Brexit: Let's call the whole thing off..

Matthewfalle

omnishambles.

utterly brilliant. i have now stolen it.

word of the day!

rick_chasey

2009 calling - it wants its f@cking word back.

Stevo_666

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

..
Sod that, we're getting a minibus transfer so we don't have to bother with anything car-related on holiday.

Good plan. After BREXIT you may not be authorised to drive there, be insured or have a car considered roadworthy. Also, have enough euros in case the credit card doesn't work.

Kinda funny really.

May gets to be leader and calls a general election to assert her authority in negotiations with the EU.

May's weakened authority causes a confidence vote to get rid, get a new leader and re-assert Tory power in the negotiations with the EU.

That went well

I'm going in January...

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

2009 calling - it wants its f@cking word back.

The Word was the early '90s IIRC.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

2009 calling - it wants its f@cking word back.

The Word was the early '90s IIRC.

Alright grandpa, calm down.

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

..
Sod that, we're getting a minibus transfer so we don't have to bother with anything car-related on holiday.

Good plan. After BREXIT you may not be authorised to drive there, be insured or have a car considered roadworthy. Also, have enough euros in case the credit card doesn't work.

Kinda funny really.

May gets to be leader and calls a general election to assert her authority in negotiations with the EU.

May's weakened authority causes a confidence vote to get rid, get a new leader and re-assert Tory power in the negotiations with the EU.

That went well

I'm going in January...

You do realise it's pretty cr4p in January, there's snow all over the place?

Matthewfalle

Rick Chasey wrote:

2009 calling - it wants its f@cking word back.

it also wants your haircut back.

and 1982 wants your clothes.

Stevo_666

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

..
Sod that, we're getting a minibus transfer so we don't have to bother with anything car-related on holiday.

Good plan. After BREXIT you may not be authorised to drive there, be insured or have a car considered roadworthy. Also, have enough euros in case the credit card doesn't work.

Kinda funny really.

May gets to be leader and calls a general election to assert her authority in negotiations with the EU.

May's weakened authority causes a confidence vote to get rid, get a new leader and re-assert Tory power in the negotiations with the EU.

That went well

I'm going in January...

You do realise it's pretty cr4p in January, there's snow all over the place?

You're not a skier then?

Matthewfalle

richard goes skiing quite often i believe.

Matthewfalle

i just had a telegram from 1962. they want richard's "jokes" back.

robert88

Apparently the cost of HS2 has been massively underestimated. Apart from other factors, the number of people's home to be demolished is far greater than planned for.

It is the largest infrastructure project in Europe*. My recommendation is that we cancel it and spend the money we save on our subscription to the EU.


* and least useful

tangled_metal

I say tax the hell out of the south east until business moves elsewhere in England and they suddenly realise they actually do need infrastructure built in the North.

If you want to look at overpriced building projects look closer to home at crossrail. Biggest in Europe and just how late and over budget is it?

PS first suggestion isn't serious in case you thought I meant it.

fenix

Does HS2 do more than reduce train journeys every so slightly ? What I see when I use the trains is that operators don't put enough services on. Who wants to fight for a seat or stand for a couple of hours ? Spend the HS2 budget on more or bigger trains.

rjsterry

Fenix wrote:

Does HS2 do more than reduce train journeys every so slightly ? What I see when I use the trains is that operators don't put enough services on. Who wants to fight for a seat or stand for a couple of hours ? Spend the HS2 budget on more or bigger trains.

Err, HS2 is providing more, longer trains.

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

I say tax the hell out of the south east until business moves elsewhere in England and they suddenly realise they actually do need infrastructure built in the North.

If you want to look at overpriced building projects look closer to home at crossrail. Biggest in Europe and just how late and over budget is it?

PS first suggestion isn't serious in case you thought I meant it.

At the risk of sounding like Stevo, that is exactly what happens already. The South East and East of England are the only UK region that are net contributors to the Treasury. So you would like to be even more subsidised by London?

fenix

rjsterry wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Does HS2 do more than reduce train journeys every so slightly ? What I see when I use the trains is that operators don't put enough services on. Who wants to fight for a seat or stand for a couple of hours ? Spend the HS2 budget on more or bigger trains.

Err, HS2 is providing more, longer trains.

And they can't do that just using the existing track ?

(obv I'm not a real train driver...)

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I say tax the hell out of the south east until business moves elsewhere in England and they suddenly realise they actually do need infrastructure built in the North.

If you want to look at overpriced building projects look closer to home at crossrail. Biggest in Europe and just how late and over budget is it?

PS first suggestion isn't serious in case you thought I meant it.

At the risk of sounding like Stevo, that is exactly what happens already. The South East and East of England are the only UK region that are net contributors to the Treasury. So you would like to be even more subsidised by London?

Hardly surprising is it - if you don't invest in something then the productivity goes down and a lot more investment is needed to even keep things on the level (it's a bit like roads - if you actually maintain them they cost a lot less than if you don't). London gets Crossrail 27 and in the meantime Grayling proposes that the best way to electrify the Trans Pennine route is to not electrify the Pennine bit.

That said, it is far nicer living in the underfunded North, in the largest city in the EU with no mass transport system, than among the glistening plastic spires of that London..... We wish London the best of luck with Crossrail 28.

rjsterry

Fenix wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Does HS2 do more than reduce train journeys every so slightly ? What I see when I use the trains is that operators don't put enough services on. Who wants to fight for a seat or stand for a couple of hours ? Spend the HS2 budget on more or bigger trains.

Err, HS2 is providing more, longer trains.

And they can't do that just using the existing track ?

(obv I'm not a real train driver...)

No. If you ran them on the same track, you'd need to build another line next to it to take all the slower stopping services. And you would have to rebuild all the stations to take the longer trains; and straighten any tight bends; and replace all the signalling to cope with the higher speeds and shorter gaps between trains. There isn't actually that much spare capacity in the existing network (which is part of the reason it goes wrong so frequently).

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I say tax the hell out of the south east until business moves elsewhere in England and they suddenly realise they actually do need infrastructure built in the North.

If you want to look at overpriced building projects look closer to home at crossrail. Biggest in Europe and just how late and over budget is it?

PS first suggestion isn't serious in case you thought I meant it.

At the risk of sounding like Stevo, that is exactly what happens already. The South East and East of England are the only UK region that are net contributors to the Treasury. So you would like to be even more subsidised by London?

Hardly surprising is it - if you don't invest in something then the productivity goes down and a lot more investment is needed to even keep things on the level (it's a bit like roads - if you actually maintain them they cost a lot less than if you don't). London gets Crossrail 27 and in the meantime Grayling proposes that the best way to electrify the Trans Pennine route is to not electrify the Pennine bit.

That said, it is far nicer living in the underfunded North, in the largest city in the EU with no mass transport system, than among the glistening plastic spires of that London..... We wish London the best of luck with Crossrail 28.

The bias for public investment in the South East over Rest of Country is a massive bugbear of mine.

The north, with the proximity of a lot of cities, is seriously low hanging fruit for some decent infrastructure investment.

It’s an absolute travesty. So much potential there. I go up a lot and it’s so obvious.

fenix

rjsterry wrote:

Fenix wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Does HS2 do more than reduce train journeys every so slightly ? What I see when I use the trains is that operators don't put enough services on. Who wants to fight for a seat or stand for a couple of hours ? Spend the HS2 budget on more or bigger trains.

Err, HS2 is providing more, longer trains.

And they can't do that just using the existing track ?

(obv I'm not a real train driver...)

No. If you ran them on the same track, you'd need to build another line next to it to take all the slower stopping services. And you would have to rebuild all the stations to take the longer trains; and straighten any tight bends; and replace all the signalling to cope with the higher speeds and shorter gaps between trains. There isn't actually that much spare capacity in the existing network (which is part of the reason it goes wrong so frequently).

Thanks for the explanation. We do need decent railways - we can't go on as we are.

surrey_commuter

Fenix wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Fenix wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Does HS2 do more than reduce train journeys every so slightly ? What I see when I use the trains is that operators don't put enough services on. Who wants to fight for a seat or stand for a couple of hours ? Spend the HS2 budget on more or bigger trains.

Err, HS2 is providing more, longer trains.

And they can't do that just using the existing track ?

(obv I'm not a real train driver...)

No. If you ran them on the same track, you'd need to build another line next to it to take all the slower stopping services. And you would have to rebuild all the stations to take the longer trains; and straighten any tight bends; and replace all the signalling to cope with the higher speeds and shorter gaps between trains. There isn't actually that much spare capacity in the existing network (which is part of the reason it goes wrong so frequently).

Thanks for the explanation. We do need decent railways - we can't go on as we are.

there is a difference between needing decent railways and needing high speed railways

rjsterry

Fenix wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Fenix wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Does HS2 do more than reduce train journeys every so slightly ? What I see when I use the trains is that operators don't put enough services on. Who wants to fight for a seat or stand for a couple of hours ? Spend the HS2 budget on more or bigger trains.

Err, HS2 is providing more, longer trains.

And they can't do that just using the existing track ?

(obv I'm not a real train driver...)

No. If you ran them on the same track, you'd need to build another line next to it to take all the slower stopping services. And you would have to rebuild all the stations to take the longer trains; and straighten any tight bends; and replace all the signalling to cope with the higher speeds and shorter gaps between trains. There isn't actually that much spare capacity in the existing network (which is part of the reason it goes wrong so frequently).

Thanks for the explanation. We do need decent railways - we can't go on as we are.

I have a brother in the industry. The complexities of making even quite modest changes to the system are pretty mind-bending.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Fenix wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Fenix wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Does HS2 do more than reduce train journeys every so slightly ? What I see when I use the trains is that operators don't put enough services on. Who wants to fight for a seat or stand for a couple of hours ? Spend the HS2 budget on more or bigger trains.

Err, HS2 is providing more, longer trains.

And they can't do that just using the existing track ?

(obv I'm not a real train driver...)

No. If you ran them on the same track, you'd need to build another line next to it to take all the slower stopping services. And you would have to rebuild all the stations to take the longer trains; and straighten any tight bends; and replace all the signalling to cope with the higher speeds and shorter gaps between trains. There isn't actually that much spare capacity in the existing network (which is part of the reason it goes wrong so frequently).

Thanks for the explanation. We do need decent railways - we can't go on as we are.

there is a difference between needing decent railways and needing high speed railways

Sure, but the main argument against hs2 seems to be just a superficial "gosh that's so much money" without any real understanding of what is involved.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Fenix wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Fenix wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Does HS2 do more than reduce train journeys every so slightly ? What I see when I use the trains is that operators don't put enough services on. Who wants to fight for a seat or stand for a couple of hours ? Spend the HS2 budget on more or bigger trains.

Err, HS2 is providing more, longer trains.

And they can't do that just using the existing track ?

(obv I'm not a real train driver...)

No. If you ran them on the same track, you'd need to build another line next to it to take all the slower stopping services. And you would have to rebuild all the stations to take the longer trains; and straighten any tight bends; and replace all the signalling to cope with the higher speeds and shorter gaps between trains. There isn't actually that much spare capacity in the existing network (which is part of the reason it goes wrong so frequently).

Thanks for the explanation. We do need decent railways - we can't go on as we are.

there is a difference between needing decent railways and needing high speed railways

Sure, but the main argument against hs2 seems to be just a superficial "gosh that's so much money" without any real understanding of what is involved.

I thought the cost benefit analysis did not add up even on their optimistic numbers and that the money would be better spent on a variety of smaller projects

tangled_metal

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I say tax the hell out of the south east until business moves elsewhere in England and they suddenly realise they actually do need infrastructure built in the North.

If you want to look at overpriced building projects look closer to home at crossrail. Biggest in Europe and just how late and over budget is it?

PS first suggestion isn't serious in case you thought I meant it.

At the risk of sounding like Stevo, that is exactly what happens already. The South East and East of England are the only UK region that are net contributors to the Treasury. So you would like to be even more subsidised by London?

Too right! Northern England to be the next Scotland or Wales! A Barnett formula for the English regions.

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I thought the cost benefit analysis did not add up even on their optimistic numbers and that the money would be better spent on a variety of smaller projects

... Which don't have the glam factor and are therefore unappealing to politicians.

tangled_metal

It's seriously bad up north. A decade ago there were good trains on our local route all the way to Manchester Airport. Now those trains are used elsewhere and we're on 30 year old rolling stock. Plus they now stop at Lancaster. Then a change at Preston if you want Manchester Airport.

As to across to Leeds. Once there were a few direct trains to Leeds. Now one a day and the new reality of three or four trains to get there.

Reason? Under investment obviously. I reckon priority is the main, busy routes and load them with as many trains as the line can take. Then other routes use whatever stock you have and fill them like cattle trucks.

New timetable! You want a rant on your hands? Then don't go there. It's never going to get better round here. Trains from here are a trial of your determination to get somewhere. Want to commute by train? At off early and be prepared for late or cancelled trains.

I cycle to work or take the car. Can't rely on the 9 minute train journey to get me to work. What with virgin pendolino trains running late you get to sit outside Lancaster to let the late trains through first.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I say tax the hell out of the south east until business moves elsewhere in England and they suddenly realise they actually do need infrastructure built in the North.

If you want to look at overpriced building projects look closer to home at crossrail. Biggest in Europe and just how late and over budget is it?

PS first suggestion isn't serious in case you thought I meant it.

At the risk of sounding like Stevo, that is exactly what happens already. The South East and East of England are the only UK region that are net contributors to the Treasury. So you would like to be even more subsidised by London?

Too right! Northern England to be the next Scotland or Wales! A Barnett formula for the English regions.

As RJS says, we already have it just without any published formula. It may become more attractive in future if I move back North to retire

john80

Just think for 56 billion we could buy 560000 Teslas assuming we pay over market value at 100000 each. We could probably get a steep discount on this sort of order or re-purpose the Jaguar factory on the odd day of the week to help them out. We could then get up to the point that they self drive. I could then call one to my house in Cumbria and it would take me and my family the length of the country in big automated taxi service kind of way. No need to bulldoze peoples houses.

Given HS2's sole reason is for more capacity and shorter journeys for the few people that seem to go to want to go to the centre of London I am not getting it. If we say 2 people per car then this is over a million people moved a day assuming only a single journey which seems pretty unambitious. Best bit ever is that they need not even go to London so we can leave London to its own devices. You can even work on the way and kick out of the car people who you don't like.

But then we could continue to ignore those country dwellers who have to drive for over an hour to get to the train station because this makes so much sense.

shirley_basso

Do the country dwellers want train lines ruining the countryside?