|
Post by jay38a on Oct 3, 2010 19:36:34 GMT
While on the 280 today going from Wheatley towards Aylesbury for the Amersham Running Day, theres about 5 or 6 posters along one road near Aylesbury saying No HS2, theres no need for it, theres no funding avaliable and one other thing ive forgotten it says. I can agree that there maybe no funding for it but its not needed is just mad as you just need to look at how busy the West Coast Mainline is. I bet if HS2 wasnt going through there back yard they wouldnt care its like "oh its fine as long as it doesnt pass near my home".
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 7, 2010 12:15:30 GMT
Eurostar has ordered more trains to be designated E320, they are a version of Siemens Velaro (similar to German ICE3 and Spanish version) They will also be equiped to work on 15KV (used on German, Austrian and Swiss networks) so they can work through services to Germany and possibly Geneva. Cost is £700m (or £70 per train), top speed 320km/h, each will seat 900 (existing trains seat 750 (originally nearer 800, but some seats were removed to increase luggage space) www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/320-kmh-train-order-as-eurostar-sets-sights-on-expansion.html
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Jan 10, 2012 10:34:26 GMT
Anyone think 32 billion pounds is justified?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2012 11:43:44 GMT
Anyone think 32 billion pounds is justified? Yes
|
|
|
Post by jay38a on Jan 10, 2012 13:48:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 11, 2012 0:32:00 GMT
I'm sorry but HS2 is vitally needed. The stretch of the WCML between Euston and Birmingham is very, very busy. I was a regular user of the route during 2009 and it was difficult to get a seat on the Virgin services OUTSIDE of the peaks yet alone during it. I also used the first Off-peak service after the peaks to Coventry back in April and it was rammed!! A capacity increase is vital for this route.
I believe they also looked at increasing the route from 2 to 4 lines between Rugby and Birmingham but found that even if this was done, the capacity increase would not be enough to cope with the increased demand. HS1 already carries heavy loads during the peaks, I'm sure HS2 will also be a huge success too.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 11, 2012 3:13:52 GMT
I'm sorry but HS2 is vitally needed. The stretch of the WCML between Euston and Birmingham is very, very busy. I was a regular user of the route during 2009 and it was difficult to get a seat on the Virgin services OUTSIDE of the peaks yet alone during it. I also used the first Off-peak service after the peaks to Coventry back in April and it was rammed!! A capacity increase is vital for this route. I believe they also looked at increasing the route from 2 to 4 lines between Rugby and Birmingham but found that even if this was done, the capacity increase would not be enough to cope with the increased demand. HS1 already carries heavy loads during the peaks, I'm sure HS2 will also be a huge success too. I agree it is needed but what I'm worried about is what the routeing is through the Chilterns. I mean, I'm not a 'wildlife' person but is it worth destroying parts of our countryside. Once HS2 is built, I hope everyone has saved up there £1,000,000 to buy a ticket ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2012 16:39:30 GMT
The British countryside is just as man-made as everything else, and building a high-speed rail line through it does not change that fact one iota. A lot of measures will be taken to minimise the visual impact and that will actually add a bit to the cost. Most of those oppose HS2 pretend they are opposing it for the greater good, but in reality they just don't like it changing their view out of their bedroom window which they think should stay the same forever. What is worse, these are typically the same people who moan about UK having third-world infrastructure the moment they forget about their own back-yard.
£32bn is a lot of money, but it's a tiny proportion of GDP to be spent over a course of a decade, and not to start until 2017. The fact that it costs an arm and a leg and takes a millennium to get anything built in this country is a different matter altogether, and shouldn't be taken as ammunition against improving rail infrastructure in general. There is also no reason why local transport projects should suffer as a result of HS2, but that opens a whole can of worms from the buraucratic planning systems to London-centric governance.
Those who think HS2 will only benefit the wealthy few are also talking out of their arse. The vast majority of Virgin West Coast users will benefit hugely from the new infrastructure, and local commuters on the WCML will also see improved services from the freed up capacity.
Get the d*mn thing built, and once it's built it WILL have bums on seats. Simples.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 11, 2012 19:13:43 GMT
The British countryside is just as man-made as everything else, and building a high-speed rail line through it does not change that fact one iota. A lot of measures will be taken to minimise the visual impact and that will actually add a bit to the cost. Most of those oppose HS2 pretend they are opposing it for the greater good, but in reality they just don't like it changing their view out of their bedroom window which they think should stay the same forever. What is worse, these are typically the same people who moan about UK having third-world infrastructure the moment they forget about their own back-yard. £32bn is a lot of money, but it's a tiny proportion of GDP to be spent over a course of a decade, and not to start until 2017. The fact that it costs an arm and a leg and takes a millennium to get anything built in this country is a different matter altogether, and shouldn't be taken as ammunition against improving rail infrastructure in general. There is also no reason why local transport projects should suffer as a result of HS2, but that opens a whole can of worms from the buraucratic planning systems to London-centric governance. Those who think HS2 will only benefit the wealthy few are also talking out of their arse. The vast majority of Virgin West Coast users will benefit hugely from the new infrastructure, and local commuters on the WCML will also see improved services from the freed up capacity. Get the d*mn thing built, and once it's built it WILL have bums on seats. Simples. Here here!!! I do believe that was the first sensible thing I have read on the whole debate since it began!! HS2 will improve the rail network of this country in a way that the Government could not do on the current network. Add the planned extension to Manchester and Leeds to it and you have a rail service that will; a) help to reduce congestion on the M1/M6 b) reduce the need to use the WCML and possibly the ECML c) improve services on the current WCML between Euston and Birmingham/Manchester. As for vjaska's comment on fares, if HS1 is anything to go by, it shouldn't be too much more. I used to use HS1 from Stratford to Chatham regularly last year. On average, using a 16-25 Railcard, the fare was around £2 extra to USE HS1 than it was to go via Lewisham, Victoria or Charing Cross. I expect the same sort of fare scale to be in operation on HS2 against the WCML. I honestly feel that the only way we can improve travel in this country is by introducing initiatives such as HS2. It has worked in Japan for many years, a country of a similar size as England and Scotland, so why not here? Oh vjaska, that wasn't a pop at you, just a generalised comment about the possible fare structure
|
|
|
Post by mre81 on Jan 11, 2012 22:22:41 GMT
The British countryside is just as man-made as everything else, and building a high-speed rail line through it does not change that fact one iota. A lot of measures will be taken to minimise the visual impact and that will actually add a bit to the cost. Most of those oppose HS2 pretend they are opposing it for the greater good, but in reality they just don't like it changing their view out of their bedroom window which they think should stay the same forever. What is worse, these are typically the same people who moan about UK having third-world infrastructure the moment they forget about their own back-yard. £32bn is a lot of money, but it's a tiny proportion of GDP to be spent over a course of a decade, and not to start until 2017. The fact that it costs an arm and a leg and takes a millennium to get anything built in this country is a different matter altogether, and shouldn't be taken as ammunition against improving rail infrastructure in general. There is also no reason why local transport projects should suffer as a result of HS2, but that opens a whole can of worms from the buraucratic planning systems to London-centric governance. Those who think HS2 will only benefit the wealthy few are also talking out of their arse. The vast majority of Virgin West Coast users will benefit hugely from the new infrastructure, and local commuters on the WCML will also see improved services from the freed up capacity. Get the d*mn thing built, and once it's built it WILL have bums on seats. Simples. Here here!!! I do believe that was the first sensible thing I have read on the whole debate since it began!! I completely agree- a brilliant post As for taking spending away from other rail projects (as I believe someone NIMBY on the BBC was saying), this is going on at the same time as Crossrail, the Overground extension, the electrification of the Great Western Mainline and several lines in the north, plus numerous station upgrades and rebuildings, so I'm not quite sure that can be true!
|
|
|
Post by IanF on Jan 11, 2012 23:19:51 GMT
if you go to other countries such as france they have had high speed rail for years we have held back way too long and should be fast tracking hs2 and even be planning hs3
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 12, 2012 2:30:32 GMT
The British countryside is just as man-made as everything else, and building a high-speed rail line through it does not change that fact one iota. A lot of measures will be taken to minimise the visual impact and that will actually add a bit to the cost. Most of those oppose HS2 pretend they are opposing it for the greater good, but in reality they just don't like it changing their view out of their bedroom window which they think should stay the same forever. What is worse, these are typically the same people who moan about UK having third-world infrastructure the moment they forget about their own back-yard. £32bn is a lot of money, but it's a tiny proportion of GDP to be spent over a course of a decade, and not to start until 2017. The fact that it costs an arm and a leg and takes a millennium to get anything built in this country is a different matter altogether, and shouldn't be taken as ammunition against improving rail infrastructure in general. There is also no reason why local transport projects should suffer as a result of HS2, but that opens a whole can of worms from the buraucratic planning systems to London-centric governance. Those who think HS2 will only benefit the wealthy few are also talking out of their arse. The vast majority of Virgin West Coast users will benefit hugely from the new infrastructure, and local commuters on the WCML will also see improved services from the freed up capacity. Get the d*mn thing built, and once it's built it WILL have bums on seats. Simples. I didn't say I was against it, I said in my post it's needed but when it passes through the Chilterns, I don't want to see it destroyed. If you want to knock through peoples houses and back yards, feel free but just make sure the countryside is retained in a good state. John - it's good to have someone on here not have a pop at me for a change so thank you . The sentence was a joke at the rising cost for fares .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 3:15:28 GMT
The British countryside is just as man-made as everything else, and building a high-speed rail line through it does not change that fact one iota. A lot of measures will be taken to minimise the visual impact and that will actually add a bit to the cost. Most of those oppose HS2 pretend they are opposing it for the greater good, but in reality they just don't like it changing their view out of their bedroom window which they think should stay the same forever. What is worse, these are typically the same people who moan about UK having third-world infrastructure the moment they forget about their own back-yard. £32bn is a lot of money, but it's a tiny proportion of GDP to be spent over a course of a decade, and not to start until 2017. The fact that it costs an arm and a leg and takes a millennium to get anything built in this country is a different matter altogether, and shouldn't be taken as ammunition against improving rail infrastructure in general. There is also no reason why local transport projects should suffer as a result of HS2, but that opens a whole can of worms from the buraucratic planning systems to London-centric governance. Those who think HS2 will only benefit the wealthy few are also talking out of their arse. The vast majority of Virgin West Coast users will benefit hugely from the new infrastructure, and local commuters on the WCML will also see improved services from the freed up capacity. Get the d*mn thing built, and once it's built it WILL have bums on seats. Simples. I didn't say I was against it, I said in my post it's needed but when it passes through the Chilterns, I don't want to see it destroyed. If you want to knock through peoples houses and back yards, feel free but just make sure the countryside is retained in a good state. John - it's good to have someone on here not have a pop at me for a change so thank you . The sentence was a joke at the rising cost for fares . The countryside will not be destroyed ... it already has roads and railways running through. If we do not build outside of towns ... the line will go nowhere ... OK maybe a high speed link from Paddington to Heathrow!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 12, 2012 4:11:22 GMT
I didn't say I was against it, I said in my post it's needed but when it passes through the Chilterns, I don't want to see it destroyed. If you want to knock through peoples houses and back yards, feel free but just make sure the countryside is retained in a good state. John - it's good to have someone on here not have a pop at me for a change so thank you . The sentence was a joke at the rising cost for fares . If we do not build outside of towns ... the line will go nowhere ... OK maybe a high speed link from Paddington to Heathrow! Well obviously you have to build outside towns. I did say 'when it passes through the Chilterns'. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the Chilterns is not 100% 'town'!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 10:15:10 GMT
Well, just because something is going to go through Chilterns doesn't automatically mean the Chilterns will suddenly be destroyed.
Done the right way a rail line can actually enhance the landscape IMO.
|
|