It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
Not sure I have ever said that, in my view they are so arrogant they are virtually impossible to deal with, as Cameron found out.
Personally I agree with Lord Lawson, we should pay them the courtesy of preliminary talks but once they insist the four freedoms cannot be breached, we may as well walk away.
We can get on with our situation, and leave them to realise we are not going to give in to them.
Our situation being a complete freeze on business and inward investment, higher borrowing costs, and the UK's exclusion from hundreds of international agreements underpinning the import and export of just about every kind of product you can imagine. That really would teach the EU27 a lesson!
The rest of the EU represents 15% of the world. If they don't want to trade with us we can still trade with the other 85% to whom we have not given our full attention whilst we have been in the EU.
No, we can't. If we walk out of the talks with no deal we will be severely hampered in trading elsewhere by our no longer being part of many hundreds of international agreements covering all kinds of trade and travel not only inside the EU but outside of it as well.
We will grandfather in the vast majority of those deals and sign more elsewhere. There will be some disruption of course, which is why it's preferable to get a deal, but not at any cost. Conservative economic reform always has a disruption period while it beds in, but it is usually for the better.
We can only grandfather deals in if that is agreed by the other parties to the deals, including the EU.
While it would be easier to get the EU's agreement, we can easily rewrite a few articles in those treaties to effectively grandfather them in with it.
Just so I understand: what you are saying is that we can insert ourselves into deals even if parties to those deals say that we can't? Are you Owen Paterson?
Mr. M, there will be a print edition of Traitor's Prize, but it won't be out for a little while. Much better to buy the Kindle edition first
Our negotiating position might be better if May weren't a numpty, and if Cameron had allowed rather than forbade the Civil Service to start laying the groundwork.
If Gary Ballance is a test quality batsman then so am I.
Jennings and Ballance should be dropped. Opening bats like Jennings should not be bowled through the gate and Balance as I've said on here before is a walking LBW case.
Can we have a thread header outlining what leaving without a deal would actually mean to help confirm or refute the claims of both sides. No deal means [A] letting all the intertwined treaties fall and i have heard suggestions that [B] planes couldnt fly and the [C] ports would be chaos. Surely there has got to be some form of [D] minimum deal to prevent this and other things i'm not aware of happening.
[A] Article 50 is explicit. All treaties between the EU and the UK lapse on exit (ie March 2019) [B] UK based planes would not be certified or probably insured to fly to the EU and elsewhere unless a set of new agreements are made by that date. [C] Customs arrangements are neither in place nor being implemented for March 2019. UK trucks and drivers will be unable to pass through EU territories unless they are licensed by those countries (national competency - most countries operate tight quotas on non-EU trucks). There are plenty more [B] and [C] type issues to resolve.
Which is why there will be a limited transition arrangement made on EU terms and a minimum deal [D] will be negotiated for these no-brainer items (which won't extend to UK trucks driving on EU roads incidentally).
The negotiating space is better than nothing and less than what we have. It's a big space, but expect the end result to be a lot less than what we have, even if it is way better than nothing.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is currently last-traded as joint second favourite for next Conservative leader on Betfair, behind David Davis but level at 9.6 with Boris Johnson.
A Jacob Vs Jezza election would be the most entertaining election ever... Can you imagine the TV debates with these two?
Just so I understand: what you are saying is that we can insert ourselves into deals even if parties to those deals say that we can't? Are you Owen Paterson?
Is what Patterson is saying so unreasonable? It might be unachievable but it seems to be the agricultural equivalent of the BMW argument -- that the EU should give us free access because otherwise tariffs will harm BMW French farmers.
Mr. Gin, why? Isn't Rudd on the same page as Hammond on our EU departure?
Yes. I don't think the briefings against Hammond have much to do with Brexit actually... I think they are mainly down to;
1. Hammond is seen by some as a bit of an old fashioned, tin-eared sexist.
2. Rudd was being lined up for his job until Theresa blew her majority and he became unsackable.
3. I read she's formed some sort of strange alliance with Boris... So there's the Brexit/Boris angle.
But how does any of this help any of the various parties ?
At this rate, they will just be scrapping over who becomes leader of the opposition.
Once the Tories are out of office all of these people will be history.
At the moment the next Con leader can't come from the back-benches as it wouldn't be acceptable to have a backbencher as PM... But in Opposition they'll go for a relatively fresh face.
Re HS2 I listened to a very interesting report from the lead in delivery for the Crewe area and she was very enthusiastic. She said that London will be within 55 minutes, Birmingham and Manchester 15 minutes and she has billions in Middle East and Chinese investment to promote massive regeneration including 100,000 new homes in the area and allowing large numbers of back office and other London jobs relocating to the area.
She affirmed that the Northern Powerhouse would spread prosperity throughout the North greatly assisted by HS2 and HS3.
Indeed if you can reach London in 55 minutes and benefit from greatly reduced housing costs why wouldn't you. It is an opening to a whole new quality of life for many southern based families
Which makes it all the more puzzling why we are drowning in all this Brexit nonsense....we are on the cusp of some wonderful improvements driven by technology, science and knowledge. The fallout from Brexit, whether it's Euratom, trade, whatever..... simply demonstrate all the more that our fate is inextricably linked to Europe.
Anyway, I'm quite frankly fed up of Brexit...it's stupid, self defeating and nihilistic....it has turned the Tory party into something that resembles a festering Louisiana swamp simmering with poisonous guttersnipes instead of something that claims to govern the UK. Corbyn no more wants to be PM today than he did ten years ago...he's a lefty polemical protest politician...we need them to give the political landscape some perspective and diversity (as much as right wing polemicists like seanT) but quite honestly you do not want either close to government.
Alarmingly, I have just noticed that I am close to 4,000 posts here. At, possibly 5 mins per post, or 100 words per post, that's much too much misspent time.
Until the next election of any betting interest I'll return to lurking so I can remain under the 4,000 figure. BigJohn.....I see you as the barometer of the UK political scene. You are as central as it comes...a one nation, pro EU (sort of), pragmatic Tory underscored by a very small c, a christian democrat in all but name. I find your bafflement and worries at the prospect of a looming hard Brexit interesting.... something incidentally inflicted solely by your party, a party that you thought stood for stability, economic security...easing the country through change....and now that same party has plunged the country into an ongoing social, political, economic crisis that has no end in sight.
Me too on the near 4000 post figure. Hmm. I mostly agree on your other points.
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
Not sure I have ever said that, in my view they are so arrogant they are virtually impossible to deal with, as Cameron found out.
Personally I agree with Lord Lawson, we should pay them the courtesy of preliminary talks but once they insist the four freedoms cannot be breached, we may as well walk away.
We can get on with our situation, and leave them to realise we are not going to give in to them.
Our situation being a complete freeze on business and inward investment, higher borrowing costs, and the UK's exclusion from hundreds of international agreements underpinning the import and export of just about every kind of product you can imagine. That really would teach the EU27 a lesson!
The rest of the EU represents 15% of the world. If they don't want to trade with us we can still trade with the other 85% to whom we have not given our full attention whilst we have been in the EU.
We can only grandfather deals in if that is agreed by the other parties to the deals, including the EU.
While it would be easier to get the EU's agreement, we can easily rewrite a few articles in those treaties to effectively grandfather them in with it.
Just so I understand: what you are saying is that we can insert ourselves into deals even if parties to those deals say that we can't? Are you Owen Paterson?
I travel from Manchester to London on a regular basis, it takes around 2 hours or so now to do that journey, can anyone explain why shaving off 20 mins of that journey with HS2 is a good idea.
Have you ever travelled on HS1?
I have, frequently. It's nice, and a pleasant surprise to whizz out so quickly . But I'm still an HS2 sceptic - it is a classic example of Big Projectitis, which politicians of all parties suffer from.
The case for HS2, to be fair, is based not so much on the 20 minutes ass on the argument that growth in demand for rail services is gradually overwhelming existing capacity, so Something Must Be Done.The question is whether the big-bang HS2 is the right answer. I'm not totally opposed and I don't pretend to be a rail expert, but it's not unreasonable to question it.
It's my understanding (experts please chime in) that a slightly slower version could be done at a fraction of the construction costs - the planned speeds requiring much more solid foundations for laying the track. The terminals and land purchase would however be much the same.
That's broadly true. HSTs wear out the track and ballast faster than normal speed trains. It needs more maintenance and/or it has to be more strongly- and expensively-built. They need gentler curves and are noisier ... this makes route planning harder.
Another advantage, trains running at a steady 150 km/h (90-100 mph) use 75% less energy than at 300 km/h.
I doubt that the new fare to B'ham will be 'affordable' compared to the fare from Marylebone to Snow Hill. Also it may have dynamic pricing like airlines in which you pay £700 to fly at peak time and £40 at 6 am on a Saturday.
Can we have a thread header outlining what leaving without a deal would actually mean to help confirm or refute the claims of both sides. No deal means [A] letting all the intertwined treaties fall and i have heard suggestions that [B] planes couldnt fly and the [C] ports would be chaos. Surely there has got to be some form of [D] minimum deal to prevent this and other things i'm not aware of happening.
[A] Article 50 is explicit. All treaties between the EU and the UK lapse on exit (ie March 2019) [B] UK based planes would not be certified or probably insured to fly to the EU and elsewhere unless a set of new agreements are made by that date. [C] Customs arrangements are neither in place nor being implemented for March 2019. UK trucks and drivers will be unable to pass through EU territories unless they are licensed by those countries (national competency - most countries operate tight quotas on non-EU trucks). There are plenty more [B] and [C] type issues to resolve.
Which is why there will be a limited transition arrangement made on EU terms and a minimum deal [D] will be negotiated for these no-brainer items (which won't extend to UK trucks driving on EU roads incidentally).
The negotiating space is better than nothing and less than what we have. It's a big space, but expect the end result to be a lot less than what we have, even if it is way better than nothing.
If the end result allows us to sign our own trade deals, control migration, maintain most of our access to EU markets and pay a lower fee, it will be much better than we have now.
If the end result allows us to sign our own trade deals, control migration, maintain most of our access to EU markets and pay a lower fee, it will be much better than we have now.
Just so I understand: what you are saying is that we can insert ourselves into deals even if parties to those deals say that we can't? Are you Owen Paterson?
Is what Patterson is saying so unreasonable? It might be unachievable but it seems to be the agricultural equivalent of the BMW argument -- that the EU should give us free access because otherwise tariffs will harm BMW French farmers.
They need to rebrand it as a Remoaner Tax. If you're so unpatriotic that you have German white goods or drive a BMW then you will need to pay the government for the privilege.
If Gary Ballance is a test quality batsman then so am I.
Well I think we might have established that he's not a test No.3.
To be fair to Ballance, he did force his way back into the side through weight of runs at a time when the obvious alternatives were out of form - and there really isn't an obvious No.3 available to pick anyway. His replacement is likely to be something of a stab in the dark.
Can't blame the guy for trying, even if he might not quite be up to the job - and some of the vitriol directed at him has been unedifying. In any event, Yorkshire will be genuinely grateful to get him back should he lose his place.
Can we have a thread header outlining what leaving without a deal would actually mean to help confirm or refute the claims of both sides. No deal means [A] letting all the intertwined treaties fall and i have heard suggestions that [B] planes couldnt fly and the [C] ports would be chaos. Surely there has got to be some form of [D] minimum deal to prevent this and other things i'm not aware of happening.
[A] Article 50 is explicit. All treaties between the EU and the UK lapse on exit (ie March 2019) [B] UK based planes would not be certified or probably insured to fly to the EU and elsewhere unless a set of new agreements are made by that date. [C] Customs arrangements are neither in place nor being implemented for March 2019. UK trucks and drivers will be unable to pass through EU territories unless they are licensed by those countries (national competency - most countries operate tight quotas on non-EU trucks). There are plenty more [B] and [C] type issues to resolve.
Which is why there will be a limited transition arrangement made on EU terms and a minimum deal [D] will be negotiated for these no-brainer items (which won't extend to UK trucks driving on EU roads incidentally).
The negotiating space is better than nothing and less than what we have. It's a big space, but expect the end result to be a lot less than what we have, even if it is way better than nothing.
If the end result allows us to sign our own trade deals, control migration, maintain most of our access to EU markets and pay a lower fee, it will be much better than we have now.
The ability to sign our own trade deals is pointless on its own. What matters is the quality and quantity of those deals, which will certainly be worse than what we have. We probably wouldn't "control" immigration that much in that we will accept immigration from the EU on a presumed entry basis. We will have a significantly lower access to the EU markets and and probably a lot lower. I expect payments to the EU to be high going forward as we will try to buy back some of the influence we have lost.
So marginally more restricted on immigration; worse off on third party trade; much worse off on EU trade; net payments broadly as present. Brexit maybe not a disaster, but nothing to be said for it either. And that doesn't deal with the huge disruption it causes.
It must be worrying for an Irish Republic exporter to the EU. As it stands they can run a container lorry from Dublin through England (no toll roads) to Gillingham for shipment to Rotterdam (the English pick up the paperwork costs too). On FF43's terms that won't be possible. They will need to ship to Rotterdam directly.
I travel from Manchester to London on a regular basis, it takes around 2 hours or so now to do that journey, can anyone explain why shaving off 20 mins of that journey with HS2 is a good idea.
Have you ever travelled on HS1?
I have, frequently. It's nice, and a pleasant surprise to whizz out so quickly . But I'm still an HS2 sceptic - it is a classic example of Big Projectitis, which politicians of all parties suffer from.
The case for HS2, to be fair, is based not so much on the 20 minutes ass on the argument that growth in demand for rail services is gradually overwhelming existing capacity, so Something Must Be Done.The question is whether the big-bang HS2 is the right answer. I'm not totally opposed and I don't pretend to be a rail expert, but it's not unreasonable to question it.
It's my understanding (experts please chime in) that a slightly slower version could be done at a fraction of the construction costs - the planned speeds requiring much more solid foundations for laying the track. The terminals and land purchase would however be much the same.
That's broadly true. HSTs wear out the track and ballast faster than normal speed trains. It needs more maintenance and/or it has to be more strongly- and expensively-built. They need gentler curves and are noisier ... this makes route planning harder.
Another advantage, trains running at a steady 150 km/h (90-100 mph) use 75% less energy than at 300 km/h.
I doubt that the new fare to B'ham will be 'affordable' compared to the fare from Marylebone to Snow Hill. Also it may have dynamic pricing like airlines in which you pay £700 to fly at peak time and £40 at 6 am on a Saturday.
So if we accepted a slightly slower service, we'd save (a lot of) money, deal with the capacity issue which is the entire rationale for the project, possibly obviate the need for some of the more contentious bits of the route, and probably get it built quicker ?
I doubt that the new fare to B'ham will be 'affordable' compared to the fare from Marylebone to Snow Hill. Also it may have dynamic pricing like airlines in which you pay £700 to fly at peak time and £40 at 6 am on a Saturday.
Twitter John SimpsonVerified account @JohnSimpsonNews 6m6 minutes ago Some bloggers in China have made fun of Pres Xi Jinping's plumpness by posting pics of Winnie the Pooh. So Pooh is censored....
I travel from Manchester to London on a regular basis, it takes around 2 hours or so now to do that journey, can anyone explain why shaving off 20 mins of that journey with HS2 is a good idea.
Have you ever travelled on HS1?
I have, frequently. It's nice, and a pleasant surprise to whizz out so quickly . But I'm still an HS2 sceptic - it is a classic example of Big Projectitis, which politicians of all parties suffer from.
The case for HS2, to be fair, is based not so much on the 20 minutes ass on the argument that growth in demand for rail services is gradually overwhelming existing capacity, so Something Must Be Done.The question is whether the big-bang HS2 is the right answer. I'm not totally opposed and I don't pretend to be a rail expert, but it's not unreasonable to question it.
The alternative is a scheme like the WCML Upgrade, which missed schedule, specification, and cost. It was years late (with resultant massive misery for passengers), did not deliver much of what was promised (e.g. 125 MPH instead of 140), and was up to ten times over budget.
That's what happens if you try to squeeze more performance out of an existing heavily-utilised and upgraded line. It becomes very expensive, very fast.
Witness the ongoing problems with the GWML electrification.
Just so I understand: what you are saying is that we can insert ourselves into deals even if parties to those deals say that we can't? Are you Owen Paterson?
Is what Patterson is saying so unreasonable? It might be unachievable but it seems to be the agricultural equivalent of the BMW argument -- that the EU should give us free access because otherwise tariffs will harm BMW French farmers.
I travel from Manchester to London on a regular basis, it takes around 2 hours or so now to do that journey, can anyone explain why shaving off 20 mins of that journey with HS2 is a good idea.
Have you ever travelled on HS1?
I have, frequently. It's nice, and a pleasant surprise to whizz out so quickly . But I'm still an HS2 sceptic - it is a classic example of Big Projectitis, which politicians of all parties suffer from.
The case for HS2, to be fair, is based not so much on the 20 minutes ass on the argument that growth in demand for rail services is gradually overwhelming existing capacity, so Something Must Be Done.The question is whether the big-bang HS2 is the right answer. I'm not totally opposed and I don't pretend to be a rail expert, but it's not unreasonable to question it.
It's my understanding (experts please chime in) that a slightly slower version could be done at a fraction of the construction costs - the planned speeds requiring much more solid foundations for laying the track. The terminals and land purchase would however be much the same.
That's broadly true. HSTs wear out the track and ballast faster than normal speed trains. It needs more maintenance and/or it has to be more strongly- and expensively-built. They need gentler curves and are noisier ... this makes route planning harder.
Another advantage, trains running at a steady 150 km/h (90-100 mph) use 75% less energy than at 300 km/h.
I doubt that the new fare to B'ham will be 'affordable' compared to the fare from Marylebone to Snow Hill. Also it may have dynamic pricing like airlines in which you pay £700 to fly at peak time and £40 at 6 am on a Saturday.
I'd like the reintroduction of slow sleeper services where you go to bed after a pleasant meal and wake up somewhere exotic!
I travel from Manchester to London on a regular basis, it takes around 2 hours or so now to do that journey, can anyone explain why shaving off 20 mins of that journey with HS2 is a good idea.
Have you ever travelled on HS1?
I have, frequently. It's nice, and a pleasant surprise to whizz out so quickly . But I'm still an HS2 sceptic - it is a classic example of Big Projectitis, which politicians of all parties suffer from.
The case for HS2, to be fair, is based not so much on the 20 minutes ass on the argument that growth in demand for rail services is gradually overwhelming existing capacity, so Something Must Be Done.The question is whether the big-bang HS2 is the right answer. I'm not totally opposed and I don't pretend to be a rail expert, but it's not unreasonable to question it.
It's my understanding (experts please chime in) that a slightly slower version could be done at a fraction of the construction costs - the planned speeds requiring much more solid foundations for laying the track. The terminals and land purchase would however be much the same.
That's broadly true. HSTs wear out the track and ballast faster than normal speed trains. It needs more maintenance and/or it has to be more strongly- and expensively-built. They need gentler curves and are noisier ... this makes route planning harder.
Another advantage, trains running at a steady 150 km/h (90-100 mph) use 75% less energy than at 300 km/h.
I doubt that the new fare to B'ham will be 'affordable' compared to the fare from Marylebone to Snow Hill. Also it may have dynamic pricing like airlines in which you pay £700 to fly at peak time and £40 at 6 am on a Saturday.
Freight trains are the real killer of track and infrastructure. They don't run on dedicated high-speed tracks (with, I believe, one or two exceptions).
Are you really proposing trains running at 90-100 MPH? Which is 25-40 MPH below what we have at the moment, and for the last 40 or so years (1976 for 125 MPH)?
I travel from Manchester to London on a regular basis, it takes around 2 hours or so now to do that journey, can anyone explain why shaving off 20 mins of that journey with HS2 is a good idea.
Have you ever travelled on HS1?
I have, frequently. It's nice, and a pleasant surprise to whizz out so quickly . But I'm still an HS2 sceptic - it is a classic example of Big Projectitis, which politicians of all parties suffer from.
The case for HS2, to be fair, is based not so much on the 20 minutes ass on the argument that growth in demand for rail services is gradually overwhelming existing capacity, so Something Must Be Done.The question is whether the big-bang HS2 is the right answer. I'm not totally opposed and I don't pretend to be a rail expert, but it's not unreasonable to question it.
The alternative is a scheme like the WCML Upgrade, which missed schedule, specification, and cost. It was years late (with resultant massive misery for passengers), did not deliver much of what was promised (e.g. 125 MPH instead of 140), and was up to ten times over budget.
That's what happens if you try to squeeze more performance out of an existing heavily-utilised and upgraded line. It becomes very expensive, very fast.
Witness the ongoing problems with the GWML electrification.
I travel from Manchester to London on a regular basis, it takes around 2 hours or so now to do that journey, can anyone explain why shaving off 20 mins of that journey with HS2 is a good idea.
Have you ever travelled on HS1?
I have, frequently. It's nice, and a pleasant surprise to whizz out so quickly . But I'm still an HS2 sceptic - it is a classic example of Big Projectitis, which politicians of all parties suffer from.
The case for HS2, to be fair, is based not so much on the 20 minutes ass on the argument that growth in demand for rail services is gradually overwhelming existing capacity, so Something Must Be Done.The question is whether the big-bang HS2 is the right answer. I'm not totally opposed and I don't pretend to be a rail expert, but it's not unreasonable to question it.
It's my understanding (experts please chime in) that a slightly slower version could be done at a fraction of the construction costs - the planned speeds requiring much more solid foundations for laying the track. The terminals and land purchase would however be much the same.
That's broadly true. HSTs wear out the track and ballast faster than normal speed trains. It needs more maintenance and/or it has to be more strongly- and expensively-built. They need gentler curves and are noisier ... this makes route planning harder.
Another advantage, trains running at a steady 150 km/h (90-100 mph) use 75% less energy than at 300 km/h.
I doubt that the new fare to B'ham will be 'affordable' compared to the fare from Marylebone to Snow Hill. Also it may have dynamic pricing like airlines in which you pay £700 to fly at peak time and £40 at 6 am on a Saturday.
I would certainly choose high speed rail for city centre to city centre domestic travel over domestic air, which is becoming an increasing hassle.
I can't remember where but there is a good graph somewhere showing modal share between domestic air and high speed travel. Broadly speaking, if the train is 3 hours or less it kills off air competition.
That's good because it will free up landing slots at more regional airports for more international flights too.
Just so I understand: what you are saying is that we can insert ourselves into deals even if parties to those deals say that we can't? Are you Owen Paterson?
Is what Patterson is saying so unreasonable? It might be unachievable but it seems to be the agricultural equivalent of the BMW argument -- that the EU should give us free access because otherwise tariffs will harm BMW French farmers.
Read it again.
I have done twice. It is true that proportionally the UK exchequer would receive more in tariffs than the EU would. Not sure which part you're objecting to.
The big issue that I see with HS2 is, what happens to the existing services? Will people still be able to get to Leeds via Kings Cross? And how much will it cost?
I can envisage the HS2 trains being half empty if the fares are extortionate.
I am really glad to read this. "Gone in 60 minutes! Davis leaves Brussels after talks with Barnier lasting only an HOUR. Whilst the EU negotiators were seen sitting behind piles of stacked up documents the UK side of the table was completely bare save for a single small black notebook". From the Express.
I travel from Manchester to London on a regular basis, it takes around 2 hours or so now to do that journey, can anyone explain why shaving off 20 mins of that journey with HS2 is a good idea.
Have you ever travelled on HS1?
I have, frequently. It's nice, and a pleasant surprise to whizz out so quickly . But I'm still an HS2 sceptic - it is a classic example of Big Projectitis, which politicians of all parties suffer from.
The case for HS2, to be fair, is based not so much on the 20 minutes ass on the argument that growth in demand for rail services is gradually overwhelming existing capacity, so Something Must Be Done.The question is whether the big-bang HS2 is the right answer. I'm not totally opposed and I don't pretend to be a rail expert, but it's not unreasonable to question it.
It's my understanding (experts please chime in) that a slightly slower version could be done at a fraction of the construction costs - the planned speeds requiring much more solid foundations for laying the track. The terminals and land purchase would however be much the same.
That's broadly true. HSTs wear out the track and ballast faster than normal speed trains. It needs more maintenance and/or it has to be more strongly- and expensively-built. They need gentler curves and are noisier ... this makes route planning harder.
Another advantage, trains running at a steady 150 km/h (90-100 mph) use 75% less energy than at 300 km/h.
I doubt that the new fare to B'ham will be 'affordable' compared to the fare from Marylebone to Snow Hill. Also it may have dynamic pricing like airlines in which you pay £700 to fly at peak time and £40 at 6 am on a Saturday.
I'd like the reintroduction of slow sleeper services where you go to bed after a pleasant meal and wake up somewhere exotic!
You can still do that on the night riveria to Cornwall, or the Caledonian to Scotland.
The trouble is they don't make any money and have to be subsidised.
I'd like the reintroduction of slow sleeper services where you go to bed after a pleasant meal and wake up somewhere exotic!
We're getting some lovely new sleeper trains here in the UK. Europe's network is, I believe, shrinking.
TBF, there are some real issues with Europe's HSR. The money is far too skewed towards HSR services, to the detriment of the old-style lines. If/when HS2 occurs, that's not something that should be allowed to happen here. To be fair, it hasn't so far on HS1, with plenty of money being spent on the parallel ''old' lines.
Just so I understand: what you are saying is that we can insert ourselves into deals even if parties to those deals say that we can't? Are you Owen Paterson?
Is what Patterson is saying so unreasonable? It might be unachievable but it seems to be the agricultural equivalent of the BMW argument -- that the EU should give us free access because otherwise tariffs will harm BMW French farmers.
Read it again.
I have done twice. It is true that proportionally the UK exchequer would receive more in tariffs than the EU would. Not sure which part you're objecting to.
Just so I understand: what you are saying is that we can insert ourselves into deals even if parties to those deals say that we can't? Are you Owen Paterson?
Is what Patterson is saying so unreasonable? It might be unachievable but it seems to be the agricultural equivalent of the BMW argument -- that the EU should give us free access because otherwise tariffs will harm BMW French farmers.
Read it again.
I have done twice. It is true that proportionally the UK exchequer would receive more in tariffs than the EU would. Not sure which part you're objecting to.
The importer pays the tariffs, not the exporter.
That must be music to Brexiteers' ears: Slap a Remoaner Tax on Pol Roger and Camembert and give a boost to the English sparkling wine and cheese industries.
The big issue that I see with HS2 is, what happens to the existing services? Will people still be able to get to Leeds via Kings Cross? And how much will it cost?
I can envisage the HS2 trains being half empty if the fares are extortionate.
HS2 will see a large reorganisation of services - there are proposal documents out and about somewhere. Not everyone wins.
"Will people still be able to get to Leeds via Kings Cross?"
AIUI yes, but slower. But why would you prefer to go from Kings X rather than Euston?
There's one other thing to note: not doing HS2 will often lead to existing local services getting worse. This happened with the WCML upgrade: a few stations such as Etruria were closed for the upgrade, and not reopened afterwards. The reason? The stopping services interfered too much with the faster ones.
If we don't build HS2, expect more local stations on 'fast' lines to be stealthily closed in a similar manner.
Just so I understand: what you are saying is that we can insert ourselves into deals even if parties to those deals say that we can't? Are you Owen Paterson?
Is what Patterson is saying so unreasonable? It might be unachievable but it seems to be the agricultural equivalent of the BMW argument -- that the EU should give us free access because otherwise tariffs will harm BMW French farmers.
Read it again.
I have done twice. It is true that proportionally the UK exchequer would receive more in tariffs than the EU would. Not sure which part you're objecting to.
The importer pays the tariffs, not the exporter.
That must be music to Brexiteers' ears: Slap a Remoaner Tax on Pol Roger and Camembert and give a boost to the English sparkling wine and cheese industries.
Just so I understand: what you are saying is that we can insert ourselves into deals even if parties to those deals say that we can't? Are you Owen Paterson?
Is what Patterson is saying so unreasonable? It might be unachievable but it seems to be the agricultural equivalent of the BMW argument -- that the EU should give us free access because otherwise tariffs will harm BMW French farmers.
Read it again.
I have done twice. It is true that proportionally the UK exchequer would receive more in tariffs than the EU would. Not sure which part you're objecting to.
The importer pays the tariffs, not the exporter.
That must be music to Brexiteers' ears: Slap a Remoaner Tax on Pol Roger and Camembert and give a boost to the English sparkling wine and cheese industries.
I am really glad to read this. "Gone in 60 minutes! Davis leaves Brussels after talks with Barnier lasting only an HOUR. Whilst the EU negotiators were seen sitting behind piles of stacked up documents the UK side of the table was completely bare save for a single small black notebook". From the Express.
It is a sad commentary on the state of journalism that the press draw all sorts of crazy conclusions from the presence/absence of a pile of papers on a desk in 2017. Ipad/Smartphone anyone?
Former Prime Minister David Cameron has admitted he would like to set some of his former cabinet colleagues adrift on a 'dangerous river'. The comment is believed to be a dig at Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, both of whom campaigned to leave the EU at last year's referendum which cost Cameron his job.
Asked at a meeting of the National Citizenship Service which he set up, whether any of his ministers needed to go on one of the outdoors activities that the NCS provides for youngsters he said: "If it involved crossing a very, very dangerous river on a raft, I can think of a few I'd want to strap together."
Cameron was giving his first interview since the general election in which he said the results which saw the majority he won in 2015 disappear had been 'depressing'.
"Because what they are doing jeopardises the work we must do to prepare for Brexit at home and it weakens the Government's negotiating position in Europe.
"If we do not hold a general election now their political game-playing will continue, and the negotiations with the European Union will reach their most difficult stage in the run-up to the next scheduled election.
"Division in Westminster will risk our ability to make a success of Brexit and it will cause damaging uncertainty and instability to the country.
"So we need a general election and we need one now, because we have at this moment a one-off chance to get this done while the European Union agrees its negotiating position and before the detailed talks begin.
Just so I understand: what you are saying is that we can insert ourselves into deals even if parties to those deals say that we can't? Are you Owen Paterson?
Is what Patterson is saying so unreasonable? It might be unachievable but it seems to be the agricultural equivalent of the BMW argument -- that the EU should give us free access because otherwise tariffs will harm BMW French farmers.
Read it again.
I have done twice. It is true that proportionally the UK exchequer would receive more in tariffs than the EU would. Not sure which part you're objecting to.
The importer pays the tariffs, not the exporter.
I guess it depends how elastic or otherwise those EU imports prove to be.
I would certainly choose high speed rail for city centre to city centre domestic travel over domestic air, which is becoming an increasing hassle.
I can't remember where but there is a good graph somewhere showing modal share between domestic air and high speed travel. Broadly speaking, if the train is 3 hours or less it kills off air competition.
That's good because it will free up landing slots at more regional airports for more international flights too.
And as I take my 15th flight via Amsterdam next Monday how is that helping BA? Locally I have a choice of KLM or via Newcastle Brussels, Paris, Amsterdam and London. London is the only one I haven't used....
Interestingly looking at a flight in August for reasons unknown the only airline that isn't fully booked in Economy class from Vienna is BA... All Air France and KLM flights that evening are already full.
I would certainly choose high speed rail for city centre to city centre domestic travel over domestic air, which is becoming an increasing hassle.
I can't remember where but there is a good graph somewhere showing modal share between domestic air and high speed travel. Broadly speaking, if the train is 3 hours or less it kills off air competition.
That's good because it will free up landing slots at more regional airports for more international flights too.
And as I take my 15th flight via Amsterdam next Monday how is that helping BA?
Interestingly looking at a flight in August for reasons unknown the only airline that isn't fully in Economy class from Vienna is BA... All Air France and KLM flights that evening are already full.
Just so I understand: what you are saying is that we can insert ourselves into deals even if parties to those deals say that we can't? Are you Owen Paterson?
Is what Patterson is saying so unreasonable? It might be unachievable but it seems to be the agricultural equivalent of the BMW argument -- that the EU should give us free access because otherwise tariffs will harm BMW French farmers.
Read it again.
I have done twice. It is true that proportionally the UK exchequer would receive more in tariffs than the EU would. Not sure which part you're objecting to.
The importer pays the tariffs, not the exporter.
That must be music to Brexiteers' ears: Slap a Remoaner Tax on Pol Roger and Camembert and give a boost to the English sparkling wine and cheese industries.
Repeat: It is a sad commentary on the state of journalism that the press [and some on here] draw all sorts of crazy conclusions from the presence/absence of a pile of papers on a desk in 2017. Ipad/Smartphone anyone?
Former Prime Minister David Cameron has admitted he would like to set some of his former cabinet colleagues adrift on a 'dangerous river'. The comment is believed to be a dig at Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, both of whom campaigned to leave the EU at last year's referendum which cost Cameron his job.
Asked at a meeting of the National Citizenship Service which he set up, whether any of his ministers needed to go on one of the outdoors activities that the NCS provides for youngsters he said: "If it involved crossing a very, very dangerous river on a raft, I can think of a few I'd want to strap together."
Cameron was giving his first interview since the general election in which he said the results which saw the majority he won in 2015 disappear had been 'depressing'.
Former Prime Minister David Cameron has admitted he would like to set some of his former cabinet colleagues adrift on a 'dangerous river'. The comment is believed to be a dig at Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, both of whom campaigned to leave the EU at last year's referendum which cost Cameron his job.
Asked at a meeting of the National Citizenship Service which he set up, whether any of his ministers needed to go on one of the outdoors activities that the NCS provides for youngsters he said: "If it involved crossing a very, very dangerous river on a raft, I can think of a few I'd want to strap together."
Cameron was giving his first interview since the general election in which he said the results which saw the majority he won in 2015 disappear had been 'depressing'.
Just so I understand: what you are saying is that we can insert ourselves into deals even if parties to those deals say that we can't? Are you Owen Paterson?
Is what Patterson is saying so unreasonable? It might be unachievable but it seems to be the agricultural equivalent of the BMW argument -- that the EU should give us free access because otherwise tariffs will harm BMW French farmers.
Read it again.
I have done twice. It is true that proportionally the UK exchequer would receive more in tariffs than the EU would. Not sure which part you're objecting to.
The importer pays the tariffs, not the exporter.
That must be music to Brexiteers' ears: Slap a Remoaner Tax on Pol Roger and Camembert and give a boost to the English sparkling wine and cheese industries.
Repeat: It is a sad commentary on the state of journalism that the press [and some on here] draw all sorts of crazy conclusions from the presence/absence of a pile of papers on a desk in 2017. Ipad/Smartphone anyone?
The big issue that I see with HS2 is, what happens to the existing services? Will people still be able to get to Leeds via Kings Cross? And how much will it cost?
I can envisage the HS2 trains being half empty if the fares are extortionate.
HS2 will see a large reorganisation of services - there are proposal documents out and about somewhere. Not everyone wins.
"Will people still be able to get to Leeds via Kings Cross?"
AIUI yes, but slower. But why would you prefer to go from Kings X rather than Euston?
There's one other thing to note: not doing HS2 will often lead to existing local services getting worse. This happened with the WCML upgrade: a few stations such as Etruria were closed for the upgrade, and not reopened afterwards. The reason? The stopping services interfered too much with the faster ones.
If we don't build HS2, expect more local stations on 'fast' lines to be stealthily closed in a similar manner.
Why would I go from Kings X? The same reason I might choose to go to Birmingham from Marylebone (or on London Midland for a very cheap price!). And the same reason I don't bother with the M6 Toll.
As for Etruria, I refer you to the estimates of station usage:
I would certainly choose high speed rail for city centre to city centre domestic travel over domestic air, which is becoming an increasing hassle.
I can't remember where but there is a good graph somewhere showing modal share between domestic air and high speed travel. Broadly speaking, if the train is 3 hours or less it kills off air competition.
That's good because it will free up landing slots at more regional airports for more international flights too.
And as I take my 15th flight via Amsterdam next Monday how is that helping BA?
Interestingly looking at a flight in August for reasons unknown the only airline that isn't fully in Economy class from Vienna is BA... All Air France and KLM flights that evening are already full.
Those are international flights though.
We are suffering from not developing Heathrow.
I think we need a separate Department for Strategic Infrastructure that would oversee planning and major projects across transport, energy and communications. The BAU approach of government has left us decades behind.
Just so I understand: what you are saying is that we can insert ourselves into deals even if parties to those deals say that we can't? Are you Owen Paterson?
Is what Patterson is saying so unreasonable? It might be unachievable but it seems to be the agricultural equivalent of the BMW argument -- that the EU should give us free access because otherwise tariffs will harm BMW French farmers.
Read it again.
I have done twice. It is true that proportionally the UK exchequer would receive more in tariffs than the EU would. Not sure which part you're objecting to.
The importer pays the tariffs, not the exporter.
Yes but the tariff is paid to the government of the importing country, so Owen is right -- British consumers will pay more but the government will take more money.
"(Porn) Websites will be legally required to install age verification controls by April 2018 as part of a move to make the internet safer for children.
Users may be asked to provide credit card details, as gambling websites do."
But why would I need to leave credit card details with a pr0n site ?
Will pr0nhub go best price on the 3:30 at Doncaster...
It's my understanding (experts please chime in) that a slightly slower version could be done at a fraction of the construction costs - the planned speeds requiring much more solid foundations for laying the track. The terminals and land purchase would however be much the same.
That's broadly true. HSTs wear out the track and ballast faster than normal speed trains. It needs more maintenance and/or it has to be more strongly- and expensively-built. They need gentler curves and are noisier ... this makes route planning harder.
Another advantage, trains running at a steady 150 km/h (90-100 mph) use 75% less energy than at 300 km/h.
I doubt that the new fare to B'ham will be 'affordable' compared to the fare from Marylebone to Snow Hill. Also it may have dynamic pricing like airlines in which you pay £700 to fly at peak time and £40 at 6 am on a Saturday.
I would certainly choose high speed rail for city centre to city centre domestic travel over domestic air, which is becoming an increasing hassle.
I can't remember where but there is a good graph somewhere showing modal share between domestic air and high speed travel. Broadly speaking, if the train is 3 hours or less it kills off air competition.
That's good because it will free up landing slots at more regional airports for more international flights too.
Can I say how much I've appreciated your posts on HS2 this morning? Real insight and steel. And yes there's a clear link between anti-HS2 and anti-EU (and generally a lot of things going after "anti") so you have real credibility on the matter. Any chance of becoming a reluctant remainer in time?
On topic I'm another one veering from "yeah we'll have to live with Brexit" to "actually this needs stopping." Just no confidence in the team delivering it or that the risks can be mitigated. Post the GE I had a smirk on my face, assuming that the Tories were softening and would begin to work to unite the country. It isn't happening, so maybe there is no alternative than to resist.
The big issue that I see with HS2 is, what happens to the existing services? Will people still be able to get to Leeds via Kings Cross? And how much will it cost?
I can envisage the HS2 trains being half empty if the fares are extortionate.
HS2 will see a large reorganisation of services - there are proposal documents out and about somewhere. Not everyone wins.
"Will people still be able to get to Leeds via Kings Cross?"
AIUI yes, but slower. But why would you prefer to go from Kings X rather than Euston?
There's one other thing to note: not doing HS2 will often lead to existing local services getting worse. This happened with the WCML upgrade: a few stations such as Etruria were closed for the upgrade, and not reopened afterwards. The reason? The stopping services interfered too much with the faster ones.
If we don't build HS2, expect more local stations on 'fast' lines to be stealthily closed in a similar manner.
Why would I go from Kings X? The same reason I might choose to go to Birmingham from Marylebone (or on London Midland for a very cheap price!). And the same reason I don't bother with the M6 Toll.
As for Etruria, I refer you to the estimates of station usage:
Have a look at the time series file. You'll see that it was used by bugger all people so it wasn't exactly greatest loss to the network.
It had bugger-all passengers because the station was essentially closed for the upgrade works!
Here's my experience of trying to travel from nearby Longport (also closed for the works) in 2003:
I went to the station to check on the train times, and then went into the Railway Inn to have a quick pint and while away twenty minutes. I left ten minutes before the train was due, and when it had not arrived half an hour later I phoned up National Rail Enquiries, only to have them tell me that the trains no longer serve the station and I had to take a bus service instead. It said that the next bus would go at 16.50 from the car park by platform two, and yet the information signs at the station stated that there was no car park! There were no notices stating that bus services were running instead of trains, and so I started to get quite annoyed. When the time came I stood on the station footbridge, where I saw a minibus arrive beside Platform one!
They wanted Etruria closed so they could increase line speeds and have fewer stopping trains. AIUI Longport was very nearly closed as well.
I would certainly choose high speed rail for city centre to city centre domestic travel over domestic air, which is becoming an increasing hassle.
I can't remember where but there is a good graph somewhere showing modal share between domestic air and high speed travel. Broadly speaking, if the train is 3 hours or less it kills off air competition.
That's good because it will free up landing slots at more regional airports for more international flights too.
And as I take my 15th flight via Amsterdam next Monday how is that helping BA?
Interestingly looking at a flight in August for reasons unknown the only airline that isn't fully in Economy class from Vienna is BA... All Air France and KLM flights that evening are already full.
Those are international flights though.
We are suffering from not developing Heathrow.
But you are missing the point. The regional flights feed into the network making the international routes more sustainable... Remove those regional flights as you originally suggest and all business (not just mine) will go to KLM....
On topic I'm another one veering from "yeah we'll have to live with Brexit" to "actually this needs stopping." Just no confidence in the team delivering it or that the risks can be mitigated. Post the GE I had a smirk on my face, assuming that the Tories were softening and would begin to work to unite the country. It isn't happening, so maybe there is no alternative than to resist.
I would certainly choose high speed rail for city centre to city centre domestic travel over domestic air, which is becoming an increasing hassle.
I can't remember where but there is a good graph somewhere showing modal share between domestic air and high speed travel. Broadly speaking, if the train is 3 hours or less it kills off air competition.
That's good because it will free up landing slots at more regional airports for more international flights too.
And as I take my 15th flight via Amsterdam next Monday how is that helping BA?
Interestingly looking at a flight in August for reasons unknown the only airline that isn't fully in Economy class from Vienna is BA... All Air France and KLM flights that evening are already full.
Those are international flights though.
We are suffering from not developing Heathrow.
But you are missing the point. The regional flights feed into the network making the international routes more sustainable... Remove those regional flights as you originally suggest and all business (not just mine) will go to KLM....
Not if you link the HS2 network into the airport hubs, which is actually what is proposed.
We have all been in this position haven't we - we have prepared as well as we can, we understand the issues, we have answers to every question, and the customer looks really keen. And then the customer starts to cool, and meetings start to be put off. Are we going to get what we want, should we settle for less, add more to the deal? Is there a more compelling case we could make?
Barnier is in that position now. Macron has already made speeches of what he will do with the France's take. Ireland has already made appeals for their share. Is Barnier ready to bang the table but have to explain to Macron why he isn't getting any money if there is a walk out? Should he be more reasonable in exit costs? Does he try more threats? What can he offer?
But really that picture tells the story, doesn't it. The UK customer isn't even interested. The EU, after a year of talking, does not have a sale at any price.
Just so I understand: what you are saying is that we can insert ourselves into deals even if parties to those deals say that we can't? Are you Owen Paterson?
Is what Patterson is saying so unreasonable? It might be unachievable but it seems to be the agricultural equivalent of the BMW argument -- that the EU should give us free access because otherwise tariffs will harm BMW French farmers.
Read it again.
I have done twice. It is true that proportionally the UK exchequer would receive more in tariffs than the EU would. Not sure which part you're objecting to.
The importer pays the tariffs, not the exporter.
That must be music to Brexiteers' ears: Slap a Remoaner Tax on Pol Roger and Camembert and give a boost to the English sparkling wine and cheese industries.
Repeat: It is a sad commentary on the state of journalism that the press [and some on here] draw all sorts of crazy conclusions from the presence/absence of a pile of papers on a desk in 2017. Ipad/Smartphone anyone?
But really that picture tells the story, doesn't it. The UK customer isn't even interested. The EU, after a year of talking, does not have a sale at any price.
You think the UK government isn't going to buy its nice shiny Brexit after all?
Just so I understand: what you are saying is that we can insert ourselves into deals even if parties to those deals say that we can't? Are you Owen Paterson?
Is what Patterson is saying so unreasonable? It might be unachievable but it seems to be the agricultural equivalent of the BMW argument -- that the EU should give us free access because otherwise tariffs will harm BMW French farmers.
Read it again.
I have done twice. It is true that proportionally the UK exchequer would receive more in tariffs than the EU would. Not sure which part you're objecting to.
The importer pays the tariffs, not the exporter.
That must be music to Brexiteers' ears: Slap a Remoaner Tax on Pol Roger and Camembert and give a boost to the English sparkling wine and cheese industries.
Repeat: It is a sad commentary on the state of journalism that the press [and some on here] draw all sorts of crazy conclusions from the presence/absence of a pile of papers on a desk in 2017. Ipad/Smartphone anyone?
Negotiations by Candy Crush?
? and your point is?
IME iPads and smartphones have many advantages over paper, but also some disadvantages.
williamglenn - I think if the EU doesn't negotiate on the basis that both sides should benefit, then the EU cannot sell a deal. And it doesn't look as though the EU, fresh from its triumphs in bullying Greece and Italy, realises it.
We have all been in this position haven't we - we have prepared as well as we can, we understand the issues, we have answers to every question, and the customer looks really keen. And then the customer starts to cool, and meetings start to be put off. Are we going to get what we want, should we settle for less, add more to the deal? Is there a more compelling case we could make?
Barnier is in that position now. Macron has already made speeches of what he will do with the France's take. Ireland has already made appeals for their share. Is Barnier ready to bang the table but have to explain to Macron why he isn't getting any money if there is a walk out? Should he be more reasonable in exit costs? Does he try more threats? What can he offer?
But really that picture tells the story, doesn't it. The UK customer isn't even interested. The EU, after a year of talking, does not have a sale at any price.
Which organisation wrote recently that €100bn is actually a small price compared to the hit the country will take if we went WTO ?
"(Porn) Websites will be legally required to install age verification controls by April 2018 as part of a move to make the internet safer for children.
Users may be asked to provide credit card details, as gambling websites do."
But why would I need to leave credit card details with a pr0n site ?
Will pr0nhub go best price on the 3:30 at Doncaster...
The nanny state continues apace.
The verification details are a terrible idea. Either they will be easy to fake and therefore pointless. Or they will be so robust that secure identity documents will be needed which will then be stored by (dodgy) sites across the web, and identity fraud will go through the roof.
Not to mention the blackmailing possibilities.
We have filters for home users and mobile phones, if that is not enough for parents to control their young then nothing will be.
williamglenn - I think if the EU doesn't negotiate on the basis that both sides should benefit, then the EU cannot sell a deal. And it doesn't look as though the EU, fresh from its triumphs in bullying Greece and Italy, realises it.
Maybe they are not as desperate as we thought they would be.
We have all been in this position haven't we - we have prepared as well as we can, we understand the issues, we have answers to every question, and the customer looks really keen. And then the customer starts to cool, and meetings start to be put off. Are we going to get what we want, should we settle for less, add more to the deal? Is there a more compelling case we could make?
Barnier is in that position now. Macron has already made speeches of what he will do with the France's take. Ireland has already made appeals for their share. Is Barnier ready to bang the table but have to explain to Macron why he isn't getting any money if there is a walk out? Should he be more reasonable in exit costs? Does he try more threats? What can he offer?
But really that picture tells the story, doesn't it. The UK customer isn't even interested. The EU, after a year of talking, does not have a sale at any price.
I think you have the customer and salesman the wrong way round. The "customer" Barnier has set out his requirements. It's up to Davis to sell the EU on a new arrangement that somewhat meets those requirements and benefits the EU (and it goes without saying, the UK as well). Davis is uninterested in engaging. The UK government is very passive when faced with Brexit.
williamglenn - I think if the EU doesn't negotiate on the basis that both sides should benefit, then the EU cannot sell a deal. And it doesn't look as though the EU, fresh from its triumphs in bullying Greece and Italy, realises it.
Maybe they are not as desperate as we thought they would be.
Former Prime Minister David Cameron has admitted he would like to set some of his former cabinet colleagues adrift on a 'dangerous river'. The comment is believed to be a dig at Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, both of whom campaigned to leave the EU at last year's referendum which cost Cameron his job.
Asked at a meeting of the National Citizenship Service which he set up, whether any of his ministers needed to go on one of the outdoors activities that the NCS provides for youngsters he said: "If it involved crossing a very, very dangerous river on a raft, I can think of a few I'd want to strap together."
Cameron was giving his first interview since the general election in which he said the results which saw the majority he won in 2015 disappear had been 'depressing'.
As always he talks great sense - altho Gove seems to be avoiding the 'noises off' for now.
He shouldn`t have stabbed his Lib Dem colleagues in the back in 2015, then, by allowing the Conservative Party to cheat in the election. Serves him right.
I travel from Manchester to London on a regular basis, it takes around 2 hours or so now to do that journey, can anyone explain why shaving off 20 mins of that journey with HS2 is a good idea.
Have you ever travelled on HS1?
I have, frequently. It's nice, and a pleasant surprise to whizz out so quickly . But I'm still an HS2 sceptic - it is a classic example of Big Projectitis, which politicians of all parties suffer from.
The case for HS2, to be fair, is based not so much on the 20 minutes ass on the argument that growth in demand for rail services is gradually overwhelming existing capacity, so Something Must Be Done.The question is whether the big-bang HS2 is the right answer. I'm not totally opposed and I don't pretend to be a rail expert, but it's not unreasonable to question it.
The alternative is a scheme like the WCML Upgrade, which missed schedule, specification, and cost. It was years late (with resultant massive misery for passengers), did not deliver much of what was promised (e.g. 125 MPH instead of 140), and was up to ten times over budget.
That's what happens if you try to squeeze more performance out of an existing heavily-utilised and upgraded line. It becomes very expensive, very fast.
Witness the ongoing problems with the GWML electrification.
Just so I understand: what you are saying is that we can insert ourselves into deals even if parties to those deals say that we can't? Are you Owen Paterson?
Is what Patterson is saying so unreasonable? It might be unachievable but it seems to be the agricultural equivalent of the BMW argument -- that the EU should give us free access because otherwise tariffs will harm BMW French farmers.
Read it again.
I have done twice. It is true that proportionally the UK exchequer would receive more in tariffs than the EU would. Not sure which part you're objecting to.
The importer pays the tariffs, not the exporter.
That must be music to Brexiteers' ears: Slap a Remoaner Tax on Pol Roger and Camembert and give a boost to the English sparkling wine and cheese industries.
Repeat: It is a sad commentary on the state of journalism that the press [and some on here] draw all sorts of crazy conclusions from the presence/absence of a pile of papers on a desk in 2017. Ipad/Smartphone anyone?
Negotiations by Candy Crush?
? and your point is?
IME iPads and smartphones have many advantages over paper, but also some disadvantages.
It's my understanding (experts please chime in) that a slightly slower version could be done at a fraction of the construction costs - the planned speeds requiring much more solid foundations for laying the track. The terminals and land purchase would however be much the same.
That's broadly true. HSTs wear out the track and ballast faster than normal speed trains. It needs more maintenance and/or it has to be more strongly- and expensively-built. They need gentler curves and are noisier ... this makes route planning harder.
Another advantage, trains running at a steady 150 km/h (90-100 mph) use 75% less energy than at 300 km/h.
I doubt that the new fare to B'ham will be 'affordable' compared to the fare from Marylebone to Snow Hill. Also it may have dynamic pricing like airlines in which you pay £700 to fly at peak time and £40 at 6 am on a Saturday.
I That's good because it will free up landing slots at more regional airports for more international flights too.
Can I say how much I've appreciated your posts on HS2 this morning? Real insight and steel. And yes there's a clear link between anti-HS2 and anti-EU (and generally a lot of things going after "anti") so you have real credibility on the matter. Any chance of becoming a reluctant remainer in time?
On topic I'm another one veering from "yeah we'll have to live with Brexit" to "actually this needs stopping." Just no confidence in the team delivering it or that the risks can be mitigated. Post the GE I had a smirk on my face, assuming that the Tories were softening and would begin to work to unite the country. It isn't happening, so maybe there is no alternative than to resist.
Thanks.
No, my objection to the EU is political. I judge each issue on its merits and what I'd say to any Brexiteer is that this country's greatness was built on its infrastructure and engineering prowess, and this will continue to be the case in the 21st Century.
I'm confident a sensible Brexit deal can be reached.
Sleazy, divided, acrimonious, incompetent Tories on the slide.
3rd poll in a row to show that the post GE Labour surge has stalled - next thread header idea? I wonder why TSE forgot to show the changes since last time [Con +2 Lab -1]
I travel from Manchester to London on a regular basis, it takes around 2 hours or so now to do that journey, can anyone explain why shaving off 20 mins of that journey with HS2 is a good idea.
Have you ever travelled on HS1?
I have, frequently. It's nice, and a pleasant surprise to whizz out so quickly . But I'm still an HS2 sceptic - it is a classic example of Big Projectitis, which politicians of all parties suffer from.
The case for HS2, to be fair, is based not so much on the 20 minutes ass on the argument that growth in demand for rail services is gradually overwhelming existing capacity, so Something Must Be Done.The question is whether the big-bang HS2 is the right answer. I'm not totally opposed and I don't pretend to be a rail expert, but it's not unreasonable to question it.
The alternative is a scheme like the WCML Upgrade, which missed schedule, specification, and cost. It was years late (with resultant massive misery for passengers), did not deliver much of what was promised (e.g. 125 MPH instead of 140), and was up to ten times over budget.
That's what happens if you try to squeeze more performance out of an existing heavily-utilised and upgraded line. It becomes very expensive, very fast.
Witness the ongoing problems with the GWML electrification.
The costs would be pretty much the same: yes, the route will be able to be curvier, but that may not necessarily reduce cost much. Local opposition would be much the same, if not worse.
This proposal is obviously just a spoiling attempt: delay things so it'll never go ahead.
Former Prime Minister David Cameron has admitted he would like to set some of his former cabinet colleagues adrift on a 'dangerous river'. The comment is believed to be a dig at Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, both of whom campaigned to leave the EU at last year's referendum which cost Cameron his job.
Asked at a meeting of the National Citizenship Service which he set up, whether any of his ministers needed to go on one of the outdoors activities that the NCS provides for youngsters he said: "If it involved crossing a very, very dangerous river on a raft, I can think of a few I'd want to strap together."
Cameron was giving his first interview since the general election in which he said the results which saw the majority he won in 2015 disappear had been 'depressing'.
As always he talks great sense - altho Gove seems to be avoiding the 'noises off' for now.
He shouldn`t have stabbed his Lib Dem colleagues in the back in 2015, then, by allowing the Conservative Party to cheat in the election. Serves him right.
The sooner the school hols are over the better for you!
Former Prime Minister David Cameron has admitted he would like to set some of his former cabinet colleagues adrift on a 'dangerous river'. The comment is believed to be a dig at Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, both of whom campaigned to leave the EU at last year's referendum which cost Cameron his job.
Asked at a meeting of the National Citizenship Service which he set up, whether any of his ministers needed to go on one of the outdoors activities that the NCS provides for youngsters he said: "If it involved crossing a very, very dangerous river on a raft, I can think of a few I'd want to strap together."
Cameron was giving his first interview since the general election in which he said the results which saw the majority he won in 2015 disappear had been 'depressing'.
As always he talks great sense - altho Gove seems to be avoiding the 'noises off' for now.
He shouldn`t have stabbed his Lib Dem colleagues in the back in 2015, then, by allowing the Conservative Party to cheat in the election. Serves him right.
The sooner the school hols are over the better for you!
Anyone noticing UKIP gradually going up in the polls ?
Anyone noticed Labour gradually going down in the polls? Not TSE for one.
Despite a poor general election campaign and facing a Labour leader who appears more popular than Miliband, Mrs May's Tories are still considerably more popular in the polls than Mr Cameron's Tories were after a year as PM. It is completely understandable why no one should consider ousting her for the time being.
The UK needs to prepare itself for weaker economic performance, two major forecasting groups have said, in the latest studies predicting the downsides of the Brexit vote.
Fragile business sentiment linked to Brexit-related anxiety, domestic political uncertainty and squeezed consumer budgets have caused UK business confidence to drop to its lowest point for almost six years, the economic consultancy IHS Markit reports.
Meanwhile, Britain’s economic growth will continue to weaken this year due to a Brexit-related consumer-spending squeeze and muted earnings growth, the EY Item Club said in the latest downgrading of its forecasts.
I travel from Manchester to London on a regular basis, it takes around 2 hours or so now to do that journey, can anyone explain why shaving off 20 mins of that journey with HS2 is a good idea.
Have you ever travelled on HS1?
I have, frequently. It's nice, and a pleasant surprise to whizz out so quickly . But I'm still an HS2 sceptic - it is a classic example of Big Projectitis, which politicians of all parties suffer from.
The case for HS2, to be fair, is based not so much on the 20 minutes ass on the argument that growth in demand for rail services is gradually overwhelming existing capacity, so Something Must Be Done.The question is whether the big-bang HS2 is the right answer. I'm not totally opposed and I don't pretend to be a rail expert, but it's not unreasonable to question it.
The alternative is a scheme like the WCML Upgrade, which missed schedule, specification, and cost. It was years late (with resultant massive misery for passengers), did not deliver much of what was promised (e.g. 125 MPH instead of 140), and was up to ten times over budget.
That's what happens if you try to squeeze more performance out of an existing heavily-utilised and upgraded line. It becomes very expensive, very fast.
Witness the ongoing problems with the GWML electrification.
The costs would be pretty much the same: yes, the route will be able to be curvier, but that may not necessarily reduce cost much. Local opposition would be much the same, if not worse.
This proposal is obviously just a spoiling attempt: delay things so it'll never go ahead.
"The cash savings could go into housing...."
What savings?
Had that alternative ever been properly assessed, we might know the answer to that question. Unless I'm missing a fully costed alternative case which the government rejected ?
I would certainly choose high speed rail for city centre to city centre domestic travel over domestic air, which is becoming an increasing hassle.
I can't remember where but there is a good graph somewhere showing modal share between domestic air and high speed travel. Broadly speaking, if the train is 3 hours or less it kills off air competition.
That's good because it will free up landing slots at more regional airports for more international flights too.
And as I take my 15th flight via Amsterdam next Monday how is that helping BA?
Interestingly looking at a flight in August for reasons unknown the only airline that isn't fully in Economy class from Vienna is BA... All Air France and KLM flights that evening are already full.
Those are international flights though.
We are suffering from not developing Heathrow.
But you are missing the point. The regional flights feed into the network making the international routes more sustainable... Remove those regional flights as you originally suggest and all business (not just mine) will go to KLM....
Not if you link the HS2 network into the airport hubs, which is actually what is proposed.
Checks HS2's route. Nope doesn't help me at all....
williamglenn - I think if the EU doesn't negotiate on the basis that both sides should benefit, then the EU cannot sell a deal. And it doesn't look as though the EU, fresh from its triumphs in bullying Greece and Italy, realises it.
why bargain when you know you hold all the aces and are up against country bumpkins.
Comments
https://twitter.com/djmgaffneyw4/status/886885191570137088
Our negotiating position might be better if May weren't a numpty, and if Cameron had allowed rather than forbade the Civil Service to start laying the groundwork.
[B] UK based planes would not be certified or probably insured to fly to the EU and elsewhere unless a set of new agreements are made by that date.
[C] Customs arrangements are neither in place nor being implemented for March 2019. UK trucks and drivers will be unable to pass through EU territories unless they are licensed by those countries (national competency - most countries operate tight quotas on non-EU trucks).
There are plenty more [B] and [C] type issues to resolve.
Which is why there will be a limited transition arrangement made on EU terms and a minimum deal [D] will be negotiated for these no-brainer items (which won't extend to UK trucks driving on EU roads incidentally).
The negotiating space is better than nothing and less than what we have. It's a big space, but expect the end result to be a lot less than what we have, even if it is way better than nothing.
At the moment the next Con leader can't come from the back-benches as it wouldn't be acceptable to have a backbencher as PM... But in Opposition they'll go for a relatively fresh face.
418 highest ever 4th innings chase
438 highest ever 1 day chase.
Implies 474 is a sub 1% chance generally.
Another advantage, trains running at a steady 150 km/h (90-100 mph) use 75% less energy than at 300 km/h.
The Low Tech website has condemned HSTs for the destruction of a European rail network in which longish journeys could be made for a reasonable fare, without changing trains by normal people
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-killing-the-european-railway-network.html
These folk now tend to use Easyjet or Air Berlin, not HSTs. That's not what the proponents of HSTs had in mind.
I doubt that the new fare to B'ham will be 'affordable' compared to the fare from Marylebone to Snow Hill. Also it may have dynamic pricing like airlines in which you pay £700 to fly at peak time and £40 at 6 am on a Saturday.
It will be much worse than we have now
To be fair to Ballance, he did force his way back into the side through weight of runs at a time when the obvious alternatives were out of form - and there really isn't an obvious No.3 available to pick anyway. His replacement is likely to be something of a stab in the dark.
Can't blame the guy for trying, even if he might not quite be up to the job - and some of the vitriol directed at him has been unedifying.
In any event, Yorkshire will be genuinely grateful to get him back should he lose his place.
All over, I think.
So marginally more restricted on immigration; worse off on third party trade; much worse off on EU trade; net payments broadly as present. Brexit maybe not a disaster, but nothing to be said for it either. And that doesn't deal with the huge disruption it causes.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
John SimpsonVerified account @JohnSimpsonNews 6m6 minutes ago
Some bloggers in China have made fun of Pres Xi Jinping's plumpness by posting pics of Winnie the Pooh. So Pooh is censored....
That's what happens if you try to squeeze more performance out of an existing heavily-utilised and upgraded line. It becomes very expensive, very fast.
Witness the ongoing problems with the GWML electrification.
Are you really proposing trains running at 90-100 MPH? Which is 25-40 MPH below what we have at the moment, and for the last 40 or so years (1976 for 125 MPH)?
"without changing trains by normal people"
LOL. Care to rephrase that?
Quite pleased I got the 2nd, difficult, answer to this puzzle on DM:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4702868/Can-pass-intelligence-test.html
I can't remember where but there is a good graph somewhere showing modal share between domestic air and high speed travel. Broadly speaking, if the train is 3 hours or less it kills off air competition.
That's good because it will free up landing slots at more regional airports for more international flights too.
I can envisage the HS2 trains being half empty if the fares are extortionate.
The trouble is they don't make any money and have to be subsidised.
TBF, there are some real issues with Europe's HSR. The money is far too skewed towards HSR services, to the detriment of the old-style lines. If/when HS2 occurs, that's not something that should be allowed to happen here. To be fair, it hasn't so far on HS1, with plenty of money being spent on the parallel ''old' lines.
As Kryten might say, smug mode engaged.
And with that, I must be off.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/886915946920558592
"Will people still be able to get to Leeds via Kings Cross?"
AIUI yes, but slower. But why would you prefer to go from Kings X rather than Euston?
There's one other thing to note: not doing HS2 will often lead to existing local services getting worse. This happened with the WCML upgrade: a few stations such as Etruria were closed for the upgrade, and not reopened afterwards. The reason? The stopping services interfered too much with the faster ones.
If we don't build HS2, expect more local stations on 'fast' lines to be stealthily closed in a similar manner.
Or will I have to pay for the weekend BMW too?
Asked at a meeting of the National Citizenship Service which he set up, whether any of his ministers needed to go on one of the outdoors activities that the NCS provides for youngsters he said: "If it involved crossing a very, very dangerous river on a raft, I can think of a few I'd want to strap together."
Cameron was giving his first interview since the general election in which he said the results which saw the majority he won in 2015 disappear had been 'depressing'.
http://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/news/david-cameron-plots-white-water-revenge-former-ministers
"Because what they are doing jeopardises the work we must do to prepare for Brexit at home and it weakens the Government's negotiating position in Europe.
"If we do not hold a general election now their political game-playing will continue, and the negotiations with the European Union will reach their most difficult stage in the run-up to the next scheduled election.
"Division in Westminster will risk our ability to make a success of Brexit and it will cause damaging uncertainty and instability to the country.
"So we need a general election and we need one now, because we have at this moment a one-off chance to get this done while the European Union agrees its negotiating position and before the detailed talks begin.
Brussels, Paris, Amsterdam and London. London is the only one I haven't used....
Interestingly looking at a flight in August for reasons unknown the only airline that isn't fully booked in Economy class from Vienna is BA... All Air France and KLM flights that evening are already full.
We are suffering from not developing Heathrow.
As for Etruria, I refer you to the estimates of station usage:
http://www.orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/station-usage-estimates
Have a look at the time series file. You'll see that it was used by bugger all people so it wasn't exactly greatest loss to the network.
"(Porn) Websites will be legally required to install age verification controls by April 2018 as part of a move to make the internet safer for children.
Users may be asked to provide credit card details, as gambling websites do."
But why would I need to leave credit card details with a pr0n site ?
Will pr0nhub go best price on the 3:30 at Doncaster...
On topic I'm another one veering from "yeah we'll have to live with Brexit" to "actually this needs stopping." Just no confidence in the team delivering it or that the risks can be mitigated. Post the GE I had a smirk on my face, assuming that the Tories were softening and would begin to work to unite the country. It isn't happening, so maybe there is no alternative than to resist.
Here's my experience of trying to travel from nearby Longport (also closed for the works) in 2003:
I went to the station to check on the train times, and then went into the Railway Inn to have a quick pint and while away twenty minutes. I left ten minutes before the train was due, and when it had not arrived half an hour later I phoned up National Rail Enquiries, only to have them tell me that the trains no longer serve the station and I had to take a bus service instead. It said that the next bus would go at 16.50 from the car park by platform two, and yet the information signs at the station stated that there was no car park! There were no notices stating that bus services were running instead of trains, and so I started to get quite annoyed. When the time came I stood on the station footbridge, where I saw a minibus arrive beside Platform one!
They wanted Etruria closed so they could increase line speeds and have fewer stopping trains. AIUI Longport was very nearly closed as well.
Barnier is in that position now. Macron has already made speeches of what he will do with the France's take. Ireland has already made appeals for their share. Is Barnier ready to bang the table but have to explain to Macron why he isn't getting any money if there is a walk out? Should he be more reasonable in exit costs? Does he try more threats? What can he offer?
But really that picture tells the story, doesn't it. The UK customer isn't even interested. The EU, after a year of talking, does not have a sale at any price.
The nanny state continues apace.
The verification details are a terrible idea. Either they will be easy to fake and therefore pointless. Or they will be so robust that secure identity documents will be needed which will then be stored by (dodgy) sites across the web, and identity fraud will go through the roof.
Not to mention the blackmailing possibilities.
We have filters for home users and mobile phones, if that is not enough for parents to control their young then nothing will be.
https://www.hs2actionalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/00-HS2AA-Petition-Presentation.pdf
The cash savings could go into housing....
No, my objection to the EU is political. I judge each issue on its merits and what I'd say to any Brexiteer is that this country's greatness was built on its infrastructure and engineering prowess, and this will continue to be the case in the 21st Century.
I'm confident a sensible Brexit deal can be reached.
The costs would be pretty much the same: yes, the route will be able to be curvier, but that may not necessarily reduce cost much. Local opposition would be much the same, if not worse.
This proposal is obviously just a spoiling attempt: delay things so it'll never go ahead.
"The cash savings could go into housing...."
What savings?
new thread
Fragile business sentiment linked to Brexit-related anxiety, domestic political uncertainty and squeezed consumer budgets have caused UK business confidence to drop to its lowest point for almost six years, the economic consultancy IHS Markit reports.
Meanwhile, Britain’s economic growth will continue to weaken this year due to a Brexit-related consumer-spending squeeze and muted earnings growth, the EY Item Club said in the latest downgrading of its forecasts.
Unless I'm missing a fully costed alternative case which the government rejected ?