The new faster train track

[dave]

The media would have us think its only the Nimby's that don't think its a good idea.

I live no where near it and dont think its a good idea.
is there anyone that wants it?

on here grumpy thread posts seem more about the high cost of train travel that people don't like, and the breakdowns of existing trains.

if people want to get from 1 end of the country to the other very quick they get a plane don't they?

 

[lou5590]

im undecided, i suppose its because i dont live where a station is so it wouldnt effect me.

on one hand i think its a great idea, i mean getting from manchester to london in about an hour is genius, on the other, why cant they just make the normal trains faster? also the amount of money is stupid. 32 billion pounds... for a country thats about to get its coveted 'AAA' credit rating downgraded, a country that is cutting costs to systems that everyone uses (nhs) and a country that shovels benifits out to every man and his dog except the working class its disgraceful ...

right rant over.

 

[Focus Owner]

~I dont mind either way, but do think a massive freeking aiport should be built in the midlands rather than extending the one in london

 

[dave]

if they spent half of that 32 billion pounds on hoverboard research we might actually all benefit

 

[Focus Owner]

does seam very expensive

 

[dave]

what did the tunnel to france cost?

 

[ChrisUK]

Nope I hate travelling long distances on the train. Anytime I need to go across country on public transport I fly. Cheaper, faster, and a lot less misserable.

And yes in a time when people's salaries have stagnated, pensions are hit and miss, inflation is through the roof, the price of road fuel has hit a record high, and financials institutions need billions of £'s bailout we can do without spending that kinda dosh on what's basically a gimmick from what I can tell.

 

[ben]

linky?

 

[Focus Owner]

nah

 

[scout]

The whole thing is a vanity project so MP's ( from both sides of the house ) can say 'we oversaw this and its just like France, Germany etc'. In real terms it will reduce the journey from London to brum/Manchester by 10 mins. The track isn't long enough for the trains to hit 200+ and the stations are miles from where the people are (a la easyjet). A complete waste of money.

 

[Eklipze3k]

linky?

http://www.hs2.org.uk/

 

[jenks69]

I suspect the government boffins are thinking it'll generate business and income for all the people working on it for construction, then the extra staff at stations etc... what they don't get is that of the total number of unemployed people out there a lot don't want a job or will be worse off taking a job so they won't.... I also suspect there to be an influx of foreign workers if it does go-ahead as they are cheap labour work hard and generally dont give too much hassle.. It could work if we pulled all of our troops back from other countries and got them to do the work, instead there will be cuts to military spending more redundancies in the MOD for people who won't get a job as they have no civy qualifications.... this country is fubar'd.....

£32B really should be spent elsewhere not on a fancy shmancy train which won't actually be of any great benefit to the nation as a whole!

 

[Focus Owner]

i think most of the cost will be in compensation, wonder how much it would cost to tunnel

 

[arc]

For me in Sheffield, it'll mean 40mins quicker to London. SFW. Getting people to London quicker just means that they'll be delayed in London's transit system for longer.

It's a total waste of money, the only benefit is that it could stimulate local engineering firms and provide jobs. But I suspect it'll be outsourced to the lowest bidder and the money will leave the area.

If the government want to invest in modern infrastructure, then they should spend £32bn on our communication systems. This isn't the Victorian times, we don't need to be in London to work there. A decent data backbone would do more good.

 

[ChrisUK]

Too right it's only the last 2yrs or so BT have got their thumb out their a$$ and started to improve the core network.

Still got a lot of catch up to do to get on par with a proper developed country like Finland / Sweden.

 

[dave]

not all work can be done on the internet, nursing for example. there are hospitals in london but the staff cant afford to live near them. i dont think a faster train will help them though. some of the £32bn might

 

[ChrisUK]

That comes from London being one of the most expensive places to live on earth. No amount of transport will rectify that.

They could build lots of affordable housing but that will never happen as house prices will drop...

 

[dave]

should have kept labour in, they was going to build key worker housing.

 

[Kirstie93]

In the village I live in they are going to knock down a farm and get rid of a fishing lake to make way for the track!!

I pay £552 a year to travel 7 miles a day and stand in the freezing cold for an hour to then be crammed against other people!! What's wrong with using £32bn making the usual trains better and more efficient!!

 

[scout]

should have kept labour in, they was going to build key worker housing.

Unfortunately the abortion of an idea was Labour's. It's just the Conservatives that are pushing it through, no doubt so that when it goes belly up they can say "well we were only finishing off what Labour started. The flawed idea was all theirs"