This site uses cookies Learn More

General Discussion

350
16
Paul
Paul
09 Sep 2013 11:37

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24013043

Why does anyone need a very fast train service?

Surely it's far better to buy more rolling stock to ease overcrowding or to update the very old rolling stock we currently have?

devon first great 13423566 o

3 Agrees
Brazilnut
Brazilnut
09 Sep 2013 11:56

I agree with you Paul, more money wasted, they cant run a decent rail service in excistence, and the West Country wouldnt benefit just the London wallers again

Paul
Paul
09 Sep 2013 12:19

Yeah too much money is spent on London, I realise it does benefit us all to have a great capital city, but it's time to spread the development money about a bit.

I can understand that HS2 is a very nice thing to have and I'd like to ride on it, also during construction many thousands of people would be employed. However it seems such a unnecessary project, there must be better projects we could undertake.

FredBassett
FredBassett
09 Sep 2013 15:21

How about building some affordable houses in London instead of here then the workers wouldnt need a fast train to get to work. A few Barratt specials like down the Warren in the Mall or Hyde park . Go down a treat

5 Agrees
Paul
Paul
10 Sep 2013 09:43

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16473296

"The initial plan is for a new railway line between London and the West Midlands, carrying 400m-long (1,300ft) trains, with up to 1,100 seats per train. They would operate at speeds of up to 250mph - faster than any current operating speed in Europe and would travel up to 14 times per hour in each direction."

So that is over 15,000 passengers per hour, is that really necessary?

Surely what makes a lot more sense is to electrify more of the existing network.

wondering
wondering
10 Sep 2013 10:05

The journey time is planned to be 20 minutes quicker than now, new departure area are to be built to cope with the extra passeengers but it was reported they will be so large that 20 minutes should be allowed to access them,,,so no gain!  Better to open old lines where they need to be and yes upgrade existing ones.

3 Agrees
Mcjrpc
Mcjrpc
13 Sep 2013 08:53

Meanwhile it will still take five and a half hours to travel the 300 miles between London and Penzance.

2 Agrees
wondering
wondering
13 Sep 2013 10:41

Why is everyone in such a hurry to get from A to B, by rail or even in a car. Is there nothing worth seeing on the way?   Old rail timetables will show it took 7 to 8 hours to get to Penzance in British Rail days .

1 Agree
Mcjrpc
Mcjrpc
13 Sep 2013 12:17

Depends on what's waiting for you at the other end @wondering. If you travel regularly between two cities, I imagine you've taken in your surroundings many times and perhaps all you want to do is get home to your loved ones as soon as you can.   Or maybe not! 

FredBassett
FredBassett
13 Sep 2013 21:58

Used to do Manchester to Gatwick and back twice a week by British Airways without any problem. Whats the point of a fast train. 

DJ
DJ
14 Sep 2013 12:05

Surely it isn't just about speed, it is also about capacity.  Having this extra route will enable them to increase capacity on ALL routes North/South.  It is just as well that the Victorians weren't this nimbyish otherwise we wouldn't have ANY railways, canals would have still been the major way of transporting freight and the wealth of this country would have been diminished because of it.

1 Agree
burneside
burneside
14 Sep 2013 13:33

Would it not benefit the country and communties more by re-opening some of the lines which were closed by Beeching in the 60s, rather than by spending £40bn+ on an exclusive line that will charge sky-high premium fares (as HS1 does), which only the better off will be able to afford?

b.o.liking
b.o.liking
14 Sep 2013 13:56

Why are the government always trying to butter up the North could it for the northern votes.

The motorway surfaces are potholed and all this money to decrease the journey time.

It cannot be worthwhile costing one billion pounds for every minute saved.As usual the South West is totally neglected let alone mentioned.

 

 

2 Agrees
Brazilnut
Brazilnut
01 Oct 2013 19:53

1377961 597364943652897 1511452796 n

1 Agree
leatash
leatash
02 Oct 2013 11:11

Just a thought how about building lines alongside those that are already there,  I presume the land up to the fences either side of the track is owned by railtrack so there would be less planning and little or no objections and i would imagine less engineering costs.

1 Agree
ken
ken
02 Oct 2013 17:25

I can see some problems with that, bridges, tunnels etc and areas where the track is curved. The idea of a new line is to make it as straight as possible. the question if the line is worth the cost or spend the money elsewhere is very debateable.

Comment Please sign in or sign up to post