So we're getting a shiny new train then which will solve all of the country's problems. no wait, A stupid overpriced train to use

up some more of the money that we apparently dont have.

I'm all in favour of progress and that, but at this time, with double-overhead recessions, is it really worth forking out

£33bn? For a slightly quicker train? On a personal note it doesn't go anywhere near Scotland so its no use to me. Who Wants

it? The main excuse seems to be that the current system wont be able to hadle the traffic in 2026, dont you just add more

train? Anyway, the way things are going it will be finished in 2052 for £66bn.

14 years. I can't get beyond that timeline mentally when I try to think about it.

When it first was announced I was all for it, as I thought it was going to run alongside the current birmingham line, and might have meant a quicker journey into london for me.
However when I found out the route I no longer care as it doesn't come anywhere close to me, and would rather they spend the money on running more trains with more carriages on each train on the current lines.

More interesting are the plans to rebuild part of the old Varsity line from Oxford so it'll be possible to get to such glamorous locations such as Milton Keynes. Perhaps even as far as Cambridge, but part of the route is now underwater. We want more routes that avoid London, not more than go there.

Isn't investing in infrastructure meant to be quite a good thing to do in a recession, though?

If the recession is going to last 14 years

This government creating jobs instead of sacking people?! BOOO!

45 minute train journey to That London might convince me to visit there. Maybe.

Or even 5 years. They're not starting construction until 2017.

Thats a good point, it hardly stops anywhere so that they can quote quick journey times while making it way less useful.

There's not really any more capacity for more trains on the WCML (which is what this supplements), 'more carriages' is what the laymen always say like you can just couple an extra on like in the 1970s.



NR staff are quite keen for that, as the new national centre ('The Quadrant') is there, and staff being given the 'move there or quit' are saying the transport links are terrible for that very reason.

I have asked the question on the internal work website, just how much of the existing network could be electrified for the cost of HS2?

Oooh that would be interesting. The only part left is the Marston Vale line from Bletchley to Bedford isn't it? which is run by a private enterprise and has two single carriages that run during the day, and 1 single carriage train at off peak times. And, it is also the best run and best customer service of any train I have ever used. If the train ever breaks down, they get everybody a taxi to take them to whatever station they were going to go to, for free!
Also, free easter eggs and decorated carriage at easter time etc...

Getting east-to-west and vice versa in this country is a fucking nightmare, and needs to be fixed.

By more carriages, I meant run more trains with 12 carriages more often, not more than 12 carriages which is the most the stations can handle at the moment I assume?

Oh! That's what that is! Does moving the headquarters to MK mean the line to London will be better in the future

It's the timeline that gets me. I really cannot believe it cannot be done quicker. As Malia said on twitter, china builds this shit much quicker. Now I'm not advocating communism, nor have you come here for a lecture on same, or human rights abuses or not following due process. But 14 years? Jesus. If we are thinking infrastructure projects to create jobs this is a prime candidate. But now, not at some point in the distant future.

For context, my son will be doing his GCSEs when the first trains are running to birmingham. He will be out of university before they get to Manchester.

I'd say the national average is more likely between six and eight. Plus, you could run 24 car trains and the sheer volume of idiots all trying to travel into London at the same time would still fill it completely, and then for the remaining 16 or so non-peak hours that the service is running, you've got huge trains running around mostly empty.

I'm sure the national average is a lot less. I'm talking about running 12 carriages on the overcrowded trains that only have 8 carriages, on lines that run 12 carriage trains!

This will never get to Manchester.

There's a finite number of units out there, and at peak time if you take four to make an eight into a twelve, you've just made an eight into a four so some people are a bit more comfortable but a lot are a lot more uncomfortable or are even left behind.

When I say average, I mean on average platform lengths are likely to be around six cars if you look at the whole country. In some places it's two or three, in others 12 or more. I don't have all my track diagrams from work to be more specific than that right now, but I can say that in some places you have HSTs stopping and one or more cars keeps the doors locked as the train simply doesn't fit on the platform. In the old days I've read that trains would stop in the platform, let people on and off, and then pull forward so the second half of the train could do likewise!

They're saying that of all the alternatives to increase passenger capacity for rail travel between Brummagem and London, HS2 is the best one.

My son will never get to university.

Hence, you know, investing some money and buying more carriages

Tell the private firms running the services to do just that.

tell the private firms to build a faster railway.

Just like the bus companies who build the roads?

Tried that, the funny thing is, it's almost as if it has occurred to them that they have a trapped market and can do what the fuck they like regardless.

I wish Devon had a high speed rail link to London.

Also, WTF let IKB build the railway from Exeter to Newton Abbot along the coast? Yes it looks nice, but it's quicker to go by car than train!

Malc

Disclaimer: I do like fast trains and the idea of the thing, and I think it's comparatively not a bad thing to be spending a zillion pounds on, and I'm vaguely delighted that it involves digging up large stretches of Tory heartland which they're not happy about, but are being ignored.

But I don't really buy the "against" arguments, much. OK, not long enough platforms? Insufficient carriages? Inadequate electrification? Surely the tiniest chunk of the £33BN would sort all that out, and probably in a shorter timeframe. No, the real barrier there is free market enterprise, isn't it? The government can't fix the railway if it wanted to, because it'd be "illegal" in some way and simply keep lawyers busy if they tried.

Does anyone think they'll learn from this in the way the HS2 is owned and run?

Anyway, it's going to happen. The daft practice of flying between cities in England will stop one way or another, so I guess this is the replacement.

I got a twelve-seater train home tonight.
They're bloody huge

Twelve seats? Doesn't sound huge.

Huh. Dunno what happened there.

Except for me typing the wrong thing, of course.

And there I was to jump on you and make you look slightly foolish. Boh.

My cheeks, they redden. A bit.
And now they're back to normal again.

So, you reckon a ticket will be less than £40?

Yeah, you don't need rails in the sky. They should be looking into cheaper, faster planes, not trains.

You want trains in the sky, ideally.

Hey, your ignorance!

I want free Wifi on all trains.

And Xboxes!

Double decker carriages.

People drugged and racked on shelves during the journey.

Portals.

All cheaper than stupid new tracks.

Until they can find a way to make airliners electric or something that seems like a bit of a dead end since jet fuel is only going to keep getting more and more expensive. Getting a decent broadband network set up and looking at reducing the extent to which people need to travel around seems like a better idea, although I think this is more a cultural rather than technological challenge.

Too large for the UK's loading gauge (clearance for trackside structures like bridges and tunnels). An experimental unit was tried but it was restricted to its line and was extremely cramped.

Trains are cool. Fast trains are cooler.

That pretty much exists, doesn't it?

Only if you travel in first class, the only way to travel on a train.

I travelled on one in the US last year. It was ace.

We had a memorable trip from Newark Airport into Penn Station on a double decker. Great into to the US. The one in Holland is also very good.

Basically, the UK is a backwards place when it comes to rail travel. Which, given it's history, is a disgrace.

I say, sod the new London line, rip the whole thing up and start again.

My understanding is that the system of franchising and leasing we have makes it really hard for individual train operators to increase the amount of rolling stock they have. We seem to have ended up with the worse parts of both the private and public sector, without getting the benefits of either.

o/


"It's" history is the reason the trains here are so backwards, of course.

\o

Yeah, rip it up and start again. That will be cheaper than augmenting the existing network, of course.

It perhaps would be, in the long run.

The problem wouldn't be money, it'd be the lack of trains while they were doing it.

Correct.