The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

On 16/12/16 21:01, harry wrote:
The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

not nearly as much as has been wasted on windmills and solar panels....

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:01:30 -0800 (PST)
harry wrote:

The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with
common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

Article dated 9 Sept. 2013.

But I agree, HS2 is a huge waste of money and will devastate what we
have left of our countryside, and should be cancelled at the first
opportunity, if not sooner. Theresa May should realise that it would be
a vote-winner.

--
Davey.

In article ,
Davey wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:01:30 -0800 (PST)
harry wrote:

The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with
common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

Article dated 9 Sept. 2013.

But I agree, HS2 is a huge waste of money and will devastate what we
have left of our countryside, and should be cancelled at the first
opportunity, if not sooner. Theresa May should realise that it would be
a vote-winner.

HS2 is being promoted wrongly. It should be sold as London to Edinburgh (or
Glasgow) in 3 hours or less; it would then be quicker than a plane, since
it would need 3 hours check in. I've travelled from Spain to Paris in the
French Version.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Friday, 16 December 2016 19:23:59 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
Davey wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:01:30 -0800 (PST)
harry wrote:

The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with
common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

Article dated 9 Sept. 2013.

But I agree, HS2 is a huge waste of money and will devastate what we
have left of our countryside, and should be cancelled at the first
opportunity, if not sooner. Theresa May should realise that it would be
a vote-winner.

HS2 is being promoted wrongly. It should be sold as London to Edinburgh (or
Glasgow) in 3 hours or less; it would then be quicker than a plane, since
it would need 3 hours check in. I've travelled from Spain to Paris in the
French Version.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

The problem is the cost, much more expensive than France with the land costs etc.

How much would a ticket London/Brm cost?
Why has the Dutch variant failed?

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:01:30 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

Not as much as on motorways I'm sure. Our rail network is creaking at
the seams and needs extra capacity. Surely any new line should be
built to the latest standards?

Of course (on an old favourite of mine) had they closed the Great
Central they could have 'upgraded' it and avoided planning arguments
and costly impact mitigation schemes.

In article ,
harry writes:
On Friday, 16 December 2016 19:23:59 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
Davey wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:01:30 -0800 (PST)
harry wrote:

The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with
common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

Article dated 9 Sept. 2013.

But I agree, HS2 is a huge waste of money and will devastate what we
have left of our countryside, and should be cancelled at the first
opportunity, if not sooner. Theresa May should realise that it would be
a vote-winner.

It's a policians' vanity project.

There probably isn't an option to do nothing, but extending capacity
of existing line would do, and knocking minutes off the times is not
required. I suspect business travel by rail will not grow inside the
country over the timescales involved - technology will intervene.

Economically, HS3 is more important - the east/west links up north,
and internationl travel by air combined with retaining a European
hub airport - that's really important.

HS2 is being promoted wrongly. It should be sold as London to Edinburgh (or
Glasgow) in 3 hours or less; it would then be quicker than a plane, since
it would need 3 hours check in. I've travelled from Spain to Paris in the
French Version.

The problem is the cost, much more expensive than France with the land costs etc.

Even just the track construction costs - their high speed costs are
1/10th of ours per unit length.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
It's a policians' vanity project.

There probably isn't an option to do nothing, but extending capacity
of existing line would do, and knocking minutes off the times is not
required.

That's exactly what HS2 is.

It's way too expensive and disruptive to upgrade existing lines - recently
put as 'like open heart surgery on a marathon runner'. The 2002 West Coast
Main Line upgrade was ~6-10 billion over budget and didn't achieve the
intended goals due to being so over budget that they had to scale it down.
Basically all the easy stuff has already been done.

So build a greenfield line to increase capacity. That way you have a
construction site entirely to yourself, rather than trying to demolish and
rebuild the house with the family still living inside.

Once you're going to build a greenfield line, it's ~10% extra to make it a
high speed line. Why build a wiggly line when a straight line would give
more scope for future improvements? Some of our current 125mph trains run
on lines built in the 1840s, when trains only went at 50mph, because the
builders of the line had the foresight to plan beyond the current
technology.

At this point, you don't have to run TGVs on it, you can run normal trains.
The route is open to running TGVs if you wish to do so at some future point.
They're just the icing on the cake. The main thing is 2 new tracks at say
140mph gives you a lot more capacity than the existing WCML with fast,
stopping and freight trains all mixed up together.

Economically, HS3 is more important - the east/west links up north,
and internationl travel by air combined with retaining a European
hub airport - that's really important.

Indeed. Though HS3 isn't a High Speed line, it's essentially a collection
of schemes to smooth out bottlenecks, with some new build in between.
(There's lots more low hanging fruit on that route than on the WCML)

HS2 is being promoted wrongly. It should be sold as London to Edinburgh
(or Glasgow) in 3 hours or less; it would then be quicker than a plane,
since it would need 3 hours check in. I've travelled from Spain to
Paris in the French Version.

One thing at a time. That's a 20-30 year project. Also the economics get
somewhat sketchier further north. However London to Edinburgh will still
benefit by using it as a trunk route - just like the M1 can be used to make
a quicker journey than the A1 all the way (less of an issue since the A1 has
lost all the roundabouts and single sections it used to have).

I agree that 'HS2 to Birmingham' is a silly thing to promote - it's not as
if it's just about people moving between Birmingham and London, it's like a
motorway that will feed in lots of services from further afield. Like the
M25 was not built for people who want to do circuits around London.

The problem is the cost, much more expensive than France with the land
costs etc.

Even just the track construction costs - their high speed costs are
1/10th of ours per unit length.

Yes, we need costs to come down. Though the population density of the UK
doesn't help - central France where many TGVs run is very very empty (one
car spotted between 8am and 9am kind of empty). Any time you want to serve
a centre of population it gets expensive, and they're much harder to avoid
in the UK.

Theo

On Friday, 16 December 2016 20:01:59 UTC, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:01:30 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

Not as much as on motorways I'm sure. Our rail network is creaking at
the seams and needs extra capacity. Surely any new line should be
built to the latest standards?

I've been on trains where the train is longer than the station. The train pulls in, the front people disembark/embark, the train moves forward and the rear people disembark/embark. What stops us doing that here?


NT

On 17/12/2016 00:10, Theo wrote:


One thing at a time. That's a 20-30 year project. Also the economics get
somewhat sketchier further north. However London to Edinburgh will still
benefit by using it as a trunk route - just like the M1 can be used to make
a quicker journey than the A1 all the way (less of an issue since the A1 has
lost all the roundabouts and single sections it used to have).


The last time I drove on the M1 it ended in Leeds!



--
Adam

In article ,
wrote:
On Friday, 16 December 2016 20:01:59 UTC, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:01:30 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with
common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

Not as much as on motorways I'm sure. Our rail network is creaking at
the seams and needs extra capacity. Surely any new line should be
built to the latest standards?

I've been on trains where the train is longer than the station. The train
pulls in, the front people disembark/embark, the train moves forward and
the rear people disembark/embark. What stops us doing that here?

The timetable. It would probably add 5 minutes to each stop.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article , ARW
wrote:
On 17/12/2016 00:10, Theo wrote:


One thing at a time. That's a 20-30 year project. Also the economics
get somewhat sketchier further north. However London to Edinburgh will
still benefit by using it as a trunk route - just like the M1 can be
used to make a quicker journey than the A1 all the way (less of an
issue since the A1 has lost all the roundabouts and single sections it
used to have).


The last time I drove on the M1 it ended in Leeds!



that was a long time ago.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 17/12/2016 08:23, charles wrote:
In article , ARW
wrote:
On 17/12/2016 00:10, Theo wrote:


One thing at a time. That's a 20-30 year project. Also the economics
get somewhat sketchier further north. However London to Edinburgh will
still benefit by using it as a trunk route - just like the M1 can be
used to make a quicker journey than the A1 all the way (less of an
issue since the A1 has lost all the roundabouts and single sections it
used to have).


The last time I drove on the M1 it ended in Leeds!



that was a long time ago.

That was yesterday.

Or is there a hidden section of the M1 that goes to Edinburgh that I do
not know about?


--
Adam

In article ,
ARW wrote:
On 17/12/2016 08:23, charles wrote:
In article , ARW
wrote:
On 17/12/2016 00:10, Theo wrote:


One thing at a time. That's a 20-30 year project. Also the economics
get somewhat sketchier further north. However London to Edinburgh will
still benefit by using it as a trunk route - just like the M1 can be
used to make a quicker journey than the A1 all the way (less of an
issue since the A1 has lost all the roundabouts and single sections it
used to have).


The last time I drove on the M1 it ended in Leeds!



that was a long time ago.

That was yesterday.

Or is there a hidden section of the M1 that goes to Edinburgh that I do
not know about?

The M1 goes past Leeds and joins the A1 at Aberford - a bit south of
Wetherby

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 20:01:56 +0000, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:01:30 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

Not as much as on motorways I'm sure. Our rail network is creaking at
the seams and needs extra capacity. Surely any new line should be
built to the latest standards?

Of course (on an old favourite of mine) had they closed the Great
Central they could have 'upgraded' it and avoided planning arguments
and costly impact mitigation schemes.

Should be 'had they not closed'

In message , ARW
writes
On 17/12/2016 00:10, Theo wrote:


One thing at a time. That's a 20-30 year project. Also the economics get
somewhat sketchier further north. However London to Edinburgh will still
benefit by using it as a trunk route - just like the M1 can be used to make
a quicker journey than the A1 all the way (less of an issue since the A1 has
lost all the roundabouts and single sections it used to have).


The last time I drove on the M1 it ended in Leeds!

The first time I drove on the M1 it ended at Rugby:-(

--
Tim Lamb

With long term infrastructure projects somebody has to do some crystal ball
gazing many hears ahead, and that is why this sort of situation gets to be.
add to that that the projects tend to take on a life of their own as people
realise there is money to be made here and you end up with a bit of a white
elephant and lots of places suffering from planning issues making the house
literally worthless if you want to move.
I fully expect this can also be said of the new Heathrow runway, or indeed
any new runway. People seem to think it can keep us in the game for air
trnasport but the fact is that fewer goods will be moving soon in that way,
so why are we even bothering?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 16/12/16 21:01, harry wrote:
The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with
common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

not nearly as much as has been wasted on windmills and solar panels....

In article , Tim Lamb
wrote:
In message , ARW
writes
On 17/12/2016 00:10, Theo wrote:


One thing at a time. That's a 20-30 year project. Also the economics
get somewhat sketchier further north. However London to Edinburgh
will still benefit by using it as a trunk route - just like the M1 can
be used to make a quicker journey than the A1 all the way (less of an
issue since the A1 has lost all the roundabouts and single sections it
used to have).


The last time I drove on the M1 it ended in Leeds!

The first time I drove on the M1 it ended at Rugby:-(

and near Watford at the southern end.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 10:04:02 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , ARW
writes
On 17/12/2016 00:10, Theo wrote:


One thing at a time. That's a 20-30 year project. Also the economics get
somewhat sketchier further north. However London to Edinburgh will still
benefit by using it as a trunk route - just like the M1 can be used to make
a quicker journey than the A1 all the way (less of an issue since the A1 has
lost all the roundabouts and single sections it used to have).


The last time I drove on the M1 it ended in Leeds!

The first time I drove on the M1 it ended at Rugby:-(

When the Preston by-pass - Britain's first motorway - opened was it
called the M6 or did they wait until there was more motorway built
before adopting the name?

In message , charles
writes
In article , Tim Lamb
wrote:
In message , ARW
writes
On 17/12/2016 00:10, Theo wrote:


One thing at a time. That's a 20-30 year project. Also the economics
get somewhat sketchier further north. However London to Edinburgh
will still benefit by using it as a trunk route - just like the M1 can
be used to make a quicker journey than the A1 all the way (less of an
issue since the A1 has lost all the roundabouts and single sections it
used to have).


The last time I drove on the M1 it ended in Leeds!

The first time I drove on the M1 it ended at Rugby:-(

and near Watford at the southern end.

Ah! We benefited from the M10 shortcut:-)


--
Tim Lamb

On 17/12/2016 08:58, charles wrote:
In article ,
ARW wrote:
On 17/12/2016 08:23, charles wrote:
In article , ARW
wrote:
On 17/12/2016 00:10, Theo wrote:


One thing at a time. That's a 20-30 year project. Also the economics
get somewhat sketchier further north. However London to Edinburgh will
still benefit by using it as a trunk route - just like the M1 can be
used to make a quicker journey than the A1 all the way (less of an
issue since the A1 has lost all the roundabouts and single sections it
used to have).


The last time I drove on the M1 it ended in Leeds!



that was a long time ago.

That was yesterday.

Or is there a hidden section of the M1 that goes to Edinburgh that I do
not know about?

The M1 goes past Leeds and joins the A1 at Aberford - a bit south of
Wetherby


Is that Aberford Leeds or Aberford Edinburgh?

--
Adam

In article ,
ARW wrote:
On 17/12/2016 08:58, charles wrote:
In article ,
ARW wrote:
On 17/12/2016 08:23, charles wrote:
In article , ARW
wrote:
On 17/12/2016 00:10, Theo wrote:


One thing at a time. That's a 20-30 year project. Also the economics
get somewhat sketchier further north. However London to Edinburgh will
still benefit by using it as a trunk route - just like the M1 can be
used to make a quicker journey than the A1 all the way (less of an
issue since the A1 has lost all the roundabouts and single sections it
used to have).


The last time I drove on the M1 it ended in Leeds!



that was a long time ago.

That was yesterday.

Or is there a hidden section of the M1 that goes to Edinburgh that I do
not know about?

The M1 goes past Leeds and joins the A1 at Aberford - a bit south of
Wetherby


Is that Aberford Leeds or Aberford Edinburgh?


is Edinburgh " a bit south of Wetherby"?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 17/12/2016 14:49, charles wrote:
In article ,
ARW wrote:
On 17/12/2016 08:58, charles wrote:
In article ,
ARW wrote:
On 17/12/2016 08:23, charles wrote:
In article , ARW
wrote:
On 17/12/2016 00:10, Theo wrote:


One thing at a time. That's a 20-30 year project. Also the economics
get somewhat sketchier further north. However London to Edinburgh will
still benefit by using it as a trunk route - just like the M1 can be
used to make a quicker journey than the A1 all the way (less of an
issue since the A1 has lost all the roundabouts and single sections it
used to have).


The last time I drove on the M1 it ended in Leeds!



that was a long time ago.

That was yesterday.

Or is there a hidden section of the M1 that goes to Edinburgh that I do
not know about?

The M1 goes past Leeds and joins the A1 at Aberford - a bit south of
Wetherby


Is that Aberford Leeds or Aberford Edinburgh?


is Edinburgh " a bit south of Wetherby"?


Leeds and Aberford are.

Aberford is in Leeds. To the East of Leeds, so it's only past Leeds if
you are travelling from Preston to Hull via Leeds.


--
Adam

On 17/12/2016 12:42, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 10:04:02 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , ARW
writes
On 17/12/2016 00:10, Theo wrote:


One thing at a time. That's a 20-30 year project. Also the economics get
somewhat sketchier further north. However London to Edinburgh will still
benefit by using it as a trunk route - just like the M1 can be used to make
a quicker journey than the A1 all the way (less of an issue since the A1 has
lost all the roundabouts and single sections it used to have).


The last time I drove on the M1 it ended in Leeds!

The first time I drove on the M1 it ended at Rugby:-(

When the Preston by-pass - Britain's first motorway - opened was it
called the M6 or did they wait until there was more motorway built
before adopting the name?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_...mbering_scheme



--
Adam

On 17/12/2016 02:11, wrote:
On Friday, 16 December 2016 20:01:59 UTC, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:01:30 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

Not as much as on motorways I'm sure. Our rail network is creaking at
the seams and needs extra capacity. Surely any new line should be
built to the latest standards?

I've been on trains where the train is longer than the station. The train pulls in, the front people disembark/embark, the train moves forward and the rear people disembark/embark. What stops us doing that here?

The great british public? I can imagine those in a carriage that has to
stop just short of the platform trying to alight by jumping down to
track level and a few spraining ankles etc then the train can't move
until all the bodies ...

Even if there was some system of only half the train doors could be
opened at one time there would be a rush as people tried to get from
their seats to carriages whose doors would open first.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 16:27:48 +0000, ARW
wrote:

On 17/12/2016 12:42, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 10:04:02 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , ARW
writes
On 17/12/2016 00:10, Theo wrote:


One thing at a time. That's a 20-30 year project. Also the economics get
somewhat sketchier further north. However London to Edinburgh will still
benefit by using it as a trunk route - just like the M1 can be used to make
a quicker journey than the A1 all the way (less of an issue since the A1 has
lost all the roundabouts and single sections it used to have).


The last time I drove on the M1 it ended in Leeds!

The first time I drove on the M1 it ended at Rugby:-(

When the Preston by-pass - Britain's first motorway - opened was it
called the M6 or did they wait until there was more motorway built
before adopting the name?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_...mbering_scheme

Thanks. Interesting. The main article is not too clear but the
appendix is. It opened as the M6, logically at that stage it should
have been A6(M) but then name M6 was retained. Looking into the
future one can see why.

On 17/12/2016 16:45, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 16:27:48 +0000, ARW
wrote:

On 17/12/2016 12:42, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 10:04:02 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , ARW
writes
On 17/12/2016 00:10, Theo wrote:


One thing at a time. That's a 20-30 year project. Also the economics get
somewhat sketchier further north. However London to Edinburgh will still
benefit by using it as a trunk route - just like the M1 can be used to make
a quicker journey than the A1 all the way (less of an issue since the A1 has
lost all the roundabouts and single sections it used to have).


The last time I drove on the M1 it ended in Leeds!

The first time I drove on the M1 it ended at Rugby:-(

When the Preston by-pass - Britain's first motorway - opened was it
called the M6 or did they wait until there was more motorway built
before adopting the name?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_...mbering_scheme

Thanks. Interesting. The main article is not too clear but the
appendix is. It opened as the M6, logically at that stage it should
have been A6(M) but then name M6 was retained. Looking into the
future one can see why.


And the M5 seems to ignore the rules:-)

http://pathetic.org.uk/

is also worth a look at.

--
Adam

wrote in message
...
On Friday, 16 December 2016 20:01:59 UTC, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:01:30 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with
common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

Not as much as on motorways I'm sure. Our rail network is creaking at
the seams and needs extra capacity. Surely any new line should be
built to the latest standards?

I've been on trains where the train is longer than the station. The train
pulls in, the front people disembark/embark, the train moves forward and
the rear people disembark/embark. What stops us doing that here?

Health and safety rules

we did used to do it here

hasn't been allowed for ages

tim




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , tim...
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Friday, 16 December 2016 20:01:59 UTC, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:01:30 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with
common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

Not as much as on motorways I'm sure. Our rail network is creaking at
the seams and needs extra capacity. Surely any new line should be
built to the latest standards?

I've been on trains where the train is longer than the station. The
train pulls in, the front people disembark/embark, the train moves
forward and the rear people disembark/embark. What stops us doing
that here?

Health and safety rules

we did used to do it here

hasn't been allowed for ages

Still happens at one or two underground stations - although they don't
move the train and it's usually a carriage where the announcer warns
people they won't be able to get off if they are in the wrong part of
the train. And the doors of that carriage don't open.

It also happens on some services from Waterloo where you are warned of
short platforms at some stations. Don't get in the front two cars for ther.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 18:16:38 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , tim...
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Friday, 16 December 2016 20:01:59 UTC, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:01:30 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with
common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

Not as much as on motorways I'm sure. Our rail network is creaking at
the seams and needs extra capacity. Surely any new line should be
built to the latest standards?

I've been on trains where the train is longer than the station. The train
pulls in, the front people disembark/embark, the train moves forward and
the rear people disembark/embark. What stops us doing that here?

Health and safety rules

we did used to do it here

hasn't been allowed for ages

Still happens at one or two underground stations - although they don't
move the train and it's usually a carriage where the announcer warns
people they won't be able to get off if they are in the wrong part of
the train. And the doors of that carriage don't open.

Surely that is completely different. There are main line trains where
certain doors to not open at some stations (selective door opening).
The question was about stopping twice at the same station.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news
With long term infrastructure projects somebody has to do some crystal
ball gazing many hears ahead, and that is why this sort of situation gets
to be. add to that that the projects tend to take on a life of their own
as people realise there is money to be made here and you end up with a bit
of a white elephant and lots of places suffering from planning issues
making the house literally worthless if you want to move.
I fully expect this can also be said of the new Heathrow runway, or indeed
any new runway. People seem to think it can keep us in the game for air
trnasport but the fact is that fewer goods will be moving soon in that
way,

In fact far more goods move that way than ever did before.

so why are we even bothering?

Because far more goods move that way than ever did before.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 16/12/16 21:01, harry wrote:
The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with
common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

not nearly as much as has been wasted on windmills and solar panels....

En el artículo , ARW adamwadsworth@blu
eyonder.co.uk escribió:

http://pathetic.org.uk/

That was fun. Thanks.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

In article ,
harry writes
The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with
common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?
They said the same things about motorways in the 50s.
--
bert

In article ,
harry writes
On Friday, 16 December 2016 19:23:59 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
Davey wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:01:30 -0800 (PST)
harry wrote:

The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with
common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

Article dated 9 Sept. 2013.

But I agree, HS2 is a huge waste of money and will devastate what we
have left of our countryside, and should be cancelled at the first
opportunity, if not sooner. Theresa May should realise that it would be
a vote-winner.

HS2 is being promoted wrongly. It should be sold as London to Edinburgh (or
Glasgow) in 3 hours or less; it would then be quicker than a plane, since
it would need 3 hours check in. I've travelled from Spain to Paris in the
French Version.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

The problem is the cost, much more expensive than France with the land
costs etc.

How much would a ticket London/Brm cost?
Why has the Dutch variant failed?
What is your alternative solution to the increasing capacity demands on
the west coast main line? No doubt you will try to make a silk purse out
of our 19th century sow's ear.

--
bert

In article , Scott
writes
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:01:30 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with
common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

Not as much as on motorways I'm sure. Our rail network is creaking at
the seams and needs extra capacity. Surely any new line should be
built to the latest standards?

And will not take up as much land as a 6 lane motorway.
Of course (on an old favourite of mine) had they closed the Great
Central they could have 'upgraded' it and avoided planning arguments
and costly impact mitigation schemes.
Not feasible.
--
bert

On Sunday, 18 December 2016 22:15:11 UTC, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes
On Friday, 16 December 2016 19:23:59 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
Davey wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:01:30 -0800 (PST)
harry wrote:

The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with
common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

Article dated 9 Sept. 2013.

But I agree, HS2 is a huge waste of money and will devastate what we
have left of our countryside, and should be cancelled at the first
opportunity, if not sooner. Theresa May should realise that it would be
a vote-winner.

HS2 is being promoted wrongly. It should be sold as London to Edinburgh (or
Glasgow) in 3 hours or less; it would then be quicker than a plane, since
it would need 3 hours check in. I've travelled from Spain to Paris in the
French Version.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

The problem is the cost, much more expensive than France with the land
costs etc.

How much would a ticket London/Brm cost?
Why has the Dutch variant failed?
What is your alternative solution to the increasing capacity demands on
the west coast main line? No doubt you will try to make a silk purse out
of our 19th century sow's ear.

--
bert

The cost of the project is such that ticket will be impossibly expensive.
I 'spect the taxpayer will have to subsidise them.

In article ,
harry writes
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 22:15:11 UTC, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes
On Friday, 16 December 2016 19:23:59 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
Davey wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:01:30 -0800 (PST)
harry wrote:

The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone with
common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

Article dated 9 Sept. 2013.

But I agree, HS2 is a huge waste of money and will devastate what we
have left of our countryside, and should be cancelled at the first
opportunity, if not sooner. Theresa May should realise that it would be
a vote-winner.

HS2 is being promoted wrongly. It should be sold as London to
Edinburgh (or
Glasgow) in 3 hours or less; it would then be quicker than a plane, since
it would need 3 hours check in. I've travelled from Spain to Paris in the
French Version.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

The problem is the cost, much more expensive than France with the land
costs etc.

How much would a ticket London/Brm cost?
Why has the Dutch variant failed?
What is your alternative solution to the increasing capacity demands on
the west coast main line? No doubt you will try to make a silk purse out
of our 19th century sow's ear.

--
bert

The cost of the project is such that ticket will be impossibly expensive.
Pure guess work on your part.
I 'spect the taxpayer will have to subsidise them.
So you have no alternative solution to offer.
--
bert

On 19/12/16 16:14, bert wrote:

I 'spect the taxpayer will have to subsidise them.
So you have no alternative solution to offer.
Rubbish. Teh alternative is not to waste any money in HS2, but get the
existing track sorted out.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 22:15:11 UTC, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes
On Friday, 16 December 2016 19:23:59 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
Davey wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:01:30 -0800 (PST)
harry wrote:

The brain dead at Westminster are finally realising what anyone
with
common sense knew years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

I wonder how much money has been chucked away to date?

Article dated 9 Sept. 2013.

But I agree, HS2 is a huge waste of money and will devastate what we
have left of our countryside, and should be cancelled at the first
opportunity, if not sooner. Theresa May should realise that it would
be
a vote-winner.

HS2 is being promoted wrongly. It should be sold as London to
Edinburgh (or
Glasgow) in 3 hours or less; it would then be quicker than a plane,
since
it would need 3 hours check in. I've travelled from Spain to Paris in
the
French Version.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

The problem is the cost, much more expensive than France with the land
costs etc.

How much would a ticket London/Brm cost?
Why has the Dutch variant failed?
What is your alternative solution to the increasing capacity demands on
the west coast main line? No doubt you will try to make a silk purse out
of our 19th century sow's ear.

The cost of the project is such that ticket will be impossibly expensive.
I 'spect the taxpayer will have to subsidise them.

They always do with the main alternative, motorways and airports, stupid.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 19/12/16 16:14, bert wrote:

I 'spect the taxpayer will have to subsidise them.
So you have no alternative solution to offer.
Rubbish. Teh alternative is not to waste any money in HS2, but get the
existing track sorted out.


Silk purse sow's ear.
--
bert