SNP leadership – latest betting – politicalbetting.com

Mexicanpete said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Look at the map of former railway lines in Britain:

https://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php

It looks like a spaghetti carbonara. There must be enough that haven't been built over significantly that can be relaid relatively inexpensively to ease any potential capacity issues on the WCML and any other lines. And they're built in places where people want/ed to go - they were all built by businesses for economical reasons, not as part of a eurocrat feverdream in the 1950's. That means they stand a better than average chance of viability and success.

That pipedream is gone forever. For example to relay the line from Ledbury to Gloucester would cost gazillions. Many years ago I worked with a guy who had an EA exemption to inert landfill a railway cutting he had bought. It's sad, but it's dead, it's gone, and it ain't coming back, a bit like Britain in the EU.

The railways, another great British institution smashed by a Conservative Government

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

WillG said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?
https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.

I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.

I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.

A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.

To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce

Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.

Most of the population lived in rural areas, got up at dawn and slept at dusk and in all weathers got fresh air outside in the day.

Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the
Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.

The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pagan2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

WillG said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?
https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.

I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.

I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.

A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.

David Attenborough is a national treasure but has always been a luvvie Leftie.

He is also a patron of the optimum population trust which believes in a hugely reduced human population

A warning that people can be hugely impressive and respected public figures, but also talk shite.

As a naturalist he is impressive, when it comes to area's outside his sphere like many he assumes his expertise in on field makes him an expert on everything else

Humans aren't animals? Population density and so on is the stuff we were taught at Uni alongside other zoology.

Humans are obviously animals however being a naturalist does not give you any particular insight to what amounts to social problems and just waving your hands and saying humans should only be whatever the last claim he made was doesn't answer any of those. Yes he might be right from a naturalist point of view however you tell people well we have 7.8 billion too many people doesn't really help.

If we are talking for example astrophysics and brian cox tells me I am wrong I should listen because he knows more than I.

If he is commenting on how to stop incel culture no he knows no more than I

Luckyguy1983 said:

Mexicanpete said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Look at the map of former railway lines in Britain:

https://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php

It looks like a spaghetti carbonara. There must be enough that haven't been built over significantly that can be relaid relatively inexpensively to ease any potential capacity issues on the WCML and any other lines. And they're built in places where people want/ed to go - they were all built by businesses for economical reasons, not as part of a eurocrat feverdream in the 1950's. That means they stand a better than average chance of viability and success.

That pipedream is gone forever. For example to relay the line from Ledbury to Gloucester would cost gazillions. Many years ago I worked with a guy who had an EA exemption to inert landfill a railway cutting he had bought. It's sad, but it's dead, it's gone, and it ain't coming back, a bit like Britain in the EU.

The railways, another great British institution smashed by a Conservative Government

I don't agree. Civil servants grossly inflate the drawbacks and costs of projects they don't want to do. If your argument is that the CS isn't fit for purpose, I agree, but that doesn’t affect the idea of reversing some Beeching cuts any more than it affects anything else.

And it was a Tory Government that did it, but it was enabled by nationalisation.

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

numbertwelve said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away

It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity

If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.

No, it just doesn’t make sense

I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England

We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?

The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY
issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.

Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.

I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.

We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.

But this is shite

Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km

London-Manchester is 262km

It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England

I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.

But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.

Such as?

Double decker trains?

That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.

You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.

Been done. See my post.

Mexicanpete said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Mexicanpete said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Look at the map of former railway lines in Britain:

https://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php

It looks like a spaghetti carbonara. There must be enough that haven't been built over significantly that can be relaid relatively inexpensively to ease any potential capacity issues on the WCML and any other lines. And they're built in places where people want/ed to go - they were all built by businesses for economical reasons, not as part of a eurocrat feverdream in the 1950's. That means they stand a better than average chance of viability and success.

That pipedream is gone forever. For example to relay the line from Ledbury to Gloucester would cost gazillions. Many years ago I worked with a guy who had an EA exemption to inert landfill a railway cutting he had bought. It's sad, but it's dead, it's gone, and it ain't coming back, a bit like Britain in the EU.

The railways, another great British institution smashed by a Conservative Government

I don't agree. Civil servants grossly inflate the drawbacks and costs of projects they don't want to do. If your argument is that the CS isn't fit for purpose, I agree, but that doesn’t affect the idea of reversing some Beeching cuts any more than it affects anything else.

And it was a Tory Government that did it, but it was enabled by nationalisation.

What planet are you on? Beeching looked to the future and saw that the car was king. We invested in motorway after motorway, and as every concentric ring road became as congested as the last we realised, maybe the car isn't king after all. So dreamers like you, as if by magic, decide to turn the clock back.

Blaming nationalisation of the railways for Beeching's axe pushes the envelope to the extreme.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

numbertwelve said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away

It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity

If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.

No, it just doesn’t make sense

I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England

We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?

The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY
issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.

Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.

I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.

We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.

But this is shite

Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km

London-Manchester is 262km

It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England

I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.

But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.

Such as?

Double decker trains?

That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

Any resemblance to Mr D. Davis MP's double-decker leadership publicity is purely accidental.

And that design could be improved even more by the floors being dropped lower than the top of the wheels, like the Australian two storey trains. So you could almost get 2 floors.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

numbertwelve said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away

It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity

If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.

No, it just doesn’t make sense

I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England

We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?

The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY
issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.

Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.

I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.

We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.

But this is shite

Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km

London-Manchester is 262km

It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England

I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.

But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.

Such as?

Double decker trains?

That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.

You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.

Been done. See my post.

Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

numbertwelve said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away

It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity

If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.

No, it just doesn’t make sense

I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England

We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?

The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY
issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.

Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.

I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.

We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.

But this is shite

Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km

London-Manchester is 262km

It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England

I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.

But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.

Such as?

Double decker trains?

That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.

You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.

Been done. See my post.

Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

numbertwelve said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away

It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity

If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.

No, it just doesn’t make sense

I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England

We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?

The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY
issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.

Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.

I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.

We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.

But this is shite

Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km

London-Manchester is 262km

It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England

I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.

But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.

Such as?

Double decker trains?

That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

Any resemblance to Mr D. Davis MP's double-decker leadership publicity is purely accidental.

And that design could be improved even more by the floors being dropped lower than the top of the wheels, like the Australian two storey trains. So you could almost get 2 floors.

Don't the Australian double decker trains run on broad gauges, which enables it to dip below (between) the wheels? The UK's gauge of 1,435mm doesn't really allow that.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

numbertwelve said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away

It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity

If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.

No, it just doesn’t make sense

I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England

We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?

The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY
issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.

Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.

I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.

We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.

But this is shite

Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km

London-Manchester is 262km

It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England

I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.

But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.

Such as?

Double decker trains?

That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

Any resemblance to Mr D. Davis MP's double-decker leadership publicity is purely accidental.

And that design could be improved even more by the floors being dropped lower than the top of the wheels, like the Australian two storey trains. So you could almost get 2 floors.

Don't the Australian double decker trains run on broad gauges, which enables it to dip below (between) the wheels? The UK's gauge of 1,435mm doesn't really allow that.

They have double deck trains in the US and in Europe, running on standard gauge.

Mexicanpete said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Mexicanpete said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Look at the map of former railway lines in Britain:

https://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php

It looks like a spaghetti carbonara. There must be enough that haven't been built over significantly that can be relaid relatively inexpensively to ease any potential capacity issues on the WCML and any other lines. And they're built in places where people want/ed to go - they were all built by businesses for economical reasons, not as part of a eurocrat feverdream in the 1950's. That means they stand a better than average chance of viability and success.

That pipedream is gone forever. For example to relay the line from Ledbury to Gloucester would cost gazillions. Many years ago I worked with a guy who had an EA exemption to inert landfill a railway cutting he had bought. It's sad, but it's dead, it's gone, and it ain't coming back, a bit like Britain in the EU.

The railways, another great British institution smashed by a Conservative Government

I don't agree. Civil servants grossly inflate the drawbacks and costs of projects they don't want to do. If your argument is that the CS isn't fit for purpose, I agree, but that doesn’t affect the idea of reversing some Beeching cuts any more than it affects anything else.

And it was a Tory Government that did it, but it was enabled by nationalisation.

What planet are you on? Beeching looked to the future and saw that the car was king. We invested in motorway after motorway, and as every concentric ring road became as congested as the last we realised, maybe the car isn't king after all. So dreamers like you, as if by magic, decide to turn the clock back.

Blaming nationalisation of the railways for Beeching's axe pushes the envelope to the extreme.

Andy_JS said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

numbertwelve said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away

It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity

If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.

No, it just doesn’t make sense

I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England

We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?

The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY
issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.

Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.

I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.

We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.

But this is shite

Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km

London-Manchester is 262km

It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England

I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.

But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.

Such as?

Double decker trains?

Bridges and tunnel, station architecture say no.

I was on one a few days ago, between Paris and Lille. Double decker trains.

Andy_JS said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

numbertwelve said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away

It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity

If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.

No, it just doesn’t make sense

I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England

We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?

The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY
issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.

Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.

I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.

We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.

But this is shite

Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km

London-Manchester is 262km

It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England

I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.

But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.

Such as?

Double decker trains?

Bridges and tunnel, station architecture say no.

I was on one a few days ago, between Paris and Lille. Double decker trains.

Fishing said:

Mexicanpete said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Look at the map of former railway lines in Britain:

https://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php

It looks like a spaghetti carbonara. There must be enough that haven't been built over significantly that can be relaid relatively inexpensively to ease any potential capacity issues on the WCML and any other lines. And they're built in places where people want/ed to go - they were all built by businesses for economical reasons, not as part of a eurocrat feverdream in the 1950's. That means they stand a better than average chance of viability and success.

That pipedream is gone forever. For example to relay the line from Ledbury to Gloucester would cost gazillions. Many years ago I worked with a guy who had an EA exemption to inert landfill a railway cutting he had bought. It's sad, but it's dead, it's gone, and it ain't coming back, a bit like Britain in the EU.

The railways, another great British institution smashed by a Conservative Government

Most of the closures were under Labour, and were inevitable in any case, given competition from the car. Similar measures were taken in most developed countries at the same time, and in the others a few decades earlier or later.

It was the car (and lorry), not the Conservative (or Labour) government, that caused many of our railways to close. Only the most partisan and insular can possibly argue otherwise.

Carnyx said:

geoffw said:

 

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

WillG said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?
https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.

I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.

I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.

A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.

To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce

Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.

Most of the population lived in rural areas, got up at dawn and slept at dusk and in all weathers got fresh air outside in the day.

Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the
Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.

The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools

Stamford and Durham too wer e universities.

Stamford?

Oh yes, if not operating for very long. But Oxford grads had to swear an oath until some time in the C19 not to lecture there.

Fairliered said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

numbertwelve said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away

It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity

If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.

No, it just doesn’t make sense

I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England

We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?

The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY
issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.

Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.

I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.

We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.

But this is shite

Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km

London-Manchester is 262km

It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England

I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.

But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.

Such as?

Double decker trains?

That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.

You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.

Been done. See my post.

Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&url=https://www.railtech.com/rolling-stock/2019/05/22/regiojet-to-use-double-decker-trains-on-regional-line-in-slovakia/&psig=AOvVaw1LZAn3Y3-zOWlkFd6wf_gF&ust=1678485332637000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CA4QjRxqFwoTCNCxjaLrz_0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

geoffw said:

 

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

WillG said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?
https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.

I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.

I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.

A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.

To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce

Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.

Most of the population lived in rural areas, got up at dawn and slept at dusk and in all weathers got fresh air outside in the day.

Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the
Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.

The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools

Stamford and Durham too wer e universities.

Stamford?

update: found it on Wikipedia. Surprised.

Foxy said:

turbotubbs said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

Britain Elects

On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

Support: 50%
Oppose: 36%

via
@YouGov

Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.

There must be labour and lib dems who disagree with you if 50% agree the policy

I'm not trying to party politicise this even if you re.

I think both Sunak and Starmer are being responsible - Sunak is trying to work with the French and others to come up with a suitable and proportionate response and Starmer reminds us it's the people smuggling gangs who are actively profiting from the desperation and misery of others. Targeting them and stopping them (and to be fair some of them appear to be British citizens so our hands aren't exactly clean) seems wholly sensible.

Where I part company with Braverman is her policy continues to inflame sentiment against migrants - once a group is suitably dehumanised and vilified any action aginst them becomes justified. Whatever we may think of them as a group, migrants are individuals and we should treat them with a common decency and humanity.

I don't disagree with any of that but boats have to be stopped to save innocent lives

Your last two words should read 'Tory seats'.

Sorry I just do not have a concern for conservative seats, I have concern for lives lost at sea and the risk my son and his colleagues, as sea going RNLI crew, take every day in rescuing people and children drowning at the hands of people smugglers

Big G, my comment wasn't aimed at you personally - far from it. However, I would take some persuading that Braverman's main concern is to 'save innocent lives' - I reckon that's a long way down her list of priorities.

I genuinely care for the lives of people at sea and am very proud my son who is sea going crew on the verge of getting his first command in just 2 years

I want the boats stopped for this reason and reject Farage style attitudes to Immigrants

On whose watch did the small boat asylum seekers/economic migrant accelerate from 0 to 45,000 pa in around four years?

Can Sir Beer Korma lefty Lawyer fans please explain?

They turned to boats as other routes were closed off.

Simplist way to stop the boats would be to loosen security at the lorry park in France.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

Fairliered said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

numbertwelve said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away

It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity

If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.

No, it just doesn’t make sense

I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England

We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?

The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY
issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.

Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.

I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.

We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.

But this is shite

Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km

London-Manchester is 262km

It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England

I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.

But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.

Such as?

Double decker trains?

That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.

You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.

Been done. See my post.

Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&url=https://www.railtech.com/rolling-stock/2019/05/22/regiojet-to-use-double-decker-trains-on-regional-line-in-slovakia/&psig=AOvVaw1LZAn3Y3-zOWlkFd6wf_gF&ust=1678485332637000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CA4QjRxqFwoTCNCxjaLrz_0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

Love it.

New Mexico Railrunner:

Mexicanpete said:

turbotubbs said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

Britain Elects

On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

Support: 50%
Oppose: 36%

via
@YouGov

Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.

There must be labour and lib dems who disagree with you if 50% agree the policy

I'm not trying to party politicise this even if you re.

I think both Sunak and Starmer are being responsible - Sunak is trying to work with the French and others to come up with a suitable and proportionate response and Starmer reminds us it's the people smuggling gangs who are actively profiting from the desperation and misery of others. Targeting them and stopping them (and to be fair some of them appear to be British citizens so our hands aren't exactly clean) seems wholly sensible.

Where I part company with Braverman is her policy continues to inflame sentiment against migrants - once a group is suitably dehumanised and vilified any action aginst them becomes justified. Whatever we may think of them as a group, migrants are individuals and we should treat them with a common decency and humanity.

I don't disagree with any of that but boats have to be stopped to save innocent lives

Your last two words should read 'Tory seats'.

Sorry I just do not have a concern for conservative seats, I have concern for lives lost at sea and the risk my son and his colleagues, as sea going RNLI crew, take every day in rescuing people and children drowning at the hands of people smugglers

Big G, my comment wasn't aimed at you personally - far from it. However, I would take some persuading that Braverman's main concern is to 'save innocent lives' - I reckon that's a long way down her list of priorities.

I genuinely care for the lives of people at sea and am very proud my son who is sea going crew on the verge of getting his first command in just 2 years

I want the boats stopped for this reason and reject Farage style attitudes to Immigrants

On whose watch did the small boat asylum seekers/economic migrant accelerate from 0 to 45,000 pa in around four years?

Can Sir Beer Korma lefty Lawyer fans please explain?

They turned to boats as other routes were closed off.

Like the Dublin Convention?

geoffw said:

Carnyx said:

geoffw said:

 

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

WillG said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

I have to admit this thought occurred to me when someone suggested the Tories taking on David Attenborough next as being a stupid idea (which it very much would be), due to comments he's made about the industrial revolution - whilst he may have thought through the implications of that, I do think it has an image problem which doesn't consider the good points.

Err not sure these two things are the same. The first counts as pure environmental degradation, the second was costly but had the upside of by far the biggest increase in human welfare in history.


Unfair to pick on this otherwise interesting post but it's a mistake that comes up surprisingly often. What do people think life would be like if we hadn't burnt fossil fuels? Like it is now, just no climate crisis?
https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1633845495595671552/photo/1

We’d have chopped down all the forests, and burned them for energy.

People who wish the Industrial Revolution had never happened seem to imagine themselves living like lords, rather than like peasants.

I don't think that's the error. I think they just don't know history and don't have much understanding of pre-industrial life. They have a vision of Hobbits in the Shire.

I think that’s right. And the Shire was rural Warwickshire in the 1890’s, rather than a medieval society.

A pre-industrial world is one where starvation is a reality when the crops fail; most children don’t reach adulthood; most homes are damp and insanitary; people die of infections and illnesses that are easily treated today; violent crime is rife; competition for resources is fierce, and the class system is brutal.

To an extent but crime was also lower in rural pre industrial England than in cities in the industrial revolution, food was organic and pesticide free, people spent more time outdoors than indoors looking at phones and screens. There was also arguably more community cohesion, whether at church or town fayres etc and families tended to stick together and there was no divorce

Homicide rates in England in 1300 were about ten times the current level. In the fifty years prior to the Black Death, England faced repeated famine, as the population had gone beyond the point at which it could easily be fed. Wheat was often infected with ergot, and adulteration of food in the towns was common. Private war between the barons was a constant risk for the lower classes, and the class system had real teeth.

Most of the population lived in rural areas, got up at dawn and slept at dusk and in all weathers got fresh air outside in the day.

Villages were run by the Lord of the Manor and the Vicar and everyone went to Church on Sunday. The Lords had no life peers, just Bishops, Abbotts and Hereditary Barons and Peers and had equal power to the
Commons which less than 5% of the population voted for. The King had a major role in lawmaking and deciding when to go to War too.

The only universities were Oxford and Cambridge, mainly preparing students for a career in the law or the church and the only schools were some of the ancient public schools or grammar schools

Stamford and Durham too wer e universities.

Stamford?

Oh yes, if not operating for very long. But Oxford grads had to swear an oath until some time in the C19 not to lecture there.

The wiki article reads like a spoof.

rcs1000 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

Fairliered said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

numbertwelve said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away

It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity

If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.

No, it just doesn’t make sense

I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England

We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?

The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY
issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.

Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.

I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.

We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.

But this is shite

Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km

London-Manchester is 262km

It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England

I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.

But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.

Such as?

Double decker trains?

That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.

You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.

Been done. See my post.

Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&url=https://www.railtech.com/rolling-stock/2019/05/22/regiojet-to-use-double-decker-trains-on-regional-line-in-slovakia/&psig=AOvVaw1LZAn3Y3-zOWlkFd6wf_gF&ust=1678485332637000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CA4QjRxqFwoTCNCxjaLrz_0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

Love it.

New Mexico Railrunner:

That's very cool, but I suspect you'd struggle to fit that through British tunnels, and under British bridges.

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

This policy has completely backfired. Can the Tories even do politics? Have they given up?

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

Fairliered said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

numbertwelve said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away

It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity

If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.

No, it just doesn’t make sense

I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England

We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?

The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY
issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.

Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.

I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.

We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.

But this is shite

Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km

London-Manchester is 262km

It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England

I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.

But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.

Such as?

Double decker trains?

That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.

You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.

Been done. See my post.

Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&url=https://www.railtech.com/rolling-stock/2019/05/22/regiojet-to-use-double-decker-trains-on-regional-line-in-slovakia/&psig=AOvVaw1LZAn3Y3-zOWlkFd6wf_gF&ust=1678485332637000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CA4QjRxqFwoTCNCxjaLrz_0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

Love it.

New Mexico Railrunner:

That's very cool, but I suspect you'd struggle to fit that through British tunnels, and under British bridges.

But the argument is going around in circles. I have already acknowledged that there cannot be two complete storeys with standing room. However, the floor can be dropped, the internal space can be maximised, and a lot of extra interior capacity can be created, and the resulting train would not require any modification of current UK rail infrastructure.

nico679 said:

So Johnson put forward the despicable Dacre again for the Lords .

And if Sunak blocks that he’ll be in trouble with the DM .

Pagan2 said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Seems 50% support Sunak on boats

Britain Elects

On banning migrants who come to the UK in small boats from ever re-entering the UK

Support: 50%
Oppose: 36%

via
@YouGov

Just because a policy is popular doesn't make it right. I thought we were beyond policy by focus groups.

Just because a policy is popular also does not make it wrong

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

Fairliered said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

numbertwelve said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away

It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity

If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.

No, it just doesn’t make sense

I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England

We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?

The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY
issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.

Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.

I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.

We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.

But this is shite

Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km

London-Manchester is 262km

It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England

I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.

But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.

Such as?

Double decker trains?

That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.

You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.

Been done. See my post.

Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&url=https://www.railtech.com/rolling-stock/2019/05/22/regiojet-to-use-double-decker-trains-on-regional-line-in-slovakia/&psig=AOvVaw1LZAn3Y3-zOWlkFd6wf_gF&ust=1678485332637000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CA4QjRxqFwoTCNCxjaLrz_0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

Love it.

New Mexico Railrunner:

That's very cool, but I suspect you'd struggle to fit that through British tunnels, and under British bridges.

But the argument is going around in circles. I have already acknowledged that there cannot be two complete storeys with standing room. However, the floor can be dropped, the internal space can be maximised, and a lot of extra interior capacity can be created, and the resulting train would not require any modification of current UK rail infrastructure.

What is the maximum height of a carriage in the UK? And has anyone managed to produce a double decker train that fits into that limitation? If not, what is the lowest double decker train? And how much lower would ours need to be?

Furthermore, the loading (platform) height matters too, and we'd need to structure around that.

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

Fairliered said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

numbertwelve said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away

It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity

If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.

No, it just doesn’t make sense

I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England

We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?

The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY
issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.

Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.

I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.

We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.

But this is shite

Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km

London-Manchester is 262km

It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England

I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.

But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.

Such as?

Double decker trains?

That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.

You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.

Been done. See my post.

Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&url=https://www.railtech.com/rolling-stock/2019/05/22/regiojet-to-use-double-decker-trains-on-regional-line-in-slovakia/&psig=AOvVaw1LZAn3Y3-zOWlkFd6wf_gF&ust=1678485332637000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CA4QjRxqFwoTCNCxjaLrz_0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

Love it.

New Mexico Railrunner:

That's very cool, but I suspect you'd struggle to fit that through British tunnels, and under British bridges.

But the argument is going around in circles. I have already acknowledged that there cannot be two complete storeys with standing room. However, the floor can be dropped, the internal space can be maximised, and a lot of extra interior capacity can be created, and the resulting train would not require any modification of current UK rail infrastructure.

What is the maximum height of a carriage in the UK? And has anyone managed to produce a double decker train that fits into that limitation? If not, what is the lowest double decker train? And how much lower would ours need to be?

Furthermore, the loading (platform) height matters too, and we'd need to structure around that.

The link Carynx posted earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

And that's without dropping the floor.

The real issue is the passenger loading time at stations.

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

Fairliered said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

numbertwelve said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away

It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity

If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.

No, it just doesn’t make sense

I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England

We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?

The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY
issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.

Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.

I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.

We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.

But this is shite

Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km

London-Manchester is 262km

It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England

I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.

But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.

Such as?

Double decker trains?

That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.

You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.

Been done. See my post.

Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&url=https://www.railtech.com/rolling-stock/2019/05/22/regiojet-to-use-double-decker-trains-on-regional-line-in-slovakia/&psig=AOvVaw1LZAn3Y3-zOWlkFd6wf_gF&ust=1678485332637000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CA4QjRxqFwoTCNCxjaLrz_0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

Love it.

New Mexico Railrunner:

That's very cool, but I suspect you'd struggle to fit that through British tunnels, and under British bridges.

But the argument is going around in circles. I have already acknowledged that there cannot be two complete storeys with standing room. However, the floor can be dropped, the internal space can be maximised, and a lot of extra interior capacity can be created, and the resulting train would not require any modification of current UK rail infrastructure.

What is the maximum height of a carriage in the UK? And has anyone managed to produce a double decker train that fits into that limitation? If not, what is the lowest double decker train? And how much lower would ours need to be?

Furthermore, the loading (platform) height matters too, and we'd need to structure around that.

The link Carynx posted earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

And that's without dropping the floor.

The real issue is the passenger loading time at stations.

From that link:

The 4DD was more split-level than truly double-deck because the compartments were alternately high and low to ensure that the overall height of the train was exactly within the clearances necessary to safely pass through tunnels and under bridges. A mock-up was displayed at London Marylebone in 1949 shortly before it was first introduced into service,[1] but an assessment after one year in service revealed that the design would not be the optimum solution to the problems of overcrowding, nor would it help increase capacity,

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

Fairliered said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

numbertwelve said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

In terms of major population centres the UK is relatively tiny. High speed trains make no sense. It’s like building a high speed walkway from my bed to my laptop, which is 3 metres away

It’s all over engineered and it was all done for vanity

If they'd had this attitude in the 19th century we wouldn't have built any railways in Britain.

No, it just doesn’t make sense

I’d build Heathrow’s new runway tomorrow. And crossrail 2. But highly expensive ultra fast trains are simply dumb in a small densely populated country like England

We don’t need them. It’s like trying to make Tube trains go in the air at vast expense. What’s the frigging point?

The Shinkansen transformed Japanese transportation in an almost equally small and even more densely populated country. Of course they didn’t have the same NIMBY
issues we do but the engineering challenges were at least as great.

Shinkansen literally means “new mainline” and it was built entirely to create extra capacity by taking the express trains off the lines used by stoppers and freight. I assume they decided they might as well make them super fast if they were building a whole new line. They are also just incredibly efficient if a little no frills. In they roll, stop for a few seconds, everyone gets on, off they go again and 2 hours later you’re in Osaka.

I suspect the problem as with all infrastructure is that we should have built HS2, and 3 and 4, decades ago. I’m also sure it’s better to get on with building now than doing it another decade later.

We could do with a bit of latency in our infrastructure. We always build just as we’re about to burst.

But this is shite

Tokyo-Hiroshima (about half the length of Japan) is 800km

London-Manchester is 262km

It’s ridiculous. We don’t need ultra high speed trains because quite fast trains get anyone wherever they need perfectly fine. England is small. This is an advantage. Instead the geeky trainspotter twats have tried to foist upon us, at vast expense, a train system which is ideal for vast continental countries. Not England

I’ve never been sold on the speed of the thing. Manchester or Leeds to London isn’t an intolerable travel time as it is. If they’d been connecting it to Edinburgh and Glasgow, sure, maybe you can argue greater benefit.

But capacity is the key driver here. There would likely have been cheaper options to boost capacity at pinch points though. Which would have been more sensible.

Such as?

Double decker trains?

That would be even more expensive and slower than building HS2 given our loading gauge.

You couldn't have two true stories. The upper layer would be for Sunak sized people only.

Been done. See my post.

Yes, but I don't think those trains had two fully standable storeys, from previous PB discussions. British tunnels are too low. But sink the floor (you can see that train interior only starts at platform level), you could get even more internal space. I'd love the UK to have double decker trains. I'd make them red like routemaster buses.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&url=https://www.railtech.com/rolling-stock/2019/05/22/regiojet-to-use-double-decker-trains-on-regional-line-in-slovakia/&psig=AOvVaw1LZAn3Y3-zOWlkFd6wf_gF&ust=1678485332637000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CA4QjRxqFwoTCNCxjaLrz_0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

Love it.

New Mexico Railrunner:

That's very cool, but I suspect you'd struggle to fit that through British tunnels, and under British bridges.

But the argument is going around in circles. I have already acknowledged that there cannot be two complete storeys with standing room. However, the floor can be dropped, the internal space can be maximised, and a lot of extra interior capacity can be created, and the resulting train would not require any modification of current UK rail infrastructure.

What is the maximum height of a carriage in the UK? And has anyone managed to produce a double decker train that fits into that limitation? If not, what is the lowest double decker train? And how much lower would ours need to be?

Furthermore, the loading (platform) height matters too, and we'd need to structure around that.

carnforth said:

I only learned today that Ireland (incl NI) uses a different gauge to GB.

slade said:

Lab hold in Hounslow but big LD vote.

williamglenn said:

The latest racial justice battleground:



https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1633840062160072707

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

The latest racial justice battleground:



https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1633840062160072707

Has been a battleground for some time, as fact that poor parts of town in US are generally down-wind of whatever pollution is happening in the city or metro area. Thus usually on the east side, as most weather comes from the west in North America. PLUS things like dumps, incinerators, smokestacks, freight yards, etc, etc tend to end up in poorer hoods NOT the high-hat districts.

So NOT the latest, but still a big deal. In terms of equity AND environment.