Not at all sure I like this .... do I really want London bringing closer?
Personally I'd rather it was moved a bit further away !

Unless we invest in our infastructure, we're be stuck!

What would life be like if we hadn't built our motorways in the 1960s/1970s, and if the Victorians hadn't invested in our railways? Each generation has to invest. We need to too. HS2 IS needed, so that it gives breathing space on the existing rail network. Also, by making the railways more attractive, it will give a bit of breathing space for our roads - which we should also be investing in, but aren't!

Agreed, dixie.

We, rightly, are also seeking to develop our airports - although this is going on a bit!

The world/UK is rapidly becoming smaller, which is good for business, trade, leisure, cultural exchanges etc.

Not long ago the turnpike was the thing.....

dixie wrote:
Unless we invest in our infastructure, we're be stuck!

What would life be like if we hadn't built our motorways in the 1960s/1970s, and if the Victorians hadn't invested in our railways? Each generation has to invest. We need to too. HS2 IS needed, so that it gives breathing space on the existing rail network. Also, by making the railways more attractive, it will give a bit of breathing space for our roads - which we should also be investing in, but aren't!

Interesting points, dixie ... and I dont disagree (entirely), but ...

Why do people need to move around constantly ?
Isnt that why we have high speed broadband ?

The more roads you build the more people will use them. The rail network is pretty much full to capacity now, to add "extra" capacity will just further clog-up the destinations wont it? (And what price will H2S be???? Will mere mortals be able to afford to use it?

Just a thought.

I've been having a further think about this, dixie.

dixie wrote:
What would life be like if we hadn't built our motorways in the 1960s/1970s, and if the Victorians hadn't invested in our railways?

Ah ... but they were starting from scratch, dixie ... building something that wasnt already there.

This is totally different. Why "save" 30 minutes travelling to the new East Midlands "hub" (which is neither Derby or Nottingham !) when that "saved" 30 minutes will be wasted getting connections to where you wanted to go in the first place !

Why "save" time getting to Sheffield Meadowhall (which is a shopping centre - NO ONE lives there) - and then need to travel a further 5 miles to actually get to Sheffield?

The country is finite ... we cannot enlarge it, but we can bury more of it under goods yards, stations, car parks, motorways etc.

I wonder if people will want to get to them faster (when they are all that is left) ?

Pretty dog gone annoying, if you've gotta have your house knocked down for society, especially when you know society is quite awful, anyway. Without mentioning any governments. Thank goodness i'm one of those dying communists. Equality all the way. Down with all bigwigs.

Nice to see that the line stops short of the Scottish border. I guess it never occurred that if it takes 20 years to complete maybe the Scottish would be included. All good news for Alex Salmond's plans.

In The Know wrote:
they were starting from scratch... building something that wasnt already there.This is totally different

Enhancement though development is just as important, or even more.

Look at air travel, technology/computers, medical/drug discoveries, living standards etc.


With regard to the Victorians, they just started the railway journey - which has already gone so much further in Japan, China and the USA.

Fine, if you only want to go to Meadowhall - you probably won't need any more help.

In The Know wrote:
Not at all sure I like this .... do I really want London bringing closer?
Personally I'd rather it was moved a bit further away !

agreed..the further away you are the better.

bh wrote:
Pretty dog gone annoying, if you've gotta have your house knocked down for society, especially when you know society is quite awful, anyway.

Indeed ... they all seem to have forgotten that two-thirds of the rain network was SHUT DOWN under Beeching in the 60s as it wasnt needed. Now they plan to run "up to 36 trains an hour" to a wasteland in Nottinghamshire !!

In The Know wrote:
two-thirds of the rain network was SHUT DOWN

You've got a real fixation about the weather haven't you

You are very quick to pick up on others typos so I suggest you spend a little more time checking your own posts and try and be less of a hypocrite

In The Know wrote:
two-thirds of the rain network was SHUT DOWN under Beeching in the 60s as it wasnt needed

50 years ago, almost every village in England had a railway station - and it simply could not be sustained. The H2S is completely different; it quicly connects major cities and leaves outlying/smaller destinations for the local bus networks (as is the case in every other country). Richard Beeching was right for his era; the H2S for ours.

Should we also return to black and white TVs - and bring back the Heartbeat times?

Railways workers cottages to be demolished to allow H2S to reach station in middle of nowhere !

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-21241878

Even local MP thinks its a waste -

"MP for Derby North Chris Williamson broadly welcomed the project but said the station was in "no-man's land".

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-21229458

Like I said ... "save" half an hour on your "journey" then waste a further hour trying to get to the place you wanted to go to !!!!

(If you can afford it - cost will be roughly 20% more than normal fare)

ITK

Please try to look at the much bigger picture

Your weekly supemarket visit (to Meadowhall?) is not that relevant - in the European context, of travel, commerce, learning, lifestyles, sport, music and culture

Ben 9 wrote:
ITK

Please try to look at the much bigger picture

The "bigger picture" is that no one wants it, its utterly irrelevant and a waste of money / no one will be able to afford to travel on it and it takes you where no one really wants to go.

(Can anyone tell me of another network that runs high speed trains that DONT need massive subsidies (ie they cannot pay for themselves because no one wants them ???)

IT WILL STILL BE QUICKER TO TRAVEL LONDON / DERBY VIA THE OLD ROUTE - THAN IT WILL BY HS2 (centre to centre)!!!!

We've tried this before - then shut down 2/3 of the network as it wasnt needed. How much evidence do these people need?

The "bigger picture" is new technology.
No one has answered my question - why do people need to travel so much? Ever heard of video conferencing ?

In The Know wrote:
no one will be able to afford to travel on it

Can anyone tell me of another network that runs high speed trains that DONT need massive subsidies

why do people need to travel so much?


How do you predict this - it'll be years before the preliminary work starts?

No. Just like roads worldide.

To even ask this question clearly shows that you've never been to Africa, Nepal, China, India or Goa. If you had, you'd know the answer.

In The Know wrote:
Ben 9 wrote:
ITK

Please try to look at the much bigger picture

The "bigger picture" is that no one wants it, its utterly irrelevant and a waste of money / no one will be able to afford to travel on it and it takes you where no one really wants to go.

(Can anyone tell me of another network that runs high speed trains that DONT need massive subsidies (ie they cannot pay for themselves because no one wants them ???)

IT WILL STILL BE QUICKER TO TRAVEL LONDON / DERBY VIA THE OLD ROUTE - THAN IT WILL BY HS2 (centre to centre)!!!!

We've tried this before - then shut down 2/3 of the network as it wasnt needed. How much evidence do these people need?

The "bigger picture" is new technology.
No one has answered my question - why do people need to travel so much? Ever heard of video conferencing ?

I'll answer your question. People NEED to travel in order to do their job, or because they live in one place and WANT to be in another, both for social and work purposes. I WANT to see my wife, I don't want to VIDEO CONFERENCE with her. Yet she is 180 miles away from me. People LIKE to travel for social purposes as well as for business.

Video conferencing has it's place, but it's like suggesting I watch TV instead of going to a concert or sporting event. It's not the same and doesn't meet all of a person's requirements.

Regarding HS2, you seem to fail to understand that by havinh HS2 some people, (but obviously not you), will use it as an alternative to using the exististing networks (road and rail), freeing up the current over-crowded trains and roads.

dixie wrote:
Regarding HS2, you seem to fail to understand that by havinh HS2 some people, (but obviously not you), will use it as an alternative to using the exististing networks (road and rail), freeing up the current over-crowded trains and roads.

... and what you dont understand is that its a white elephant !

There is not a single high speed train in the world that make money - all need subsidies (because no one wants them and the few who do cannot afford them !)

This is just chucking Zillions away - and then we'll have to chuck more zillions away to subsidies them.

You seem very keen (judging by previous posts) on Victorian railways. Did you know that every single one was built with private enterprise - not public money !!! - because there was a demand ?

Just like every road and car....

It just proves that IF there is a demand - and it looks like making a profit (rather than needed subsidies each and every year forevermore before being largely shut-down - as happened under Beeching) then private enterprise, private finance and private capital will get it going and make it a success.