Twistedsanity Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 India has just sent a rocket to mars for 45 million quid ( about 140 million miles) yet our governbent recon they need £60 billion to cut 22 mins off of the journey time to Brum ............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 It could turn out to the the most expensive divali firework display India has ever put on 😧 I'll reserve judgement until it's back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 India has just sent a rocket to mars for 45 million quid ( about 140 million miles) yet our governbent recon they need £60 billion to cut 22 mins off of the journey time to Brum ............ Perhaps we should put the HS2 contract out to tender from some Indian firms OR alternatively cancel the whole WHITE ELEPHANT Project!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88b Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 It could be my inherent mistrust of politicians but I keep wonder if any of them or family members own the land HS2 is going over or they own construction businesses. Now if it was to make the journey 22 minutes longer to get to Birmingham I could understand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougy Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 It would be far more beneficial for the country if the HS2 funds were spent on the allready existing infrastructure,. At the moment there are too many area's of our existing rail that have speed restrictions put them, up date and maintain that so our existing high speed trains can run to there potential speed over a longer distances. 20 minute's would be a doddle to save.. We have the oldest rail track on the planet reaching over12000 miles, why waste money on a new one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lksopener Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 It's a complete waste of money that serves not a deal of purpose as far as I can see. Surely it will be better just to upgrade the existing infrastructure. They will overspend by at least 50% as well I bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Aren't there people in India living in slums? Maybe 45 million would be better spent a little closer to home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 They can spend 45 mil on a firework because they know they have a direct debit to the west. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 India has just sent a rocket to mars for 45 million quid ( about 140 million miles) yet our governbent recon they need £60 billion to cut 22 mins off of the journey time to Brum ............ there's not a lot of infrastructure such as roads, laying of tracks, signals, tunnels , digging through rising ground etc etc etc, and of course the huge cost of relocation via compulsory purchase required to get to mars. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 The way that I see it our population is exploding and like it or not we will need to move more and more people around the country and as the roads get more and more crowded simply upgrading the old lines would be a short turn solution so if we are going to have to do the work one day we had just as well get it done before it gets even more expensive. As for us giving money to other countries I think not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KFC Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 With HS2 I assume we'll be able to buy a return ticket Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 With HS2 I assume we'll be able to buy a return ticket Only if you have lots of money or your work place pay for it I'm afraid its a bit like Concord we all paid for it to be made but only well off people got to go on it but then what is new about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 (edited) There is more to HS2 than meets the eye. You might think it is merely an outdated exercise in Keynesian straw-clutching designed to give the impression of a government doing something in the face of a debt fuelled recession, and to an extent it is. But it goes back further than that. In 1991 Jacques Delors, one of the chief architects of a European superstate and the single European currency, proposed the Tran-European Network - TEN, a high-speed pan-continental rail network linking all the major cities in Europe. Member states would be resonsible for building and funding their sections. The EU Commission would oversee the connections. In 1991, to pave the way for this, Directive 91/440, the first EU rail directive, was issued which decreed that the provision of services must be seperated from infrastructure maintenance. That was duly carried out in the UK with infamous consequences. Anyone who believes that the state of British railways is down purely to botched privatisation needs to think again. The Blair government leapt at the idea of TEN and to please their EU masters it was they who proposed the next phase of the British section, HS2. The coalition government has enthusiastically carried the idea forward. Britains first high speed line, originally called the Channel Tunnel Link was renamed HS1, the London to Paris section of TEN. Directive 96/48 currently states that HS2 when built must connect direcrly to the continent via HS1. This project has been falsely promoted by sucessive governments as an economically vital, recession-busting, purely British state engineering project that will turn our fortunes around. It is nothing of the kind. The only things British about it are that it is British landscape that will be destroyed and British homes that will be demolished or rendered worthless to build it and British debt that will be expanded to pay for it. Edited November 10, 2013 by Gimlet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88b Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 If 10% of what Gimlet posted is true I'm even more against it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Why not have the best of both worlds? HS2, with passengers allowed to travel on the roof! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Why not have the best of both worlds? HS2, with passengers allowed to travel on the roof! I like it, I'm sure some of the passengers come from countries where this is the norm, that way we wouldn't need to destroy any more of the countryside building HS2!. Might be a bit tight through some of the tunnels though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustJon Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Just give me rural broadband of at least 2 meg so I can work from home and I won't need to travel! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 If 10% of what Gimlet posted is true I'm even more against it now. The sequence of events concerning TEN, the directives and the pressure placed on national governments to implement them are all a matter of public record. What is more shadowy is getting politicians to come clean about behind-the-scenes activity and brokered deals since the real political motivation driving this scheme and many others like it is rarely permitted to stand in the plain sight of parliamentary business. The strangely unstoppable traction that seems to drive so many schemes which fly in the face of public opinion and economic reality can often be traced to the fact that the EU Commission is able to issue instructions directly to Whitehall without consulting parliament. The civil service serves two masters and the EUC takes priority over Parliament and the Government who spend much of their time playing catch-up and issuing tortuous and unconvincing justifications for things which they cannot stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 not really made my mind up on this one, but having traveled on both the french TGV and eurostar (fast once through the tunnel clippety clop till then) all I can say is that seeing as how we started rail transport off by heck we got left behind, big style. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 There is more to HS2 than meets the eye. You might think it is merely an outdated exercise in Keynesian straw-clutching designed to give the impression of a government doing something in the face of a debt fuelled recession, and to an extent it is. But it goes back further than that. In 1991 Jacques Delors, one of the chief architects of a European superstate and the single European currency, proposed the Tran-European Network - TEN, a high-speed pan-continental rail network linking all the major cities in Europe. Member states would be resonsible for building and funding their sections. The EU Commission would oversee the connections. In 1991, to pave the way for this, Directive 91/440, the first EU rail directive, was issued which decreed that the provision of services must be seperated from infrastructure maintenance. That was duly carried out in the UK with infamous consequences. Anyone who believes that the state of British railways is down purely to botched privatisation needs to think again. The Blair government leapt at the idea of TEN and to please their EU masters it was they who proposed the next phase of the British section, HS2. The coalition government has enthusiastically carried the idea forward. Britains first high speed line, originally called the Channel Tunnel Link was renamed HS1, the London to Paris section of TEN. Directive 96/48 currently states that HS2 when built must connect direcrly to the continent via HS1. This project has been falsely promoted by sucessive governments as an economically vital, recession-busting, purely British state engineering project that will turn our fortunes around. It is nothing of the kind. The only things British about it are that it is British landscape that will be destroyed and British homes that will be demolished or rendered worthless to build it and British debt that will be expanded to pay for it. If we all had that attitude we would all still be living in the towns that we was born in who needs railways nasty dirty things nothing wrong with the good old horse and cart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 (edited) If we all had that attitude we would all still be living in the towns that we was born in who needs railways nasty dirty things nothing wrong with the good old horse and cart. You're not getting it. There is no "attitude" in my post. I merely state the facts because I believe those facts as stated and the EU interest in HS2 are skewing the argument and suppressing proper debate. I am entirely in favour of rail investment: there is far too much tarmac and too much road traffic in this country. My point is that Britain's railway network, its future development and its management should be debated and decided in Britain, by Britain and designed to serve the interests of Britain and Britain alone. If those interests are served by collaboration with neighbouring countries, that should be debated honestly and openly. The political history of HS2 and the opaqueness of current debate suggest that is not happening which is why HS2 has the look and smell of a pantomime horse designed by a commitee about it. Edited November 10, 2013 by Gimlet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brynhaller Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Hs2 will go the same way as the new aircraft carriers, once work starts company's who gave a price to build will then say original costs are not achievable and we need another 100 squillion quid to finish! Only wish we could run our buisness like this.as for foreign aid give em nowt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Hs2 will go the same way as the new aircraft carriers, once work starts company's who gave a price to build will then say original costs are not achievable and we need another 100 squillion quid to finish! Only wish we could run our buisness like this.as for foreign aid give em nowt That's more or less what's happened with Holland's high speed link. And its failed to generate the projected revenue and tax payers have had to bail it out more than once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.