Cyprus-Forum.com

[supporttheunderdog]

Wrong Lordo. There is a big capacity problem which cannot effectively be corrected by upgrading or expanding existing tracks.

The best bet is to build a dedicated line to add capacity by taking a number of trains off existing tracks, creating paths for other slower local/commuter services, without any disruption that upgrading and /or expansion would cause. Once the project is completed, the number of passengers between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds per hour could treble to 15,000.

There should also be 48 commuter and intercity trains an hour between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds – a 65 per cent rise from the current 29

As for where the money so far spent has gone, buying land along the route has accounted for a large total of the £7.4bn invested to date.

In terms of physical activity, preparatory works have started. At the southern end, HS2 has demolished housing estates, parks and office blocks around Euston, and started ground work. Train depots and industrial estates have been razed to build another HS2 station at Old Oak Common, while brownfield sites in Birmingham have been levelled for the Curzon Street station and approach. According to HS2, work has taken place at 250 sites, including archaeological digs and tree planting as well as construction.

You need to do all that before any track can be laid...your own view is woefully simplistic, a lot more complicated than the train sets I and possibly you plaid with as a kid.

[Lordo]

Wrong Lordo. There is a big capacity problem which cannot effectively be corrected by upgrading or expanding existing tracks.

The best bet is to build a dedicated line to add capacity by taking a number of trains off existing tracks, creating paths for other slower local/commuter services, without any disruption that upgrading and /or expansion would cause. Once the project is completed, the number of passengers between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds per hour could treble to 15,000.

There should also be 48 commuter and intercity trains an hour between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds – a 65 per cent rise from the current 29

As for where the money so far spent has gone, buying land along the route has accounted for a large total of the £7.4bn invested to date.

In terms of physical activity, preparatory works have started. At the southern end, HS2 has demolished housing estates, parks and office blocks around Euston, and started ground work. Train depots and industrial estates have been razed to build another HS2 station at Old Oak Common, while brownfield sites in Birmingham have been levelled for the Curzon Street station and approach. According to HS2, work has taken place at 250 sites, including archaeological digs and tree planting as well as construction.

You need to do all that before any track can be laid...your own view is woefully simplistic, a lot more complicated than the train sets I and possibly you plaid with as a kid.

unlike you i use the main lines and there is a hell of a lot of capacity.

what there is no need for is 250 miles an hour trains. don't be silly.

i never said they did not do any damage i said not a single track laid. what is a real shame is that it will be for nothing cause the next government being labour will cancel it.

[supporttheunderdog]

Here for your information is a paper describing the issue on the WCML
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480647/annex-demand-and-capacity-pressures.pdf

[cyprusgrump]

Wrong Lordo. There is a big capacity problem which cannot effectively be corrected by upgrading or expanding existing tracks.

The best bet is to build a dedicated line to add capacity by taking a number of trains off existing tracks, creating paths for other slower local/commuter services, without any disruption that upgrading and /or expansion would cause. Once the project is completed, the number of passengers between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds per hour could treble to 15,000.

There should also be 48 commuter and intercity trains an hour between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds – a 65 per cent rise from the current 29

As for where the money so far spent has gone, buying land along the route has accounted for a large total of the £7.4bn invested to date.

In terms of physical activity, preparatory works have started. At the southern end, HS2 has demolished housing estates, parks and office blocks around Euston, and started ground work. Train depots and industrial estates have been razed to build another HS2 station at Old Oak Common, while brownfield sites in Birmingham have been levelled for the Curzon Street station and approach. According to HS2, work has taken place at 250 sites, including archaeological digs and tree planting as well as construction.

You need to do all that before any track can be laid...your own view is woefully simplistic, a lot more complicated than the train sets I and possibly you plaid with as a kid.

unlike you i use the main lines and there is a hell of a lot of capacity.

what there is no need for is 250 miles an hour trains. don't be silly.

i never said they did not do any damage i said not a single track laid. what is a real shame is that it will be for nothing cause the next government being labour will cancel it.

Governments are extremely sensitive to sunk costs. If they cancel now they'll be forever accused of wasting the £7Bn already spent and the demolition sites and half finished construction projects will be a testament to that...

...plus of course the 9,000 people that will lose their jobs wouldn't be a good lock for Labour...

[cyprusgrump]

Here for your information is a paper describing the issue on the WCML
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480647/annex-demand-and-capacity-pressures.pdf

I understand the capacity argument...

Where do you think we would be today if the end cost (possibly as high as £100Bn?) was known at the start?

Same solution or would a different approach have been chosen do you think...?

[Lordo]

Wrong Lordo. There is a big capacity problem which cannot effectively be corrected by upgrading or expanding existing tracks.

The best bet is to build a dedicated line to add capacity by taking a number of trains off existing tracks, creating paths for other slower local/commuter services, without any disruption that upgrading and /or expansion would cause. Once the project is completed, the number of passengers between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds per hour could treble to 15,000.

There should also be 48 commuter and intercity trains an hour between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds – a 65 per cent rise from the current 29

As for where the money so far spent has gone, buying land along the route has accounted for a large total of the £7.4bn invested to date.

In terms of physical activity, preparatory works have started. At the southern end, HS2 has demolished housing estates, parks and office blocks around Euston, and started ground work. Train depots and industrial estates have been razed to build another HS2 station at Old Oak Common, while brownfield sites in Birmingham have been levelled for the Curzon Street station and approach. According to HS2, work has taken place at 250 sites, including archaeological digs and tree planting as well as construction.

You need to do all that before any track can be laid...your own view is woefully simplistic, a lot more complicated than the train sets I and possibly you plaid with as a kid.

now you are totally wrong. you jave no idea how the railways are being used in theuk. let me explain to you.

there is a people service and freight service on the main lines. the people service supply varies from juat 2 carriages to as many as 14 but no more. the freight trains ar at least 50 carriages each. You have to sit at a main line platform to see whats going on.

in half an hour i only saw 1 freight train pass by and lotts of little one of 2 or 4 carriages pass by one evry 10 minutes or so. unless you look the problem you will not understand from just reading it.

one of the things you have first understad is what was the purpose of hs2. in otherwords what reason for doing it in the first place.

What is the purpose of hs2?
The government is planning a new high-speed rail network, from London to Birmingham and to Manchester and Leeds, known as HS2. Ministers say it will improve the transport network and boost the economy, but there has been controversy about the exact route of the line and its effect on those living near it.

this is the purpose. where is the feasability study of not the high speed rail netwrok decision but the original feasability study which would have included as one of the choices being hs2. and justification for it.

it has since been espablished that for every one pound we will gain from hs2 we will have to spend 5 pounds. you don't need rocket sicence to work out that this was one dumb idea. now labour proposed the original idea but the tories actually did the feasability of hs2 as we now understand it in 2012 and came to conclusion to go ahead with it. and did this knowing that we will not get back what we invested never mind any benefit afterwards.

can i iask how many projects have you taken from conception to delivery of the benefits?

let me guess from your comments i would hazard a guess and say none? and if it isn't what was the highest value project that you managed?

few tens of thousand pounds? the value you understand is not important becasue the principles are and the methodology is the same. never the less it would be interesting to know where you stand on personal experience.

[Lordo]

now here is a bit more information about hs2. in 2009 this was published by labour.

<<< The development of a second high-speed line was proposed in 2009 by the United Kingdom Government to address capacity constraints on the West Coast Main Line railway, which is forecast to be at full capacity in 2025. Most of the rail network in Britain consists of lines constructed during the Victorian era, which are limited to speeds no greater than 200 km/h (125 mph). A document published by the Department for Transport in January 2009 described an increase of 50% in rail passenger traffic and an increase of 40% in freight in the preceding ten years in the UK and detailed several infrastructure problems. >>>

all reasonable in its reporting. but notice that the railways are designed admittedly a long time ago to run 125 mph.
the second claim is that we will reach capacity by the year 2025. so clearly you can see that we are not at capacity.

but the next statement which was following these reports in affect is totally wrong. here it is.

<<The report proposed that new high-speed lines be constructed to address these issues and, following assessment of various options,concluded that the most appropriate initial route for a new line was from London to the West Midlands.>>

the conclusion was bullshit.

The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition, on taking office in May 2010, undertook a review of HS2 plans inherited from the previous government. The Conservative Party in opposition had backed the idea of a high-speed terminus at St Pancras with a direct link to Heathrow Airport and had adopted a policy to connect London, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham with Heathrow by high-speed rail with construction starting in 2015. In March 2010, Conservative Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers had stated "The idea that some kind of Wormwood Scrubs International station is the best rail solution for Heathrow is just not credible".

The new Transport Secretary, Philip Hammond, asked Lord Mawhinney, a former Conservative Transport Secretary, to conduct an urgent review of the proposed route. The coalition government wished the high-speed line to be routed via Heathrow Airport, an idea rejected by HS2 Ltd.

Mawhinney's conclusions contradicted Villiers' view and Conservative policy in opposition, stating that HS2 should not go to Heathrow Airport until it reaches northern England. Routing the whole line via Heathrow would add seven minutes to the journey time of all services.

In December 2008 an article in The Economist noted the increasing political popularity of high-speed rail in Britain as a solution to transport congestion, and as an alternative to unpopular schemes such as road-tolls and runway expansion, but concluded that its future would depend on it being commercially viable. In November 2010 Philip Hammond stated that government support for HS2 did not require it to break even directly (financially), what The Economist had called the "financial viability" test for new rail infrastructure:
If we used financial accounting we would never have any public spending, we would build nothing ... Financial accounting would strike a dagger through the whole case for public sector investment.

this is the core of the bullshit.

[B25]

YFred, can you stop cutting and posting these F long posts that you hide behind ffs, who can be bother ro read all this crap. You only ever posts other peoples writings and opinions because you have none of your own, you dumb fuck.

[Lordo]

YFred, can you stop cutting and posting these F long posts that you hide behind ffs, who can be bother ro read all this crap. You only ever posts other peoples writings and opinions because you have none of your own, you dumb fuck.

bemas inda bou egames simmera, tsapises da bomilarga i angurga.

was the madder you run out of debate? you need t reach the level of grumpoi and become master-debater.

[B25]

YFred, can you stop cutting and posting these F long posts that you hide behind ffs, who can be bother ro read all this crap. You only ever posts other peoples writings and opinions because you have none of your own, you dumb fuck.

bemas inda bou egames simmera, tsapises da bomilarga i angurga dje aisto ahrobon. en ine thahame.