HS2

coopster_the_1st

rjsterry wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Focus on speed definitely misses the point. Another line improves capacity. People spending less time on trains for the same journey reduces train congestion.

That's the main advantage.

I thought I was for HS2 (although disagree on the London 2 Birmingham route) however is a capacity increase really needed? And this will be in 20 years time!

Where will technology be in 20 years time? (think back to where technology was 20 years ago :shock: )

Will there be the requirement to travel as much?

We're still using locomotives designed in the 1970s, so I reckon in 20 years time, trains won't be fundamentally different



According to Wikipedia, they stopped building these in 1982; still see 'em pulling out of Paddington.

I agree trains will not be fundamentally different, but what about computing technology?

Think where the mobile phone or Internet was 20 years ago. With that rate of past development, we have no idea where it will be in 20 years. Will we need to travel as much for work as we do now?

sketchley

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 3012857772

supersonic

Bloody hell, the new route pactically goes through my back garden! Should be handy.

wgwarburton

Hi,
Teleconferencing is happening but demand for rail is increasing.

Rail is a really good way to move lots of people quickly along fixed routes. Planes are inefficient on many measures- time-savings on short-haul flights are often illussiory, even without the hassle factor. With no immediate prospect of increasing traffic speeds (High speed toll-roads allowing 120mph car travel would certainly change the game, though risks would need to be managed carefully) High-Speed rail offers a proven, if pricey, solution to a problem that we arguably should be tackling.

It doesn't seem as though video-conferencing is replacing the need to travel, just changing the demand a little.

Design life for trains is about forty years, I'm told, so even without a lack of investment there would still be a lot of '80s rolling stock around.

Britain isn't Australia, or the USA. Trains are capable of sensible journey times using proven, mature technology. They are safe, reliable and, crucially, perfectly capable of carrying bicycles!

Cheers,
W.

meanredspider

WGWarburton wrote:

Rail is a really good way to move lots of people quickly along fixed routes. Planes are inefficient on many measures- time-savings on short-haul flights are often illussiory, even without the hassle factor.

High-speed trains might be. The regular ones are pretty crap. I can drive to Glasgow or Edinburgh faster than the train will get me there & 90% of my journey isn't even motorway (2/3 is single carriageway).

And getting to London by train takes an absurd amount of time - 12 hours! I can drive in 9 or fly in 1hr30 (throw in a couple of hours for checking in and transport at the other end - you still get less than 1/3rd the time).

notsoblue

supersonic wrote:

Bloody hell, the new route pactically goes through my back garden! Should be handy.

Only if theres a station close by, or you have a maker hook.

secretsam

I regularly ride through some of the bits of Bucks that the HS2 is passing through. Regardless of anything else, it's a crying shame that these beautiful areas are going to be desecrated.

I was listening to R5L last night, and they had a transport professor on who basically said that the case doesn't stack up. I mean, who actually benefits, and how (apart from the expenditure on the building of HS2)?

The Rookie

What miffs me is that the route will close down my cycle commute to work until the bridge is built....it will pass about 1mile from my house.

The bigger issue is that for everyone affected up to Birmingham there is no benefit as it won't be worth going the wrong way to Birmingham to start a then faster journey.

What is desperately needed is some relief of the Birmingham to Coventry and onwards corridor which is rammed to capacity, HS2 does help that.

Looking longer term, HS2 will be fast enough to get people out of planes which is good for the environment.

Personally though I think the route to Birmingham should have centred on the current M40/Chiltern line corridor, much in the way the HS1 uses the M20 Corridor.

supersonic

Similar here too - the route takes out a 3 mile stretch of the TPT. Which would have been the way I walked/ride to the station lol.

Daz555

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 3012857772

Sums it up perfectly.

keyser__soze

Daz555 wrote:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/hs2-to-make-london-even-bigger-2013012857772

Sums it up perfectly.

Page 2 called, they want their link back

Dellsinho

The preferred route into Manchester tunnels 40m east of my house. Sadly I don't think I'll still be living there when/if construction begins.

I'm dead excited by HS2, I might try and get on the project at some point in the future.

Definitely not a white elephant, it'll promote economic growth, aid the capacity of the rail network and bring us pretty much up to date with the rest of advanced Europe/world (so long as they don't move onto something else by the time we've built...).

There's no point in patching what we already have. Back in the 50/60's the decision was made to construct brand new motorways instead of patching up the stock we already had for it to then require further investment 10 years later. That investment provided no end of economic benefits to the country - can you imagine what it'd be like now, without? Rail needs to take that jump too.

peat

i agree. And while i do feel sorry for those who will have their homes affected by the line, you can't stand in the way of progress forever.

tailwindhome

What you people need is a genuine bonafide electrified six car monorail