The rest of the people at the hearing are sensibly not bothering with him.

He's apparently the boss of Next. Maybe some transport economists can tell him how to flog mediocre clothes.

Here he comes again. Do we want economic growth? You can apparently make the traffic quieter.

What he means is fuck off if our cars and lorries come by your house.

Dear he goes again. "European governments" aren't very good with capital. Funny, they seem to have better infrastructure than we do.

No doubt he was one of those telling everyone how Germany's economic model was flawed a few years ago. House prices and shopping, that's the future.

As a family we use HS1 a lot, does that count?

_________________
"Fanaticism is the only form of willpower to which the weak minded and irresolute can rise."

Excellent, a professor has come in and basically said Roads Man was talking bollocks.

HS1 is too expensive, it seems to me. Good though it is.

Don't chain stores like Next depend on the roads for distribution? No wonder he's arguing for more.

My only gripe with HS2, as mentioned above, is the cost and the apparent use of sledge hammer to crack a nut. This is a tiny country and we really don't need a railway with trains which can do 250mph. As it is you can get to Manchester by train in 2 hours or Birmingham in 1.5 hours. For transporting goods the time is fairly irrelevant as urgent orders don't travel by train, scheduled stuff will come through on time no matter what time that happens to be. That's also a good argument for getting our waterways working again. There is already a government quango setup to achieve this. Don't know how long it will take or how far they've got.

What we really need to do is get the small lines back up and running, the ones which were shut down in the 60s and massage all the faults out of the existing system though lots of smaller expansion projects.

I think this massive cost is a problem though. It seems a bit like a political vanity project as well.

_________________
Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
"Emmett is able to write fairly well, he clearly isn't unintelligent overall" - Quote MALCO - Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:57 pm

Yes because what is needed to solve overcrowding between London and Birmingham is to reopen the lines to Okehampton, Ilfracombe, Hawkhurst and Dungeness...

Britain needs new railway lines. There is no debate about that, it has to be done. The line needed would have to travel the route between London and Birmingham so for a little bit more money why not make it high-speed and allow fast travel not only inter-city in the UK but also (as you don't seem to have grasped) opening up Birmingham and Manchester to Paris, Brussels, Frankfurt, Rome, Madrid, Lyon and many other European cities via the big hole in Dover. Although of course there would also be stations in London for people who don't like those pesky Europeans...

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

I can see it now. The beautiful gleaming rails sparkling in the sun... running through a desolate wasteland going from nowhere to nowhere.

What's the point in having some really good massively over specified rail link between two cities allowing service workers to travel from a call-centre in Birmingham to a call-centre in London 1/2 an hour quicker than before? £17 billion for 1/2 an hour is pretty poor value for money. We already have a link to continental Europe but you have to change trains. That's no big deal. Certainly not worth spending £17,000,000,000 for.

The TPA has estimated that HS2 will cost 4 jobs for every 1 it creates. I've not read it but if you want to then it's here: http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2 ... eates.html

Cue cries that the TPA is of unworthy construction and cannot be trusted. I've heard that before. Someone complained that the TPA submitted abbreviated accounts to Companies House... which is their right in law, which makes sense for the substantial cost saving compared with submitting full accounts and why would they have anything to hide anyway?

So what about that? It costs £17,000,000,000, will save ½ an hour and will lose 4 jobs for every 1 it creates? All stacking up well so far. By golly will it be shiney though!

_________________
Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
"Emmett is able to write fairly well, he clearly isn't unintelligent overall" - Quote MALCO - Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:57 pm

You'll forgive me if I don't take a pressure group run exclusively by city financiers for city financiers seriously. You really are deluded Emmett, aren't you?

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

That was only to bolster my argument. By simply criticising the TPA you have not actually responded to anything except how wholesome you believe the TPA to be. Which sort of defeats any point you might make as it is just an attack on the character of those who make up the TPA rather than a response to the actual argument. Do you have any thoughts regarding the value for money aspect for example?

_________________
Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
"Emmett is able to write fairly well, he clearly isn't unintelligent overall" - Quote MALCO - Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:57 pm

The cost will be high but once built the cost will be reclaimed back over the ensuing years, as well as increasing the economic growth of cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle and (eventually) Glasgow and Edinburgh. This will in turn lead to the creation of jobs, increased tax receipts and the opening up of more of the country to international investment, i.e. making the UK less London-centric, which will in turn inspire housing developments in places such as those cities and areas within easy reach of them (Wolverhampton, Coventry etc.) and increased take-up of local rail services to reach the HS2 stations, which in turn will lead to greater amounts of money made off fares which mean fare cuts on non-high speed lines and less Government subsidies for the rail companies.

Furthermore, by removing the need for internal flights we reduce the carbon emissions of the UK and create less pollution while taking a large step toward making our Kyoto protocol and other such similar agreements. As if that wasn't enough we also create jobs directly for the railway itself, maintaining and repairing the track, stations and trains and also through building them, as I believe the Government is keen on promoting the UK rail building industry tied in with this. Even if it doesn't involve a British company the likelihood is they will still need a British factory in the way a Siemens or a Bombardier or an Alsthom do.

As if that wasn't enough, the "classic" lines into London from the north (primarily into Euston at first but eventually into Kings Cross and St Pancras) will have less intercity traffic on them, freeing up the paths for more regular services from towns such as Bletchley, Northampton, Tring and Watford into London, thus making it easier for people from there to get into London with its job and commercial opportunities, as well as clearing many new paths for freight movements, which at the moment are at a premium especially on the section between Camden Road and Milton Keynes, which would in turn mean more frequent freight workings (out of locations such as Dagenham Europort, Tilbury docks, Felixstowe etc.) and encourage freight off the roads onto the railways, in turn meaning less emissions and pollution and freeing up the roads from lorries so the owner of Next can get his precious goods delivered even quicker.

So it's not going to make its money back overnight, only a fool would demand it did. But in terms of the entire economy it would be a massive benefit in many ways, both tangible and intangible, as well as drag Britains transport infrastructure kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

That do you, Emmett?

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

Nope, by trying to claim the TPA have any worth whatsoever, you lose the argument, I'm afraid....

The arguement shouldn't be this or this, the arguement should be this and this, as pleasant as Dawlish is that line would not be substainable in a future climate espically if sea levels were to rise.

Wales second city should have electrification (Not biased as I live in Swansea) but the fact it is easier to change the direct route to Swansea to electirification than it is both Cardiff routes surely suggests a move to electrification in fact all it needs is the money from Brigend to Cardiff as European money and assembly will cover the rest (As far as I am aware).

Anyhow off to buy some rail tickets...

Dawlish is a classic example of a lack of joined up thinking. There were two routes from Exeter to Plymouth, one via. Dawlish and Newton Abbott and one via. Okehampton. The former was built by the GWR and the latter by the LSWR. When the regions were divided up under BR in 1948 both fell into the remit of the Western Region, formerly the GWR, and the bigwigs (with their Swindon tradition) plumped for the Dawlish route and closed the Okehampton line. This is why there is now so piss-poor a rail service in North Devon and why during storms trains struggle to rin between Newton Abbott and Exeter. The Okehampton route had much more going for it long term, although it would have meant an inferior service for Newton Abbott, Paignton and so on, but prejudice by those in charge lumbered us with what we have today.

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

I don't know if you meant as usually people gang up on me on this board but you've made the point. HS2 does not benefit everyone.

I'll forgive you. I guess you're not talking about the TPA though? Can't be. I decided to have a look just in case you might have been. Chairman, Andrew Allum = Management Consultant, Chief Executive, Matthew Elliott = Author and Civil Servant, Co-Founder, Florence Heath = geologist, Director, Matthew Sinclair = Economics and Economic History graduate, full time TPA employee.... I can't be bothered to read the rest of the profiles but I think it's plain to see they aren't all "City Financiers" so that's obviously a claim not based on fact and does not really warrant any further attention. According to the Guardian (aka the bible) it is "arguably the most influential pressure group in the country"

And by the way, they have offices in London and Birmingham. If they wanted to unduly influence the political climate for their own personal gain (as is the insinuation) wouldn't they be arguing in favour of it to save themselves a bit of time?

I have read a little more of the TPA article and there is a very good point made in the first paragraph. The money spent on HS2 is not spent twice. It is spent once invested in the hardware and work required to build the railway. It is not really an 'investment' as it is not being spent to make more money. At the end of the day it is simply a means of getting from one place to another. While travelling there are very few people who are actually productive so the business of travelling does not become more productive if it is carried out at a higher speed on a newer train. You might argue one would get there quicker so productive activities may recommence sooner as a result but it's not enough of a saving to justify the cost.

I'm not against railways... I just tend to agree with the people who can see this thing for what it really is. It's a vanity project. There are other ways of spending the money which would create far more jobs. If we have 17-bn spare then maybe chuck half of it into building up and improving the rail network and use the rest of it for something more worthwhile. Like drinks and titties parties.

If it were a private company spending its own money which it intended to recover through sale of tickets I'd be more inclined to support it.

_________________
Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
"Emmett is able to write fairly well, he clearly isn't unintelligent overall" - Quote MALCO - Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:57 pm