On 30/06/2016 09:07, Recliner wrote:
tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
wrote:
In article , (tim...)
wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(tim...) wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(tim...) wrote:

"Robin9" wrote in message
...


The National Audit office has already suggested that HS2 should be
delayed, supposedly to reduce costs.

there are plenty here who think that vanity project will nor be
entirely missed

It's a lot more than a vanity project. There will be severe capacity
limitations on the WCML very soon now if it isn't built.

I suppose that is the problem of coming to a group where not
everybody has engaged in (an earlier) discussion on this subject
elsewhere

Whilst it is true that capacity problems might dictate that the best
solution is for a new two track railway between London and Trent
Valley junctions, plus (as separate requirements) rebuilding Euston
and the long promised Stafford cut off

the rest is a totally unnecessary vanity project

If High Speed Rail is a "vanity project" then why has most of the
developed world been adopting similar projects for decades?

because they have a different geographical spread of their population
than we do

Japan?

Or South Korea?
https://en.m.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Hig...in_South_Korea

aare either of those meant to disprove my claim?

please show your working

We don't have to disprove your unlikely claim. You're the one who said
there was something about Britain that made it so unlike Japan, Korea,
France, Germany, Italy, Spain, China, etc. You need to explain what is so
different about Britain.


Isn't it that we are a smaller, denser island that is even more
capital-centric than many of the others?

There are no big transport corridors of the right length where the
benefits of 30% faster (by top speed) rail travel will produce
appreciable benefits (the TGV was spurred on by the Paris-Lyon route
which is of the right length)

Don't forget in Japan they have (or had) several air corridors served by
747s configured with 530 or so seats - I don't see many domestic routes
in the UK like that.

We also have had pseudo-high-speed-rail in the guise of the HSTs and
latterly class 90s, Pendolinos, Voyagers etc, that provide almost all
the benefits that true high speed rail will provide without having to
compulsorily purchase large numbers of properties on the way.

In terms of capacity, I realise there is freight and local services, but
is there really no scope for increasing the number of InterCity trains
north from Euston beyond 9/hour?

Do we really need to get to Birmingham 23 minutes quicker, even if that
is a 30% improvement?

People witter on about not building roads because it increases the
incentive for people to drive, but surely this is the case for railways
as well - is it reasonable for large numbers of people to commute from
Birmingham or Manchester to London? Surely we shouldn't be encouraging it!