Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Seems like a lot of money to save 20 minutes off London to Birmingham and House of Lords say an unconvincing case for spending £50 billion (which probably means real cost to be about £100 billion).
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 27
|
By:
For
Because I live about 3 miles from where the line is due to go through the Chilterns and it's p1$$ing off the Little Englanders around here something rotten! I wouldn't mind if they'd just come out and admit they were a bunch of house-price obsessed NIMBY's but they way they try to dress it up as some great social crusade is just hilarious. Also, my council is taking some of my council tax to fund the 'No to HS2' cause, so they can go fk themselves on that account too. |
|
By:
I'd spring for the £50bn if they could move Birmingham 20 minutes further away.
|
|
By:
All they want it for, is so that the rich, the privileged, and public servants can travel up and down the country and not have to mix with the plebs.
They'll never make it pay because the price of tickets will be pitched to keep the plebs away, and only a select groups like the aforementioned will be able to afford to use it. So the shortfall will have to be met by the general train using public. Subsidised luxury travel for the rich, that's the plan. |
|
By:
Think they should do the whole thing by tunnel.
|
|
By:
Wouldn't it be cheaper to allow speedboats on the canal.
|
|
By:
Astounding to spend such a vast sum on something so totally unnecessary.Brown envelopes changing hands spring to mind here.
|
|
By:
The best way to get into Birmingham is by train.
So anyone who arrived in Birmingham from the surrounding towns by train would have to change stations once they arrived in the city if they wanted to use HS2. How many would go to that trouble? They'd simply jump on a train leaving from the station they're already on. If they did choose to travel across the city to change stations and then wait for HS2, their total trip to London would take longer than it does now. |
|
By:
I think the idea is fine, but the practicalities of building new lines in and around urban areas and connecting up with existing lines and stations is the problem.
|
|
By:
Ha ha.
Didn't see Dr's post, but the same point! |
|
By:
They won't connect them up with lines.
They'll run shuttle buses between the main stations in Brum like they already do between Snow Hill and New Street. Going back to my previous point, changing stations takes time and who would bother if it meant getting cold and wet on a rainy day? Or worse in the Winter when you could be sitting in a warm waiting room where you already are instead of waiting for a shuttle in a blizzard. |
|
By:
Most people who arrived in the city would be in exactly the same situation.
They'd have to go to one of the other three stations already there if they wanted to leave the city by train. |
|
By:
I'm firmly entrenched in the WGAF camp.
|
|
By:
Brown envelopes changing hands spring to mind here.
Yes the pressure to get it going comes from the people who will milk the £50 billions plus spent on it. Once they've made their money they could scrap the line for all they care. |
|
By:
I like Rogerthebutler's points. Especially important to show the Chiltern property owners some heavy plant, and look at their faces as the land gets carved out.
I think a compromise can be achieved - start building from London, and when £50bn has been spent, stop. Wherever you are at this point which could be just off the M42 is then made the construction site of the new Houses of Parliament which are falling down anyway and need relocating some time. The line will only end up being used by politicians coming up from london and their hangers-on, leaving the existing lines from Bham to Lon free for commerce. |
|
By:
"I like Rogerthebutler's points. Especially important to show the Chiltern property owners some heavy plant, and look at their faces as the land gets carved out." --- pmsl thats good language
|
|
By:
I'm not normally given to plagiarism, but I confess I have stolen Ken Masters' post and passed it off as my own on facebook.
Classic Ken. |
|
By:
Channel tunnel - just as quick from home to destination and same-ish cost to go by ferry. Was always going to be that way.
But it didn't stop it getting built. Will be same with HS2 Money changing hands, lots of employment etc BUT NO REAL BUSINESS OR ECONOMIC CASE, BUT YOU'LL HAVE AN EXTRA 20 MINUTES TO, ERR, WELL, TO ... don't know really. |
|
By:
to...nowhere any sane person would want to visit
|
|
By:
Yes the thought of an extra 20 minutes in London fills me with dread.
|
|
By:
NO
Straight the golf course I play regular  Be alright once its built its the building of it that will be the problem..................... |
|
By:
Through ** ffs
|
|
By:
There is a capacity problem on the routes between London, Birmingham and Manchester. Anybody who travels that route is aware of it. Do nothing and things get progressively worse.
So what do you do about it? Build another motorway or build a railway line? If you build a railway, do you build a Victorian line like we have now or do you use the latest technology? I'm in the Yes camp and the nimby's can do one. |
|
By:
The last thing this country needs is another motorway and more roads. This only encourages people to use cars with all the problems that brings. Remember how the M25 was going to solve a lot of problems before it was built. Now it has turned into a giant carpark.
|
|
By:
Generally speaking, we have underinvested in infrastructure since the motorways were built.
A lot of it is down to de-nationalisation. We don't expect buildings to last indefinitely, but we seem to think we can make do and mend infrastructure. |
|
By:
There is a capacity problem on the London - North lines.
The question is how many of these passengers would HS2 take away from the other two lines? I should imagine the vast majority of these passengers using the two lines at the present aren't doing the full journey. They get on or off at stations along the way. So they couldn't use HS2. So not as many as you might expect for the reasons I've given above and in previous posts. |
|
By:
Don't need it, don't want vast sums of taxpayers' money going on white elephant projects to enrich banks and other big businesses, while proles dig holes. Can't afford it.
I thought teleworking/telecommuting using fast internet etc was the future, not getting on a train and going somewhere all the time. Business travel on a routine basis is so last century. Somebody should tell the Govt. |
|
By:
Totally agree and cant see why Teleconferenceing has not become the norm apart from, of couse, the expenses paid jolly.
|