High Speed 2

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by neiltc13, Jan 7, 2012.

  1. neiltc13 macrumors 68040

    neiltc13

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    #1
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16453869

    ------------------

    So it seems like this is getting the go-ahead then. I'm just utterly confused - there are cuts in almost every Government department and we are constantly told that there is no money left. How can we suddenly just commit such a huge amount of money to this project?

    I don't live anywhere near the line, but I am completely against it for the following reasons:

    - The benefit it brings for each journey is tiny - a few minutes off a train that only takes about an hour is nothing. A big time saving could be achieved between London and Birmingham by simply making the existing trains stop at less intermediary stations.

    - The few minutes that are saved on the train are eclipsed by the issues at either end. Once you get to Birmingham, how do you get to where you really want to be in the city? Likewise, once you get to London you'll either have to pay a huge cab fare and sit in traffic, or squeeze on to the tube like a sardine.

    - The line between London and Birmingham is already very well serviced. The trains run extremely frequently and the "Pendolino" models are some of the most modern anywhere in the UK.

    The UK Government should be doing all it can to reduce the need for people to travel long distances by investing in the North, rather than simply making it easier for those in certain places to get to London.
     
  2. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #2
    I'm completely for it, not because I live in London. But it's just the start of a larger plan to link up to Scotland and more importantly, will eventually give those in northern cities high speed rail links to destinations such as Paris, Brussels and others over the long run.

    As far as money goes, it acts as economic stimulus, providing tons of jobs and also builds transport infrastructure that isn't just centred around cars.
     
  3. iStudentUK macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #3
    This is a very long term project, that wouldn't even start for about 5 years. On a yearly basis it's not a big a project as it looks. However, I do think it is time to upgrade the rail network which has had years of underinvestment (or poorly conceived investment). Personally, I'd like to see a high speed rail line going right up the 'backbone' of the country with branches off to key cities.

    Or, rapid transport to the North may make it more viable for London based companies to branch out and create new opportunities. (I understand it's a desolate apocalyptic wasteland up there. :D )
     
  4. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #4
    Would it go through Watford Gap? I think I may have that nasty Roy Harper song running through my head the rest of the day now :eek:
     
  5. MorphingDragon macrumors 603

    MorphingDragon

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    The World Inbetween
  6. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #6
    Yes, that's what England keeps calling Scotland.

    We'll just see about that!!! :mad:
     
  7. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #7
    Please don't, we've had enough of 'Stag' and 'Hen' parties.:rolleyes:
     
  8. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    So just like the normal train then. And if you go by car chances are you'll be stuck in traffic and have to pay for expensive parking.

    Agreed, but if it did so then more people would want to go to London, and thus the additional capacity offered by this would be needed.
     
  9. neiltc13 thread starter macrumors 68040

    neiltc13

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    #9
    If capacity is a problem, then surely the first point of investment should be modifying the existing network to support double decker trains and purchasing those, rather than building a whole new track.

    If people think that HS2 is going to somehow allow them to get a seat on their packed commuter train to work every morning then I guess they are in for a nasty surprise.
     
  10. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #10
    In general I'm in favour of it.

    We should have implemented high speed rail in Britain years ago - and it's going to have to happen at some point. At last there's a plan to get on with it.

    The current time it takes to get to Birmingham is awful - most timetabled trains take 1 hour 20. Cutting this by 30 minutes is a pretty decent saving.

    The big problem is going to be the ticket cost for the route once it's built. I can't see there being a great deal of scope to increase the current high cost of travel on the West Coast mainline - and it would be counterproductive to see a service that can't fund itself in the long term.

    Personally, the West Coast route is one I take fairly regularly - as I'm based in London and my parents are in Cheshire. I don't think I've taken the train once in the last 2 years though - I've switched to driving. It costs me less in petrol (even with just one person in the car) than getting a train ticket - and it's a lot more convenient. Saddens me to say that, as I quite like travelling by train.

    For a couple or family, train travel in the UK just isn't economically viable - journeying by car is so much cheaper.
     

Share This Page