The proposed brand-new rail link......

[Papaumau]

After a Network Rail report has given the clearest indication yet that the £32billion HS2 high-speed rail  project will be given the go-ahead it was demanded that this new line would have to go further than Birmingham if it is to paid for by all of the taxpayers of this country.

It seems ridiculous that all that would be achieved out of this VERY expensive project in these days of so-called austerity would be a 20-minute-faster journey from Birmingham to London.

The SNP government supported by Edinburgh Central MSP Marco Biagi said that the UK government should confirm that if this line is to go ahead that it MUST reach as far north as central Scotland.

What do you folks think about this new and expensive rail system ?

Q1). If this completely new rail-line is being paid for by all of the taxpayers of this country, should it not reach as far as Scotland, or....

Q2). Should this money instead be spent upgrading the best of the lines that already reach as far as Scotland, or....

Q3), Should this kind of money not be spent at all when so many people in this country are suffering from poverty and deprivation that could be helped by a small part of this expense.

[caminito]

Wait until Scotland has independence from the union and let scottish taxpayers pay for the link from the border.
 

[Papaumau]

That's a valid point Caminito....BUT....as we are still part of the UK we ARE paying our taxes right into the deep dark hole of the London treasury and as such - if the money is going to be spent anyway - I think we have a right to get something out of this expensive project.

If not I suggest that the money might be better spent raising the pensioners and the general poor of this country out of miserable poverty.

[Oldtimer]

I do not think that Birmingham and the West Midlands will achieve much from this "Rocket"
The disruption to surrounding areas is I suppose is to divert people away from the ailing M6.
Everyone Knows that anything predicted to spend this sort of money usually overspendsand mean time we suffer the consequences and delays!!
This doesn't allow for monies that could be spent on better things?

[sparky]

Its only the loony bunch of idiots of all parties that could come up with the lunatic idea of spending 32 billion+ in order to cut 20 min off a journey to Birmingham, when there are so many far more important things to spend OUR money on, when are we going to all unite and ensure these morons start to take notice of the public views on such matters

[Maisie]

This seems to me to be a vexed question. I think that it is right and proper to invest in the rail network if it is going to reduce the number of cars on the road and therefore help to alleviate pollution. If the work creates British jobs, so much the better. However, I agree that it is an awful lot of money to spend on such a small length of track.

[BigAl]

I believe the main problem is too many people travelling not just in this country but all over the world. Local people, local jobs, local shops, telephone and internet, get that right and we could cut out half this travelling and a lot of people would have far less expense and more time for themselves and family.

Sparky;
If I were to say “sign chatter” would that mean anything or am I on the wrong track ("track"    no pun intended)

[sparky]

Big Al,
           Sorry no that does not mean a thing to me, but at 81 lots of things no longer register, I don't know what I shall do when I start getting old

[BigAl]

Big Al,
           Sorry no that does not mean a thing to me, but at 81 lots of things no longer register, I don't know what I shall do when I start getting old

Hi sparky,
Sorry if I’ve caused confusion only there’s another forum called signchatter with a member using ‘sparky’ as their name and I just wondered if I’d stumbled across the same chap.
Anyway, I’m pleased to make your acquaintance and I’m sure we’ll speak again

[Dottie1943]

To be honest it really would not matter if these trains can travel faster if those blinking leaves remain on the lines or the wrong type of snow falls on them either!

I also agree, if they can spend the money as far as Birmingham how much more would it cost to go up to Scotland or further north, how many people would benefit for the extra costs from both venues I wonder, and finally what MP is going to benefit from this?

[GADZY]

Well said Dottie
What MPs are going to benefit from this ?. REMEMBER MARPLES and Beeching

[Papaumau]

This seems to me to be a vexed question. I think that it is right and proper to invest in the rail network if it is going to reduce the number of cars on the road and therefore help to alleviate pollution. If the work creates British jobs, so much the better. However, I agree that it is an awful lot of money to spend on such a small length of track.

I think you are on to a very important point there Maisie !

Government after government have promised to ease the congestion on our roads by generating a better, cheaper and more efficient rail infrastructure, and after Beeching and his awful axe scrapped more than half of the lines that we had we are now seeing a desperate need for these lines expensively popping up everywhere.

That is all well and good if the railway systems that are produced are really affordable, efficient and not packed to the doors. They are in the main NOT and that is why many people and companies who might use the train for commuting and for recreational and tourism travel don't.

While we realise that the privatised and profit-driven TOCs are subsidised just about as much as the nationalised rail-services used to be this makes a nonsense out of private companies that are fragmented all over the country who keep raising their charges with the  blessing of the government. Don't they realise that every time they raise the prices less people use the services and the income increases are as a result lost.

Sorry if I went on a bit about this, but it is one of my pet hates !

[BigAl]

I believe we should stop making it necessary for all this travel. A friend of mine as a job with a large company and used to work at their depot less than three miles from his home. They closed this local depot and now he has to travel some 30 miles each way. Moving house is not an option; both he and his wife have elderly parents that are becoming more reliant on them.

The government and other authorities are hell bent on centralising different services such as hospitals ”a better use of resources and centralised expertise” we’re told. But what about patients having to be carted all over the place and their relatives and friends having to travel miles to visit them.

Bad planning and too much centralisation is one of the biggest causes of traffic on our roads and rail, reduce the need to travel and you solve the problem.

[Dottie1943]

BigAl

In the ideal world that would be lovely BUT it is never and has never been the case, even when jobs were two a penny people had to travel.

In the 1960-1990's when jobs were plentiful and I ran an employment agency staff had to travel to get the jobs they wanted to do personally I travelled 25 miles each way through the Center of London.

Dottie

[BigAl]

Dottie,

I hear what you’re saying but whilst we continue to simply accept all of this expensive travel as the norm we can never hope to get to grips with its problems.
If the bucket is overflowing you turn off the tap you don’t keep adding more and more buckets.
We need a whole change of mindset to this travel issue.