc that are actually used, but instead to take decades to build shiny new express rails to get to London.
How about upgrading or improving the M62? Or building new equivalents? I bet you far more people in the M62 corridor and far more freight from there too is moved on the M62 than will ever be moved on HS2.
Don't rip up the motorways that are actually used, expand them and improve them. You can improve London by upgrading the Tube network, you can improve the North by improving its road network.
Why can’t they do both? What is the roads budget being used for?
A sound investment is a sound investment. It shouldn’t be constrained by alleged resource prioritisation.
I hear a lot of strange arguments that infrastructure like HS2 will "drain" more investment into London from the provinces.
It's a weird one. On that basis you'd rip up all the existing motorways, A-roads and domestic aviation links on the basis they did too.
You build better communications and infrastructure around a country to link it up, allow it to partake in the wider economy, and facilitate future investment. There's evidence going back hundreds of years on this. Otherwise, we'd never have industralised.
Except that's a falsehood.
The motorways, A-roads etc are what is actually used by 90% of the country.
The rails are what is used by about 10% of the country, and apparently about 5% of freight.
Yet the London-based people think the best way to level up the north is not to improve the heavily congested roads etc that are actually used, but instead to take decades to build shiny new express rails to get to London.
How about upgrading or improving the M62? Or building new equivalents? I bet you far more people in the M62 corridor and far more freight from there too is moved on the M62 than will ever be moved on HS2.
Don't rip up the motorways that are actually used, expand them and improve them. You can improve London by upgrading the Tube network, you can improve the North by improving its road network.
Why can’t they do both? What is the roads budget being used for?
I would assume there's not enough money to do both, and for as long as there is not hundreds of billions available for roads I can see absolutely no justification whatsoever for hundreds of billions for rail.
The PM was insistent that commuting will come back and that "it needs to come back".
Although it appears that the Govt have just stumbled upon a wizard idea to “solve” their dilemmas over June 21st. Ie. Open up everything, but don’t change the guidance on home working... (which may well be the real driving force behind the apparent popularity of lockdowns...)
It’s amazing how many scientists the Guardian can dig up from Britain, and now the wider world, who believe that the U.K. is on the brink of a catastrophic third wave as a result of its incautious reopening plans, but apparently the US and the rest of Europe have got it licked.
That's a very sensible compromise.
Eliminate all legal restrictions but advise that where its possible to work from home then do so.
Especially for those who are currently unvaccinated, if they're fine to work from home why should they be compelled back early?
But let those who want to live as normal eliminate all social distancing mandated by law. Let distancing instead be a choice.
I can only really see proper office working making sense again when we get to a stage where one positive covid test doesn't result in half the office being sent home either for isolation or just for a deep clean. It will be interesting to see when we get to that point, or more likely when we just stop mass testing altogether.
I hear a lot of strange arguments that infrastructure like HS2 will "drain" more investment into London from the provinces.
It's a weird one. On that basis you'd rip up all the existing motorways, A-roads and domestic aviation links on the basis they did too.
You build better communications and infrastructure around a country to link it up, allow it to partake in the wider economy, and facilitate future investment. There's evidence going back hundreds of years on this. Otherwise, we'd never have industralised.
Except that's a falsehood.
The motorways, A-roads etc are what is actually used by 90% of the country.
The rails are what is used by about 10% of the country, and apparently about 5% of freight.
Yet the London-based people think the best way to level up the north is not to improve the heavily congested roads etc that are actually used, but instead to take decades to build shiny new express rails to get to London.
How about upgrading or improving the M62? Or building new equivalents? I bet you far more people in the M62 corridor and far more freight from there too is moved on the M62 than will ever be moved on HS2.
Don't rip up the motorways that are actually used, expand them and improve them. You can improve London by upgrading the Tube network, you can improve the North by improving its road network.
Why can’t they do both? What is the roads budget being used for?
I would assume there's not enough money to do both, and for as long as there is not hundreds of billions available for roads I can see absolutely no justification whatsoever for hundreds of billions for rail.
The Government’s always got money for genuinely effective long term Investments of capital.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
It's not much further than between the RER and metro platforms at Châtelet–Les Halles in Paris.
It's a shorter distance than Bank to Monument I think.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
I’m sure they will do it. Would take about 6 months to build. It’s shorter than the distance between some Heathrow terminals
What I’m looking forward to is the post-covid high speed sleeper trains from London to Rome, or Barcelona, or Lisbon. Imagine! You go to sleep somewhere around Ashford Tesco Extra, you wake up by Lake Garda, hurtling towards the Eternal City
I hear a lot of strange arguments that infrastructure like HS2 will "drain" more investment into London from the provinces.
It's a weird one. On that basis you'd rip up all the existing motorways, A-roads and domestic aviation links on the basis they did too.
You build better communications and infrastructure around a country to link it up, allow it to partake in the wider economy, and facilitate future investment. There's evidence going back hundreds of years on this. Otherwise, we'd never have industralised.
Except that's a falsehood.
The motorways, A-roads etc are what is actually used by 90% of the country.
The rails are what is used by about 10% of the country, and apparently about 5% of freight.
Yet the London-based people think the best way to level up the north is not to improve the heavily congested roads etc that are actually used, but instead to take decades to build shiny new express rails to get to London.
How about upgrading or improving the M62? Or building new equivalents? I bet you far more people in the M62 corridor and far more freight from there too is moved on the M62 than will ever be moved on HS2.
Don't rip up the motorways that are actually used, expand them and improve them. You can improve London by upgrading the Tube network, you can improve the North by improving its road network.
Why can’t they do both? What is the roads budget being used for?
I would assume there's not enough money to do both, and for as long as there is not hundreds of billions available for roads I can see absolutely no justification whatsoever for hundreds of billions for rail.
The Government’s always got money for genuinely effective long term Investments of capital.
No, that's an excuse to just spend money. But if that's the case where's the hundreds of billions going on roads? I wouldn't object to hundreds of billions going on rail, if there were hundreds of billions going on roads.
Rail budget ought to be ~5% to 10% of road budget based upon how they actually get used, instead HS2 is about 400% of road budgets. What a farce.
The PM was insistent that commuting will come back and that "it needs to come back".
Although it appears that the Govt have just stumbled upon a wizard idea to “solve” their dilemmas over June 21st. Ie. Open up everything, but don’t change the guidance on home working... (which may well be the real driving force behind the apparent popularity of lockdowns...)
It’s amazing how many scientists the Guardian can dig up from Britain, and now the wider world, who believe that the U.K. is on the brink of a catastrophic third wave as a result of its incautious reopening plans, but apparently the US and the rest of Europe have got it licked.
That's a very sensible compromise.
Eliminate all legal restrictions but advise that where its possible to work from home then do so.
Especially for those who are currently unvaccinated, if they're fine to work from home why should they be compelled back early?
But let those who want to live as normal eliminate all social distancing mandated by law. Let distancing instead be a choice.
I can only really see proper office working making sense again when we get to a stage where one positive covid test doesn't result in half the office being sent home either for isolation or just for a deep clean. It will be interesting to see when we get to that point, or more likely when we just stop mass testing altogether.
The whole “deep clean” nonsense should have been ditched 10 months ago...
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
Seems like the hybrid bill design made a lot of the options for airport terminal style connection not feasible, without major redesign. Instead it looks like they are going for an option of planting a few shrubs on the walking route (and maybe making it easier to cross the roads?) If Crossrail 2 ever happens it looks like it would involve a new station in between Euston and St Pancras, so maybe then something a bit better would be worked out, linking the whole caboodle together.
I think it's a shame that they haven't done something specifically to create an attractive alternative to taking the circle line for 1 stop, which seems like a mad option, but one that they are encouraging with providing step-free access to the circle line at Euston. Why would you want to clog up the circle line with international passengers dragging loads of luggage around?
Nimbys raise there head again. The MP questioning the need of East West Rail because of the pandemic , is just trying to find an excuse to cancel the final phase of the scheme for linking Oxford to Cambridge. The first two phases involve refurbishing/rebuilding the original route. They cant do that for the bit between Sandy and Cambridge because the rail line has been built on. A new line is needed.
Not because of overcrowded existing rail lines, but because of overcrowded roads and this area of England (ROSE or Rest of South East England) has long been one the highest areas of population growth. The line is not about avoiding going into London, but is about connecting existing towns and allowing greater links between them and the people who want to travel between them.
It is expected that several million more people will move to be near Oxford, Aylesbury, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge in the coming decades, all high tech growth zones.
The new east west expressway has been given the chop (well the bit between Milton Keynes and Oxford, though the weasel words alternative schemes were used, so expect more expensive widening schemes that increase capacity less and several new dual carriageways that don't link up into one scheme, that people will bitch about in decades to come.
The new stretch of railway is proposing to demolish a hundred or so house inBedford to allow it be six tracked through the town and the line would swing North East and Then East to Cambourne (one of Cambridges main housing growth areas and then south around to approach to cambridge to the South allowing it to connect directly to the newly proposed Cambridge South and the Biomedical cluster there. Cambridge is the countries top high tech growth cluster and needs to be expended rapidly to allow it to grow. It needs a lot of infrastructure.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
It's not much further than between the RER and metro platforms at Châtelet–Les Halles in Paris.
It's a shorter distance than Bank to Monument I think.
When I was 19, I worked at Cannon St and went for a drink after work in a bar called Deacons. My then girlfriend worked at Marble Arch and got the Central Line to Bank, walked to monument, then got the District Line one stop to Cannon St to meet me!
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
It's not much further than between the RER and metro platforms at Châtelet–Les Halles in Paris.
It's a shorter distance than Bank to Monument I think.
If you live in Birmingham why would you want to go to Paris?
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
Seems like the hybrid bill design made a lot of the options for airport terminal style connection not feasible, without major redesign. Instead it looks like they are going for an option of planting a few shrubs on the walking route (and maybe making it easier to cross the roads?) If Crossrail 2 ever happens it looks like it would involve a new station in between Euston and St Pancras, so maybe then something a bit better would be worked out, linking the whole caboodle together.
I think it's a shame that they haven't done something specifically to create an attractive alternative to taking the circle line for 1 stop, which seems like a mad option, but one that they are encouraging with providing step-free access to the circle line at Euston. Why would you want to clog up the circle line with international passengers dragging loads of luggage around?
Northern line, surely. Circle and Met are Euston square which is in the wrong direction.
It just seems like they're half arsing it and spending a lot of money to do so.
Nimbys raise there head again. The MP questioning the need of East West Rail because of the pandemic , is just trying to find an excuse to cancel the final phase of the scheme for linking Oxford to Cambridge. The first two phases involve refurbishing/rebuilding the original route. They cant do that for the bit between Sandy and Cambridge because the rail line has been built on. A new line is needed.
Not because of overcrowded existing rail lines, but because of overcrowded roads and this area of England (ROSE or Rest of South East England) has long been one the highest areas of population growth. The line is not about avoiding going into London, but is about connecting existing towns and allowing greater links between them and the people who want to travel between them.
It is expected that several million more people will move to be near Oxford, Aylesbury, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge in the coming decades, all high tech growth zones.
The new east west expressway has been given the chop (well the bit between Milton Keynes and Oxford, though the weasel words alternative schemes were used, so expect more expensive widening schemes that increase capacity less and several new dual carriageways that don't link up into one scheme, that people will bitch about in decades to come.
The new stretch of railway is proposing to demolish a hundred or so house inBedford to allow it be six tracked through the town and the line would swing North East and Then East to Cambourne (one of Cambridges main housing growth areas and then south around to approach to cambridge to the South allowing it to connect directly to the newly proposed Cambridge South and the Biomedical cluster there. Cambridge is the countries top high tech growth cluster and needs to be expended rapidly to allow it to grow. It needs a lot of infrastructure.
Surprised to hear they have canned the expressway. I thought it was integral to the plan to build a million new homes in the Cambridge-Oxford Corridor?
But agree about the need for the railway. All the more so if the road is canned.
Nimbys raise there head again. The MP questioning the need of East West Rail because of the pandemic , is just trying to find an excuse to cancel the final phase of the scheme for linking Oxford to Cambridge. The first two phases involve refurbishing/rebuilding the original route. They cant do that for the bit between Sandy and Cambridge because the rail line has been built on. A new line is needed.
Not because of overcrowded existing rail lines, but because of overcrowded roads and this area of England (ROSE or Rest of South East England) has long been one the highest areas of population growth. The line is not about avoiding going into London, but is about connecting existing towns and allowing greater links between them and the people who want to travel between them.
It is expected that several million more people will move to be near Oxford, Aylesbury, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge in the coming decades, all high tech growth zones.
The new east west expressway has been given the chop (well the bit between Milton Keynes and Oxford, though the weasel words alternative schemes were used, so expect more expensive widening schemes that increase capacity less and several new dual carriageways that don't link up into one scheme, that people will bitch about in decades to come.
The new stretch of railway is proposing to demolish a hundred or so house inBedford to allow it be six tracked through the town and the line would swing North East and Then East to Cambourne (one of Cambridges main housing growth areas and then south around to approach to cambridge to the South allowing it to connect directly to the newly proposed Cambridge South and the Biomedical cluster there. Cambridge is the countries top high tech growth cluster and needs to be expended rapidly to allow it to grow. It needs a lot of infrastructure.
The absence of a motorway linking Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford is absolutely stark raving bonkers!
The notion that more rail connections to London is what the nation needs instead of connections like that is absolute insanity.
I swear this won't end until there is a moratorium on any civil servants working in London. Then they'd realise there's a country outside the capital.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
It's not much further than between the RER and metro platforms at Châtelet–Les Halles in Paris.
It's a shorter distance than Bank to Monument I think.
When I was 19, I worked at Cannon St and went for a drink after work in a bar called Deacons. My then girlfriend worked at Marble Arch and got the Central Line to Bank, walked to monument, then got the District Line one stop to Cannon St to meet me!
Lol, that's got to be a longer walk than just walking past Mansion House.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
Seems like the hybrid bill design made a lot of the options for airport terminal style connection not feasible, without major redesign. Instead it looks like they are going for an option of planting a few shrubs on the walking route (and maybe making it easier to cross the roads?) If Crossrail 2 ever happens it looks like it would involve a new station in between Euston and St Pancras, so maybe then something a bit better would be worked out, linking the whole caboodle together.
I think it's a shame that they haven't done something specifically to create an attractive alternative to taking the circle line for 1 stop, which seems like a mad option, but one that they are encouraging with providing step-free access to the circle line at Euston. Why would you want to clog up the circle line with international passengers dragging loads of luggage around?
Northern line, surely. Circle and Met are Euston square which is in the wrong direction.
It just seems like they're half arsing it and spending a lot of money to do so.
Look at the map in the linked pdf. It’s a flat, five minute walk to st pancras from euston. Through a quiet area. Past the Francis Crick Institute. You could green and cover this for about 2 million. No worse than changing terminals at many airports. But in the fresh air, so nicer - just glaze it against the rain
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
Seems like the hybrid bill design made a lot of the options for airport terminal style connection not feasible, without major redesign. Instead it looks like they are going for an option of planting a few shrubs on the walking route (and maybe making it easier to cross the roads?) If Crossrail 2 ever happens it looks like it would involve a new station in between Euston and St Pancras, so maybe then something a bit better would be worked out, linking the whole caboodle together.
I think it's a shame that they haven't done something specifically to create an attractive alternative to taking the circle line for 1 stop, which seems like a mad option, but one that they are encouraging with providing step-free access to the circle line at Euston. Why would you want to clog up the circle line with international passengers dragging loads of luggage around?
Northern line, surely. Circle and Met are Euston square which is in the wrong direction.
It just seems like they're half arsing it and spending a lot of money to do so.
I do think it's half-arsed. Should have been an integral part of the initial design.
I think the link to the circle line is part of the rebuild of Euston Station. If it's in the wrong direction might explain why it doesn't save any journey time over the walk - which will be open to the elements.
The options paper envisages passengers taking taxis between the two, which seems absurd for 750m, but if you have a deal of luggage, and aren't too fit, or it's dark and wet, might well seem like a good option.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
As an observer of HS2 from day one
Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?
Yes
And no doubt as someone interested in the scheme you are able to understand the reasons those early estimates were so far from the reality and so far from being problematic to the scheme proceeding.
The reason why they were wrong being the same why they are so often wrong on any big government scheme.
They are deliberately underestimated and after approval is given they are steadily increased because governments almost never pull the plug.
But again, you are showing your ignorance as to the reasons for those increases.
It's like you have not been paying attention.
HS2 themselves estimate that scope changes such as the Chiltern tunnelling increased costs by £1 billion.
Meanwhile the estimated cost for HS2 has increased from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £110 billion in the Berkley Review in 2019.
The Berkley (sic) Review run by a long standing and vocal critic of HS2?
The Berkley (sic) Review written by a man ho resigned from the Oakervee review because he didn’t like its conclusions, but was unable to show where they were wrong other than to make vague statements that he believed Oakervee was too conservative in his estimates?
The Berkley (sic) Review that said the solution was to upgrade existing infrastructure, which actually forgot we had recently upgraded the WCML at vast expense and enormous disruption while signally (😀) failing to achieve a single one of the objectives of the upgrade?
That Berkeley review?
Because I’m not altogether sold on its accuracy.
Of course not. You would rather believe the claims of those who actually have a massive financial interest in making sure the project goes ahead - HS2 themselves. And yet even their estimates have now more than doubled.
I would rather believe the claims of those who use actual evidence to support their statements. As Berkeley does not.
They may be wrong. However, so may Berkeley be, and given he’s been wrong all the way through and clearly has the largest of ideological axes to grind he has the bigger credibility gap.
Well the Institute for Government - whilst pointing out some areas they think Berkeley may be wrong - are happy to include his estimates.
Meanwhile HS2 themselves have now doubled their estimates.
Please provide any links to show that HS2 think that costs have doubled on their estimates,
£46bn the original P95 is more than half of £86bn, the current P95.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
It's not much further than between the RER and metro platforms at Châtelet–Les Halles in Paris.
It's a shorter distance than Bank to Monument I think.
When I was 19, I worked at Cannon St and went for a drink after work in a bar called Deacons. My then girlfriend worked at Marble Arch and got the Central Line to Bank, walked to monument, then got the District Line one stop to Cannon St to meet me!
Lol, that's got to be a longer walk than just walking past Mansion House.
My wife, who TBF is American, was doing a masters at UCL but had tutorials at Kings. For weeks she was complaining she didn’t have time to get there until I found out she was taking the Northern Line from Euston to London Bridge, then the train to Charing X, then walking down the Strand to Kings. Much hilarity ensued when I explained the flaw in this plan.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
Seems like the hybrid bill design made a lot of the options for airport terminal style connection not feasible, without major redesign. Instead it looks like they are going for an option of planting a few shrubs on the walking route (and maybe making it easier to cross the roads?) If Crossrail 2 ever happens it looks like it would involve a new station in between Euston and St Pancras, so maybe then something a bit better would be worked out, linking the whole caboodle together.
I think it's a shame that they haven't done something specifically to create an attractive alternative to taking the circle line for 1 stop, which seems like a mad option, but one that they are encouraging with providing step-free access to the circle line at Euston. Why would you want to clog up the circle line with international passengers dragging loads of luggage around?
Northern line, surely. Circle and Met are Euston square which is in the wrong direction.
It just seems like they're half arsing it and spending a lot of money to do so.
As a ucl alumnus I’ve always found it strange and annoying that euston square isn’t linked to euston, and you have to cross the road to euston square to get the circle line
It’s a bit like the cosmic weirdness around the various stations, lines and alternatives at shepherds bush. Omfg
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
It's not much further than between the RER and metro platforms at Châtelet–Les Halles in Paris.
It's a shorter distance than Bank to Monument I think.
It's not just 900yds, it's a change.
I've done Leeds to Ashford International a few occasions, 2tph both n inbound and outbound, and that is typically a 45 min change with family (15 min too tight even though 99% of the distance is on concourse). I reckon if I was doing it monthly and fully oriented I'd have the 15 minute change off pat, but let's say relatively few travellers reach that level of instant orientation . A direct train would probably sit in London for a bit, but I reckon the transfer just from KGX to St Pancras is a 35 minute loss compared to what direct would be.
I reckon for North of London to the continent, that is at least an hour loss compared to a theoretical direct train, plus Eurostar is a bit less walk-up in nature for through ticketting compared to a Javelin.
It would've been really good, well beyond 900yds or moving walkway good, to have a direct route for even just a few trains a day, but hey-ho.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
It's not much further than between the RER and metro platforms at Châtelet–Les Halles in Paris.
It's a shorter distance than Bank to Monument I think.
It's not just 900yds, it's a change.
I've done Leeds to Ashford International a few occasions, 2tph both n inbound and outbound, and that is typically a 45 min change with family (15 min too tight even though 99% of the distance is on concourse). I reckon if I was doing it monthly and fully oriented I'd have the 15 minute change off pat, but let's say relatively few travellers reach that level of instant orientation . A direct train would probably sit in London for a bit, but I reckon the transfer just from KGX to St Pancras is a 35 minute loss compared to what direct would be.
I reckon for North of London to the continent, that is at least an hour loss compared to a theoretical direct train, plus Eurostar is a bit less walk-up in nature for through ticketting compared to a Javelin.
It would've been really good, well beyond 900yds or moving walkway good, to have a direct route for even just a few trains a day, but hey-ho.
Yeah but for that you had to knock down my part of london, so fuck that
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
It's not much further than between the RER and metro platforms at Châtelet–Les Halles in Paris.
It's a shorter distance than Bank to Monument I think.
It's not just 900yds, it's a change.
I've done Leeds to Ashford International a few occasions, 2tph both n inbound and outbound, and that is typically a 45 min change with family (15 min too tight even though 99% of the distance is on concourse). I reckon if I was doing it monthly and fully oriented I'd have the 15 minute change off pat, but let's say relatively few travellers reach that level of instant orientation . A direct train would probably sit in London for a bit, but I reckon the transfer just from KGX to St Pancras is a 35 minute loss compared to what direct would be.
I reckon for North of London to the continent, that is at least an hour loss compared to a theoretical direct train, plus Eurostar is a bit less walk-up in nature for through ticketting compared to a Javelin.
It would've been really good, well beyond 900yds or moving walkway good, to have a direct route for even just a few trains a day, but hey-ho.
Yeah but for that you had to knock down my part of london, so fuck that
Is that supposed to be on the pro list, or the con list?
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
Seems like the hybrid bill design made a lot of the options for airport terminal style connection not feasible, without major redesign. Instead it looks like they are going for an option of planting a few shrubs on the walking route (and maybe making it easier to cross the roads?) If Crossrail 2 ever happens it looks like it would involve a new station in between Euston and St Pancras, so maybe then something a bit better would be worked out, linking the whole caboodle together.
I think it's a shame that they haven't done something specifically to create an attractive alternative to taking the circle line for 1 stop, which seems like a mad option, but one that they are encouraging with providing step-free access to the circle line at Euston. Why would you want to clog up the circle line with international passengers dragging loads of luggage around?
Northern line, surely. Circle and Met are Euston square which is in the wrong direction.
It just seems like they're half arsing it and spending a lot of money to do so.
As a ucl alumnus I’ve always found it strange and annoying that euston square isn’t linked to euston, and you have to cross the road to euston square to get the circle line
It’s a bit like the cosmic weirdness around the various stations, lines and alternatives at shepherds bush. Omfg
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
Agree 100%.
Just dialling back two or three comments; to be clear, the point of High Speed 2 isn't High Speed. Of all the problems with rail in this country, the adrquacy of journey times between London and Manchester is not high up the list. What HS2 is about is capacity. We do not have enough capacity on our rails - especially the WCML - to run all the services we would like (inter-city, local and freight), In particualr, mixing high speed and low speed kills capacity (freight and local can mix reasonably well as both average a similar speed). So what we need is new track. If we are doing this, why not engineer it so that it can go as fast? But speed is not the driver.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
Seems like the hybrid bill design made a lot of the options for airport terminal style connection not feasible, without major redesign. Instead it looks like they are going for an option of planting a few shrubs on the walking route (and maybe making it easier to cross the roads?) If Crossrail 2 ever happens it looks like it would involve a new station in between Euston and St Pancras, so maybe then something a bit better would be worked out, linking the whole caboodle together.
I think it's a shame that they haven't done something specifically to create an attractive alternative to taking the circle line for 1 stop, which seems like a mad option, but one that they are encouraging with providing step-free access to the circle line at Euston. Why would you want to clog up the circle line with international passengers dragging loads of luggage around?
Northern line, surely. Circle and Met are Euston square which is in the wrong direction.
It just seems like they're half arsing it and spending a lot of money to do so.
As a ucl alumnus I’ve always found it strange and annoying that euston square isn’t linked to euston, and you have to cross the road to euston square to get the circle line
It’s a bit like the cosmic weirdness around the various stations, lines and alternatives at shepherds bush. Omfg
Simple reason is that most of the tube lines and stations, especially in the centre, were built by separate companies, sometimes competing sometimes cooperating.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
Agree 100%.
Just dialling back two or three comments; to be clear, the point of High Speed 2 isn't High Speed. Of all the problems with rail in this country, the adrquacy of journey times between London and Manchester is not high up the list. What HS2 is about is capacity. We do not have enough capacity on our rails - especially the WCML - to run all the services we would like (inter-city, local and freight), In particualr, mixing high speed and low speed kills capacity (freight and local can mix reasonably well as both average a similar speed). So what we need is new track. If we are doing this, why not engineer it so that it can go as fast? But speed is not the driver.
It it is also about proximity.
Forget the North/Manchester for a minute - Places like Derby and many others in the Midlands will be within meeting distance of London rather than a need to spend a day,
Both ways.
Libs Dems are furiously pushing Nimby agendas. Head 'o' the Mob politics.
Although Tim Farron had a piece praising Easleigh Borough LD Council taking over from the developers to build loadsahouses, which works until you drill down and find the local community are now opposing the LDs.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
It's not much further than between the RER and metro platforms at Châtelet–Les Halles in Paris.
It's a shorter distance than Bank to Monument I think.
When I was 19, I worked at Cannon St and went for a drink after work in a bar called Deacons. My then girlfriend worked at Marble Arch and got the Central Line to Bank, walked to monument, then got the District Line one stop to Cannon St to meet me!
We should be able to bypass the hellhole that is Central London.
Nimbys raise there head again. The MP questioning the need of East West Rail because of the pandemic , is just trying to find an excuse to cancel the final phase of the scheme for linking Oxford to Cambridge. The first two phases involve refurbishing/rebuilding the original route. They cant do that for the bit between Sandy and Cambridge because the rail line has been built on. A new line is needed.
Not because of overcrowded existing rail lines, but because of overcrowded roads and this area of England (ROSE or Rest of South East England) has long been one the highest areas of population growth. The line is not about avoiding going into London, but is about connecting existing towns and allowing greater links between them and the people who want to travel between them.
It is expected that several million more people will move to be near Oxford, Aylesbury, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge in the coming decades, all high tech growth zones.
The new east west expressway has been given the chop (well the bit between Milton Keynes and Oxford, though the weasel words alternative schemes were used, so expect more expensive widening schemes that increase capacity less and several new dual carriageways that don't link up into one scheme, that people will bitch about in decades to come.
The new stretch of railway is proposing to demolish a hundred or so house inBedford to allow it be six tracked through the town and the line would swing North East and Then East to Cambourne (one of Cambridges main housing growth areas and then south around to approach to cambridge to the South allowing it to connect directly to the newly proposed Cambridge South and the Biomedical cluster there. Cambridge is the countries top high tech growth cluster and needs to be expended rapidly to allow it to grow. It needs a lot of infrastructure.
The absence of a motorway linking Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford is absolutely stark raving bonkers!
The notion that more rail connections to London is what the nation needs instead of connections like that is absolute insanity.
I swear this won't end until there is a moratorium on any civil servants working in London. Then they'd realise there's a country outside the capital.
Given the huge amounts of London-generated money that subsidises the rest of the country, if anything it's the other way around. Transport spending is spare change compared to the welfare bill.
Nimbys raise there head again. The MP questioning the need of East West Rail because of the pandemic , is just trying to find an excuse to cancel the final phase of the scheme for linking Oxford to Cambridge. The first two phases involve refurbishing/rebuilding the original route. They cant do that for the bit between Sandy and Cambridge because the rail line has been built on. A new line is needed.
Not because of overcrowded existing rail lines, but because of overcrowded roads and this area of England (ROSE or Rest of South East England) has long been one the highest areas of population growth. The line is not about avoiding going into London, but is about connecting existing towns and allowing greater links between them and the people who want to travel between them.
It is expected that several million more people will move to be near Oxford, Aylesbury, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge in the coming decades, all high tech growth zones.
The new east west expressway has been given the chop (well the bit between Milton Keynes and Oxford, though the weasel words alternative schemes were used, so expect more expensive widening schemes that increase capacity less and several new dual carriageways that don't link up into one scheme, that people will bitch about in decades to come.
The new stretch of railway is proposing to demolish a hundred or so house inBedford to allow it be six tracked through the town and the line would swing North East and Then East to Cambourne (one of Cambridges main housing growth areas and then south around to approach to cambridge to the South allowing it to connect directly to the newly proposed Cambridge South and the Biomedical cluster there. Cambridge is the countries top high tech growth cluster and needs to be expended rapidly to allow it to grow. It needs a lot of infrastructure.
The absence of a motorway linking Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford is absolutely stark raving bonkers!
The notion that more rail connections to London is what the nation needs instead of connections like that is absolute insanity.
I swear this won't end until there is a moratorium on any civil servants working in London. Then they'd realise there's a country outside the capital.
Given the huge amounts of London-generated money that subsidises the rest of the country, if anything it's the other way around. Transport spending is spare change compared to the welfare bill.
"London-generated" money when the overwhelming majority of the entire nations civil service etc infrastructure, business HQs etc is located in London. So the wages of those are accrued to the entire country, because they're supposed to be working for us, while their expenditure gets spent in London based companies with a multiplier effect as a result.
Nimbys raise there head again. The MP questioning the need of East West Rail because of the pandemic , is just trying to find an excuse to cancel the final phase of the scheme for linking Oxford to Cambridge. The first two phases involve refurbishing/rebuilding the original route. They cant do that for the bit between Sandy and Cambridge because the rail line has been built on. A new line is needed.
Not because of overcrowded existing rail lines, but because of overcrowded roads and this area of England (ROSE or Rest of South East England) has long been one the highest areas of population growth. The line is not about avoiding going into London, but is about connecting existing towns and allowing greater links between them and the people who want to travel between them.
It is expected that several million more people will move to be near Oxford, Aylesbury, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge in the coming decades, all high tech growth zones.
The new east west expressway has been given the chop (well the bit between Milton Keynes and Oxford, though the weasel words alternative schemes were used, so expect more expensive widening schemes that increase capacity less and several new dual carriageways that don't link up into one scheme, that people will bitch about in decades to come.
The new stretch of railway is proposing to demolish a hundred or so house inBedford to allow it be six tracked through the town and the line would swing North East and Then East to Cambourne (one of Cambridges main housing growth areas and then south around to approach to cambridge to the South allowing it to connect directly to the newly proposed Cambridge South and the Biomedical cluster there. Cambridge is the countries top high tech growth cluster and needs to be expended rapidly to allow it to grow. It needs a lot of infrastructure.
The absence of a motorway linking Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford is absolutely stark raving bonkers!
The notion that more rail connections to London is what the nation needs instead of connections like that is absolute insanity.
I swear this won't end until there is a moratorium on any civil servants working in London. Then they'd realise there's a country outside the capital.
Given the huge amounts of London-generated money that subsidises the rest of the country, if anything it's the other way around. Transport spending is spare change compared to the welfare bill.
"London-generated" money when the overwhelming majority of the entire nations civil service etc infrastructure, business HQs etc is located in London. So the wages of those are accrued to the entire country, because they're supposed to be working for us, while their expenditure gets spent in London based companies with a multiplier effect as a result.
How about ending London weighting? A job is a job wherever it is done. Pandemic lesson.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
Agree 100%.
Just dialling back two or three comments; to be clear, the point of High Speed 2 isn't High Speed. Of all the problems with rail in this country, the adrquacy of journey times between London and Manchester is not high up the list. What HS2 is about is capacity. We do not have enough capacity on our rails - especially the WCML - to run all the services we would like (inter-city, local and freight), In particualr, mixing high speed and low speed kills capacity (freight and local can mix reasonably well as both average a similar speed). So what we need is new track. If we are doing this, why not engineer it so that it can go as fast? But speed is not the driver.
It it is also about proximity.
Forget the North/Manchester for a minute - Places like Derby and many others in the Midlands will be within meeting distance of London rather than a need to spend a day,
Both ways.
Libs Dems are furiously pushing Nimby agendas. Head 'o' the Mob politics.
Although Tim Farron had a piece praising Easleigh Borough LD Council taking over from the developers to build loadsahouses, which works until you drill down and find the local community are now opposing the LDs.
Derby to London is currently 1 hr 36 minutes. With HS2 it is planned to be 52 minutes. But first you have to get from Derby to Toton.
If 30 minutes makes that much of a difference to whether or not you are "within meeting distance of London" then maybe you should be asking why you are going in the first place.
Nimbys raise there head again. The MP questioning the need of East West Rail because of the pandemic , is just trying to find an excuse to cancel the final phase of the scheme for linking Oxford to Cambridge. The first two phases involve refurbishing/rebuilding the original route. They cant do that for the bit between Sandy and Cambridge because the rail line has been built on. A new line is needed.
Not because of overcrowded existing rail lines, but because of overcrowded roads and this area of England (ROSE or Rest of South East England) has long been one the highest areas of population growth. The line is not about avoiding going into London, but is about connecting existing towns and allowing greater links between them and the people who want to travel between them.
It is expected that several million more people will move to be near Oxford, Aylesbury, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge in the coming decades, all high tech growth zones.
The new east west expressway has been given the chop (well the bit between Milton Keynes and Oxford, though the weasel words alternative schemes were used, so expect more expensive widening schemes that increase capacity less and several new dual carriageways that don't link up into one scheme, that people will bitch about in decades to come.
The new stretch of railway is proposing to demolish a hundred or so house inBedford to allow it be six tracked through the town and the line would swing North East and Then East to Cambourne (one of Cambridges main housing growth areas and then south around to approach to cambridge to the South allowing it to connect directly to the newly proposed Cambridge South and the Biomedical cluster there. Cambridge is the countries top high tech growth cluster and needs to be expended rapidly to allow it to grow. It needs a lot of infrastructure.
The absence of a motorway linking Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford is absolutely stark raving bonkers!
The notion that more rail connections to London is what the nation needs instead of connections like that is absolute insanity.
I swear this won't end until there is a moratorium on any civil servants working in London. Then they'd realise there's a country outside the capital.
Given the huge amounts of London-generated money that subsidises the rest of the country, if anything it's the other way around. Transport spending is spare change compared to the welfare bill.
"London-generated" money when the overwhelming majority of the entire nations civil service etc infrastructure, business HQs etc is located in London. So the wages of those are accrued to the entire country, because they're supposed to be working for us, while their expenditure gets spent in London based companies with a multiplier effect as a result.
How about ending London weighting? A job is a job wherever it is done. Pandemic lesson.
Absolutely 100%.
If it's not competitive for the job to be filled without a London weighting then don't fill it. Fill it elsewhere.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
Agree 100%.
Just dialling back two or three comments; to be clear, the point of High Speed 2 isn't High Speed. Of all the problems with rail in this country, the adrquacy of journey times between London and Manchester is not high up the list. What HS2 is about is capacity. We do not have enough capacity on our rails - especially the WCML - to run all the services we would like (inter-city, local and freight), In particualr, mixing high speed and low speed kills capacity (freight and local can mix reasonably well as both average a similar speed). So what we need is new track. If we are doing this, why not engineer it so that it can go as fast? But speed is not the driver.
It it is also about proximity.
Forget the North/Manchester for a minute - Places like Derby and many others in the Midlands will be within meeting distance of London rather than a need to spend a day,
Both ways.
Libs Dems are furiously pushing Nimby agendas. Head 'o' the Mob politics.
Although Tim Farron had a piece praising Easleigh Borough LD Council taking over from the developers to build loadsahouses, which works until you drill down and find the local community are now opposing the LDs.
Derby to London is currently 1 hr 36 minutes. With HS2 it is planned to be 52 minutes. But first you have to get from Derby to Toton.
If 30 minutes makes that much of a difference to whether or not you are "within meeting distance of London" then maybe you should be asking why you are going in the first place.
Hmmm. Yes but no but yes but no. Such differences do change cases.
Consider the wider area - and the difference between say Newark and Shirebrook.
I wonder if Great Jumping Jolyon will jump on this one?
It may be exactly his sort of trolling opportunity.
Ok. Being a touch more serious.
Yes - the current legal arrangements under the 1829 (!) Roman Catholic Relief Act section 18 which make this difference. Do they matter?
Is this a dot and tittle which is part of the marvellous backdrop which may be tehnically discrimatory, but is also a practical dead letter as the PM only gets one name to affirm under the abstruse arrangement.
Is it something that should have time spent on it?
For a comparator, should France spend time on bring the legal arrangements for laicite in areas which were recovered from Germany in 1918 in full alignment with the rest of France ie Alsace etc? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_France
And of course the two main people quoted are Independent Sage members, which I notice many don't have in their twitter handles....its like they are trying to keep it on the down low these days.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
Why not spend £300bn on roads if it makes sense.
Just make up a number and spend that much.
It would make far more sense than HS2 👍
The entire road budget combined is less than HS2 - but far more transport is done in cars than rails.
So why are the government not doing it then ?
If it makes so much sense to spend £300bn what is holding them back ?
The Civil Service has a quasi religious devotion to public transport and a notion that roads are bad for the environment.
Primarily by people who spend all day living and working in and around London that think the Tube is the way to live and don't realise that most people in this country drive.
Actually, £150 billion being invested in charging infrastructure would go a long way to making electric cars and motor scooters more viable. It is range anxiety that is the biggest reason that puts people off electric vehicles.
In an electric car world, roads are not so bad for the environment.
If you ignore the current energy generation mix, and the production of batteries. Pluses and minuses.
The current energy generation mix for the UK is 50% gas, 30% wind, 20% nuclear.
The Republicans have an opportunity to reduce the Dems HoR majority to 7 seats with a special election in New Mexico on Tuesday.
"Special House election measures political pulse after Trump A special congressional election is testing the pulse of politics in the Albuquerque metro area and a few outlying rural communities at a turning point in the pandemic and economic recovery"
Coming back to the byelections.....I would imagine the perfect result for Conservatives would be to gain B&S and hold C&A....is there anyone who is offering that as a bet? as it seems ambitious to me..... although separate the two contests, and it seems straightforward.
The above would have been seen as an incredible achievement back in the 90s..
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).
It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.
It's not much further than between the RER and metro platforms at Châtelet–Les Halles in Paris.
It's a shorter distance than Bank to Monument I think.
It's not just 900yds, it's a change.
I've done Leeds to Ashford International a few occasions, 2tph both n inbound and outbound, and that is typically a 45 min change with family (15 min too tight even though 99% of the distance is on concourse). I reckon if I was doing it monthly and fully oriented I'd have the 15 minute change off pat, but let's say relatively few travellers reach that level of instant orientation . A direct train would probably sit in London for a bit, but I reckon the transfer just from KGX to St Pancras is a 35 minute loss compared to what direct would be.
I reckon for North of London to the continent, that is at least an hour loss compared to a theoretical direct train, plus Eurostar is a bit less walk-up in nature for through ticketting compared to a Javelin.
It would've been really good, well beyond 900yds or moving walkway good, to have a direct route for even just a few trains a day, but hey-ho.
Yeah but for that you had to knock down my part of london, so fuck that
I drive through it last weekend; it looks like a dump already
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.
Agree 100%.
Just dialling back two or three comments; to be clear, the point of High Speed 2 isn't High Speed. Of all the problems with rail in this country, the adrquacy of journey times between London and Manchester is not high up the list. What HS2 is about is capacity. We do not have enough capacity on our rails - especially the WCML - to run all the services we would like (inter-city, local and freight), In particualr, mixing high speed and low speed kills capacity (freight and local can mix reasonably well as both average a similar speed). So what we need is new track. If we are doing this, why not engineer it so that it can go as fast? But speed is not the driver.
It it is also about proximity.
Forget the North/Manchester for a minute - Places like Derby and many others in the Midlands will be within meeting distance of London rather than a need to spend a day,
Both ways.
Libs Dems are furiously pushing Nimby agendas. Head 'o' the Mob politics.
Although Tim Farron had a piece praising Easleigh Borough LD Council taking over from the developers to build loadsahouses, which works until you drill down and find the local community are now opposing the LDs.
Derby to London is currently 1 hr 36 minutes. With HS2 it is planned to be 52 minutes. But first you have to get from Derby to Toton.
If 30 minutes makes that much of a difference to whether or not you are "within meeting distance of London" then maybe you should be asking why you are going in the first place.
Remember in the early-60s going to Toton - an uncle worked there. Unimaginably vast. For a 3 or 4 year old kid who still hadn't had his first train set, it was heaven. So many thousand coal trucks for the heart of power generation in the East Midlands, as well as iron ore for Stanton and Staveley.
I do wish journalists wouldn't resort to hyperbole saying that London will be "unrecognisable" by the mid 2020s. I've seen those images too and London looks very recognisable. And outside the City and Canary Wharf, and to a far lesser extent Nine Elms/Battersea, there really aren't any skyscrapers in London.
The only one that sticks out (inappropriately, in my view) is The Shard.
It's a building for Abu Dhabi, not London.
What would Abu Dhabi want, with such a short building?
Comments
They have an 80 seat majority, why worry about the 'green lobby'?
In an electric car world, roads are not so bad for the environment.
I can see why Joe Rukin made a good living out of being the head honcho at Stop HS2, during which time he never knowingly told the truth. There are too many people deeply invested in stopping the project at all costs, because they dislike it for more or less visceral reasons.
And yet, it is by far the most effective way to solve a huge problem - how do we create capacity on the WCML and particularly at crunch points such as Birmingham New Street, Stafford and Rugby, that are throttling the railway network?
It’s also quite instructive, as I noted above, to compare them to the arguments advanced against the London and Birmingham, the Great Western Main Line and indeed the North Eastern Railway, nearly strangled at birth by Lord Howick because he wanted it to be nearer his house. I begin to understand more clearly the fierceness of the debates over the issue.
Ultimately, the arguments however passionately advanced are moot. HS2 is going ahead in its entirety. My guess is it will eventually run 12tph at around 190 mph, and allow an extra 10-15 tph on the WCML, meaning overall around 43 tph instead of the 16 at present. Which should help freight and passenger numbers and give the antis plenty of ammunition to say it didn’t achieve what it was supposed to. Again, like every railway ever built.
And on that cheering thought that everyone might get what they want, good night.
The £27bn will do far more and than HS2 ever will - and includes multiple plans specific for Manchester for what its worth.
The HS2 budget spent on this would have done far more for levelling up but for far too many people its almost anathema to suggest new or upgraded roads at the minute.
The £27bn road scheme is covering work on 4000 miles of roads: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/11/chancellor-announces-27bn-for-roadbuilding-in-budget
Not all of that will be new roads, some of that will be fixing potholes etc but that's still valuable work.
I don't believe for one second that £100bn in roads would have provided less of an impact than £100bn for HS2 - but HS2 is shiny rails to play with, while roads are considered dirty but are the arteries of how the nation lives.
The only one that sticks out (inappropriately, in my view) is The Shard.
It's a building for Abu Dhabi, not London.
But arguing that “doubling” is wrong because it has only gone up 87% is a bus-sized mistake
Getting our roads moving, eliminating road congestion, and ensuring our cars, HGVs etc on the roads are electric would do far more for the economy, most people's livelihoods and lifestyles, "levelling up" and the environment than any amount of trains in the same time will do.
It's a weird one. On that basis you'd rip up all the existing motorways, A-roads and domestic aviation links on the basis they did too.
You build better communications and infrastructure around a country to link it up, allow it to partake in the wider economy, and facilitate future investment. There's evidence going back hundreds of years on this. Otherwise, we'd never have industralised.
CAMDEN SAID NO
So why should we believe that Berkeley is wrong in his £110 billion claims?
Despite having a resounding mandate from members to introduce more transparency into the party’s finances, I have not received the support or financial information to carry out the fiduciary duties of National Treasurer. Regretfully I have resigned with immediate effect 1/2
I do not intend to make a further statement on this issue. 2/2
The SNP's accounts must be hiding something very interesting, seems to be exceptionally hard for anyone not sleeping with Mrs Sturgeon to access them. This is what, 4th or 5th SNP resignation over it?
Wings over Bath may have actually scored a hit.
Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted
https://www.anthonybrowne.org/news/minister-confirms-covid-impact-tests-anthony-asks-prime-minister-east-west-rail-review
The PM was insistent that commuting will come back and that "it needs to come back".
In 2017, 5% of all freight lifted in Great Britain was on rail (76.4 million tonnes). The proportion of freight lifted on the rail network was the same as it was in 2016. Freight lifted by road (HGV) was 89% and 6% was taken by water.
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1257/freight-rail-usage-2018-19-quarter-4.pdf
Freight just as commuting is overwhelmingly moved by roads in this nation not rails.
So why are we pandering obsessively to 5% of the country rather than dealing with 89%?
It’s amazing how many scientists the Guardian can dig up from Britain, and now the wider world, who believe that the U.K. is on the brink of a catastrophic third wave as a result of its incautious reopening plans, but apparently the US and the rest of Europe have got it licked.
With silver bracelets on her wrists
And flowers in her hair.
She walked up to me so gracefully,
Took my crown of thorns.
"Come in," she said "I'll give you
Shelter from the storm.
I think that we can now conclude that the primary purpose of public transport in the south east of England is to deliver customers to branches of Pret in central London. HS2 is therefore one hell of a subsidy for a sandwich shop.
The motorways, A-roads etc are what is actually used by 90% of the country.
The rails are what is used by about 10% of the country, and apparently about 5% of freight.
Yet the London-based people think the best way to level up the north is not to improve the heavily congested roads etc that are actually used, but instead to take decades to build shiny new express rails to get to London.
How about upgrading or improving the M62? Or building new equivalents? I bet you far more people in the M62 corridor and far more freight from there too is moved on the M62 than will ever be moved on HS2.
Don't rip up the motorways that are actually used, expand them and improve them. You can improve London by upgrading the Tube network, you can improve the North by improving its road network.
Eliminate all legal restrictions but advise that where its possible to work from home then do so.
Especially for those who are currently unvaccinated, if they're fine to work from home why should they be compelled back early?
But let those who want to live as normal eliminate all social distancing mandated by law. Let distancing instead be a choice.
A sound investment is a sound investment. It shouldn’t be constrained by alleged resource prioritisation.
Rather fun writing it sat on my terrace in scorching sun. I could have been in the Med .....
What I’m looking forward to is the post-covid high speed sleeper trains from London to Rome, or Barcelona, or Lisbon. Imagine! You go to sleep somewhere around Ashford Tesco Extra, you wake up by Lake Garda, hurtling towards the Eternal City
Rail budget ought to be ~5% to 10% of road budget based upon how they actually get used, instead HS2 is about 400% of road budgets. What a farce.
Seems like the hybrid bill design made a lot of the options for airport terminal style connection not feasible, without major redesign. Instead it looks like they are going for an option of planting a few shrubs on the walking route (and maybe making it easier to cross the roads?) If Crossrail 2 ever happens it looks like it would involve a new station in between Euston and St Pancras, so maybe then something a bit better would be worked out, linking the whole caboodle together.
I think it's a shame that they haven't done something specifically to create an attractive alternative to taking the circle line for 1 stop, which seems like a mad option, but one that they are encouraging with providing step-free access to the circle line at Euston. Why would you want to clog up the circle line with international passengers dragging loads of luggage around?
Not because of overcrowded existing rail lines, but because of overcrowded roads and this area of England (ROSE or Rest of South East England) has long been one the highest areas of population growth. The line is not about avoiding going into London, but is about connecting existing towns and allowing greater links between them and the people who want to travel between them.
It is expected that several million more people will move to be near Oxford, Aylesbury, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge in the coming decades, all high tech growth zones.
The new east west expressway has been given the chop (well the bit between Milton Keynes and Oxford, though the weasel words alternative schemes were used, so expect more expensive widening schemes that increase capacity less and several new dual carriageways that don't link up into one scheme, that people will bitch about in decades to come.
The new stretch of railway is proposing to demolish a hundred or so house inBedford to allow it be six tracked through the town and the line would swing North East and Then East to Cambourne (one of Cambridges main housing growth areas and then south around to approach to cambridge to the South allowing it to connect directly to the newly proposed Cambridge South and the Biomedical cluster there. Cambridge is the countries top high tech growth cluster and needs to be expended rapidly to allow it to grow. It needs a lot of infrastructure.
It just seems like they're half arsing it and spending a lot of money to do so.
But agree about the need for the railway. All the more so if the road is canned.
The notion that more rail connections to London is what the nation needs instead of connections like that is absolute insanity.
I swear this won't end until there is a moratorium on any civil servants working in London. Then they'd realise there's a country outside the capital.
I think the link to the circle line is part of the rebuild of Euston Station. If it's in the wrong direction might explain why it doesn't save any journey time over the walk - which will be open to the elements.
The options paper envisages passengers taking taxis between the two, which seems absurd for 750m, but if you have a deal of luggage, and aren't too fit, or it's dark and wet, might well seem like a good option.
A bit embarrassing really.
It’s a bit like the cosmic weirdness around the various stations, lines and alternatives at shepherds bush. Omfg
I've done Leeds to Ashford International a few occasions, 2tph both n inbound and outbound, and that is typically a 45 min change with family (15 min too tight even though 99% of the distance is on concourse). I reckon if I was doing it monthly and fully oriented I'd have the 15 minute change off pat, but let's say relatively few travellers reach that level of instant orientation . A direct train would probably sit in London for a bit, but I reckon the transfer just from KGX to St Pancras is a 35 minute loss compared to what direct would be.
I reckon for North of London to the continent, that is at least an hour loss compared to a theoretical direct train, plus Eurostar is a bit less walk-up in nature for through ticketting compared to a Javelin.
It would've been really good, well beyond 900yds or moving walkway good, to have a direct route for even just a few trains a day, but hey-ho.
What HS2 is about is capacity. We do not have enough capacity on our rails - especially the WCML - to run all the services we would like (inter-city, local and freight), In particualr, mixing high speed and low speed kills capacity (freight and local can mix reasonably well as both average a similar speed). So what we need is new track. If we are doing this, why not engineer it so that it can go as fast? But speed is not the driver.
If he does, he loses his job
Joshua Rozenberg"
https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/boris-can-no-longer-pick-bishops
It may be exactly his sort of trolling opportunity.
Forget the North/Manchester for a minute - Places like Derby and many others in the Midlands will be within meeting distance of London rather than a need to spend a day,
Both ways.
Libs Dems are furiously pushing Nimby agendas. Head 'o' the Mob politics.
Although Tim Farron had a piece praising Easleigh Borough LD Council taking over from the developers to build loadsahouses, which works until you drill down and find the local community are now opposing the LDs.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/tim-farron-planning-reforms-are-an-ineffective-illiberal-and-dangerous-powergrab-67780.html
With HS2 it is planned to be 52 minutes. But first you have to get from Derby to Toton.
If 30 minutes makes that much of a difference to whether or not you are "within meeting distance of London" then maybe you should be asking why you are going in the first place.
If it's not competitive for the job to be filled without a London weighting then don't fill it. Fill it elsewhere.
The guest list was capped thanks to the PM’s own lockdown rules which dictate that only 30 people can attend weddings at the moment.
After June 21 the cap is expected to be ripped up, allowing unlimited numbers to big bash wedding celebrations.
Some thought there could be a reception party later in the year for politicians to heal some of the upset among the PM’s colleagues.
Cabinet ministers expressed a complete surprise at a lack of invite to the close-knit ceremony and said it was “bad party management”.'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15115834/boris-johnsons-wedding-secrets-revealed/
Consider the wider area - and the difference between say Newark and Shirebrook.
Yes - the current legal arrangements under the 1829 (!) Roman Catholic Relief Act section 18 which make this difference. Do they matter?
Is this a dot and tittle which is part of the marvellous backdrop which may be tehnically discrimatory, but is also a practical dead letter as the PM only gets one name to affirm under the abstruse arrangement.
Is it something that should have time spent on it?
For a comparator, should France spend time on bring the legal arrangements for laicite in areas which were recovered from Germany in 1918 in full alignment with the rest of France ie Alsace etc?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_France
Does it really matter in 2021?
And of course the two main people quoted are Independent Sage members, which I notice many don't have in their twitter handles....its like they are trying to keep it on the down low these days.
I think that's a pretty good mix.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57302806
Where is the UNIIIIITTTTYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
"Special House election measures political pulse after Trump
A special congressional election is testing the pulse of politics in the Albuquerque metro area and a few outlying rural communities at a turning point in the pandemic and economic recovery"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/special-house-election-measures-political-pulse-after-trump-joe-biden-deb-haaland-donald-trump-albuquerque-democratic-b1856507.html
The above would have been seen as an incredible achievement back in the 90s..
https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/how-toton-sidings-became-huge-257056
Mr. B2, how hot is it, and where are you?