Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Cancel it

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

mikehit
mikehit  56473 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
18 Nov 2012 - 8:21 PM


Quote:
If this HS2 is that important, tunnel the lot.

Might cost a fortune, but it will keep the construction industry busy for years


So your OP comapres the cost of HS2 against the cost of a hospital then you say tunnel it irrespective of cost. Make your mind up.

I can understand where your frustration comes from but at least makek a coherent point. To my mind , this type of unthinking reaction is one reason that it is almost impossible to have a coherent debate about policy these days. People fire criticism from the hip and end up contradicting themselves - and yet we expect politicians to make sense and give us what we think we want.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
18 Nov 2012 - 8:21 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

tomcat
tomcat e2 Member 95916 forum poststomcat vcard United Kingdom15 Constructive Critique Points
18 Nov 2012 - 8:47 PM

I was merely acting on the basis of the thread.
If it is going to occur, then at least do it in a correct manner

Alan_Baseley
Alan_Baseley e2 Member 13321 forum postsAlan_Baseley vcard England2 Constructive Critique Points
18 Nov 2012 - 8:58 PM

Railways must be at or very near the limit of the 200+ years old technology. Surely we must start looking for something better and more efficient as a mass transportation system anyway, not just keep extending the life of the dead end technology. The days of railways must be near to the end

Last Modified By Alan_Baseley at 18 Nov 2012 - 9:58 PM
lobsterboy
lobsterboy Site Moderator 1014142 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
18 Nov 2012 - 9:14 PM


Quote: Surely we must start looking for something better and more efficient as a mass transportation system anyway,

Yeah, good luck with that - let me know when you find something Wink

tomcat
tomcat e2 Member 95916 forum poststomcat vcard United Kingdom15 Constructive Critique Points
18 Nov 2012 - 9:24 PM


Quote: Yeah, good luck with that - let me know when you find something Wink

could try this

Worth a tryWink

StrayCat
StrayCat e2 Member 1014808 forum postsStrayCat vcard Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
18 Nov 2012 - 9:30 PM

If capacity on the rails is not increased, it will have to be compensated for elsewhere. Think about the daily cost of parking in the business districts of cities, the cost of homes and rent the closer one gets to those districts. That's not to mention the increased pollution caused by increased road traffic. And as far as the taxpayer paying for it, let's face it, whatever is done, or not done, in this case, guess who's going to pay. Imo, mass transportation is the only way to go; in the end everybody will suffer financially, and with their health if the trains are abandoned. We have less than 1 million people here in Calgary, and we're about 1/4 of the way into a major 10 year, 1 billion dollar (when first announced) city transportation improvement plan. Why? Because the old system does not support 4 times the people originally intended. Travelling around the city during all this infrastructure construction is a pain in the butt, but hopefully the future system will reduce the congestion and pollution. I can't imagine the situation with your population.Tongue

PS: If you don't take care of the riff raff, they'll take care of you.Wink

Denny

Last Modified By StrayCat at 18 Nov 2012 - 9:33 PM
dcash29
dcash29  81908 forum posts England
18 Nov 2012 - 10:17 PM

It does make me wonder if the right people are in the correct jobs and if the line is beneficial to the majority.

Example.... For some reason someone wanted the tram to link with Rochdale. Having completed extensive work on the station and road network, they ask for peoples ideas on how they can solve the traffic jams its caused.

Last Modified By dcash29 at 18 Nov 2012 - 10:17 PM
Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315366 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
18 Nov 2012 - 10:42 PM

There are talks for a third runway at Heathrow, I would`nt mind if they wanted it up north Smile

joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
19 Nov 2012 - 11:39 AM


Quote: Railways must be at or very near the limit of the 200+ years old technology.

In that case, roads must be at or very near the limit of the 2000+ years old technology... Perhaps we should find a better and more efficient alternative there first? Wink

rogerfry
rogerfry e2 Member 8509 forum postsrogerfry vcard United Kingdom
19 Nov 2012 - 1:05 PM


Quote: At the moment, approx 85% of tower cranes in use are in London - in fact there are only sixteen in use outside of greater London

I don't know where you get these figures from tomcat, but according to Health and Safety Executive figures for the first six months of this year, there were 413 tower cranes nationally, of which 200 were in London.....that leaves 213 dotted around the country...not the 16 you claim. Here

Last Modified By rogerfry at 19 Nov 2012 - 1:06 PM
tomcat
tomcat e2 Member 95916 forum poststomcat vcard United Kingdom15 Constructive Critique Points
19 Nov 2012 - 5:17 PM

I retract my statement Roger - it was from a very reliable source, or so I was led to believe - heads will roll

lemmy
lemmy  71873 forum posts United Kingdom
19 Nov 2012 - 11:14 PM

I sometimes wonder what happened to this country. I spend about a third of the year in France, in a tiny hilltop village in the south, over 20 miles from the nearest town of any size.

This village has high speed internet (I use the lowest speed 8mb but high speed is available. My 8mb is not up to...it measures at 8mb)

The country has its major cities linked by the TGV, running at nearly 200mph. That opened 30 years ago. They are talking now of upgrading to 300mph.

The country is criss-crossed by a motorway system (with reasonable tolls) which mean I can drive the nearly 650 miles from Calais comfortably in day if I wish.

This in a country whiich most English people consider backward.

Heree we can't even agree whether we shoud put in a rail link using 30 year old standards, let alone modern ones. What happened?

thewilliam
19 Nov 2012 - 11:44 PM

What would Brunel have to say if he came back and travelled the London to Paddington trip? He'd predicted that ordinary trains would be doing 200mph by the end of the 19th century.

mikehit
mikehit  56473 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
19 Nov 2012 - 11:54 PM


Quote: The country has its major cities linked by the TGV, running at nearly 200mph. That opened 30 years ago. They are talking now of upgrading to 300mph.

The country is criss-crossed by a motorway system (with reasonable tolls) which mean I can drive the nearly 650 miles from Calais comfortably in day if I wish.

The problem is population density: England has 4 times the density of France. Even in France the seemingly miraculous TGV only reaches anywhere near the luxurious speeds once it escapes the connurbations. In England, you never escape the connurbations until you reach Manchester/Leeds and by then most people's journey is over.
Ditto for the motorways: in UK I can drive 650 miles in a 18-hours at night which would be the equivalent. But during the day? forget it.

And there are increasing reports that under current economic strictures, the level of French Government subsidy for the railway is dropping and the system is starting to suffer. If the UK put into railways the amount of subsidy that the French do, then yes, we could have a wonderful system as well.

People blame the Tories for all of this but it goes further back.
When North Sea oil was being developed back in the late 60s, the government did a massive review of the benefits of oil and they had 2 options: first they could use the money as an infrastructure fund. Or they could use it to go into the general tax pot - and they reckoned that the party that did that would be in power for 20 years because of tax breaks they could offer. So they decided to forego infrastructure in favour of political expediency.
The anomaly here was that it was arch socialist Tony Benn who commissioned that report and it was the Labour party who made that decision. Unfortunately for them, just as North Sea oil came on line the conservatives won the election and guess how long they ruled? 20 years.

Meanwhile the Norwegians took the opposite path and used the oil as an infrastructure fund. Now look at them.

keith selmes
20 Nov 2012 - 12:09 AM


Quote: a country whiich most English people consider backward.

First I heard of it. I've known some people who don't like the French, for no particular reason, and some who say the French don't like us, which I think means the French don't like them. I don't recall hearing of France as a backward country. They own the power and water utilities where I live, and we get some of our electricity from their nuclear power stations, as we seem to have abandoned our lead in that technology. And they have a spaceport don't they ? But I'm not really surprised if there are people who don't know that.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.