news & politics:discussion

[Neil]

1 hour ago, Nobody Interesting said:

""Under new plans, train compartments would be lowered towards the tracks to create the height needed to accommodate two-deck carriages.""

https://www.theweek.co.uk/66898/double-decker-trains-when-might-they-come-to-the-uk

https://www.railway-technology.com/features/seeing-double-uk-ready-embrace-double-decker-trains/

Those problems have been looked at and addressed so the majority of bridges and tunnels will not need to be changed. 

they had to replace an old bridge by my local a while back, just so it could accommodate modern trains, after a track-re-config.

lower trains would need all rolling stock to be replaced which would be a spend of about  hs2 size. 😞 

 

 

[steviewevie]

[Nobody Interesting]

54 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Yeah I get what you mean to an extent but why do other countries manage it? Why do I go to Germany and know that public transport between major cities is gonna be great but also within the same city the connections are fantastic. 
 

Was in South Korea a few months ago and it’s was outstanding, every train was amazing and you can get from one end of the country to the other in a couple hours. Then the integrated system in towns and cities was fantastic too.
 

These countries aren’t that dissimilar in terms of population and gdp. Not expecting this to happen overnight but it doesn’t seem that ambitious a goal for a country like the U.K. 

That really is the multi billion pound question. The UK seems to have been stalled for decades unable to do what others manage.
The UK seems to like to blame others for it's failures, the last one being to blame the EU for everything and yet since we left things have got worse with less money available and an economy performing worse than any other G20 bar Russia. Ours is still below pre pandemic levels.

I wish I knew the answer but from my personal view repeating red then blue then red then blue all following more or less the same path policy wise on the economy has failed, and failed badly.

I really do think the UK needs to change if we want to be anything like other countries who do far more for far less.

[Nobody Interesting]

4 minutes ago, Neil said:

lower trains would need all rolling stock to be replaced which would be a spend of about  hs2 size. 😞 

 

 

but would benefit the entire rail network and not just one small bit from Birmingham to London - which really has been my point from the off as to why I think HS2 is a waste of mney

[Neil]

12 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

but would benefit the entire rail network and not just one small bit from Birmingham to London - which really has been my point from the off as to why I think HS2 is a waste of mney

everyone always thinks capital spend on the railways is a bad idea, which is beeching and privatisation -  and the tories in every year( who used to rob the capital spend money for other tory stuff like tax cuts.)

[Neil]

16 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

That really is the multi billion pound question.

perhaps look at your own responses to get the billion pound answer.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

That really is the multi billion pound question. The UK seems to have been stalled for decades unable to do what others manage.
The UK seems to like to blame others for it's failures, the last one being to blame the EU for everything and yet since we left things have got worse with less money available and an economy performing worse than any other G20 bar Russia. Ours is still below pre pandemic levels.

I wish I knew the answer but from my personal view repeating red then blue then red then blue all following more or less the same path policy wise on the economy has failed, and failed badly.

I really do think the UK needs to change if we want to be anything like other countries who do far more for far less.

I think we have to look at who’s in power in this country for the majority of the time which is at least part of the answer. The Tories systematically destroy this country when they are in office, leaving public services much worse off so they can trick the public into thinking the only method is to sell them off; which then leads to their mates getting lucrative contracts for sub-par services.

Tory supporters might not want to hear it and will try to shoehorn other reasons in to distract people from the fact that a lot of the issues (not all) are due to the Tories. 

[steviewevie]

20 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I think we have to look at who’s in power in this country for the majority of the time which is at least part of the answer. The Tories systematically destroy this country when they are in office, leaving public services much worse off so they can trick the public into thinking the only method is to sell them off; which then leads to their mates getting lucrative contracts for sub-par services.

Tory supporters might not want to hear it and will try to shoehorn other reasons in to distract people from the fact that a lot of the issues (not all) are due to the Tories. 

also need to ask why they are in power for the majority of the time.

[Guest]

Just now, steviewevie said:

also need to ask why they are in power for the majority of the time.

Yeah definitely, the Labour Party don’t help themselves most of the time by electing wrong leaders and eating each other alive. 

[Nobody Interesting]

28 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I think we have to look at who’s in power in this country for the majority of the time which is at least part of the answer. The Tories systematically destroy this country when they are in office, leaving public services much worse off so they can trick the public into thinking the only method is to sell them off; which then leads to their mates getting lucrative contracts for sub-par services.

Tory supporters might not want to hear it and will try to shoehorn other reasons in to distract people from the fact that a lot of the issues (not all) are due to the Tories. 

and the Labour PFI's

[Nobody Interesting]

43 minutes ago, Neil said:

perhaps look at your own responses to get the billion pound answer.

So it's my fault LOL

How are my comments/replies on this forum in the last week on a very few things anything to do with under investment in infrastructure over the last 50 years?

[Nobody Interesting]

45 minutes ago, Neil said:

everyone always thinks capital spend on the railways is a bad idea, which is beeching and privatisation -  and the tories in every year( who used to rob the capital spend money for other tory stuff like tax cuts.)

I have not said Captial

""Why do you need to get to London 30 minutes quicker when you have WiFi and your laptop on the train?""

Former HS2 and Crossrail chairman Sir Doug Oakervee, 2020

spend is a bad idea, I have though said spending your entire budget on one thing that benefits less than 1% of the entire network is a bad thing.

By all means, spend big on HS railway but only once you sort out stations and rolling stock so the system you already have works as efficiently as possible rather than waiting 25 years until one big project is finished.

In the words of the former chair of HS2 (and if you have issue with what he said then perhaps discuss with him cos he said it, not me):

""Why do you need to get to London 30 minutes quicker when you have WiFi and your laptop on the train?""

 Sir Doug Oakervee, 2020

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

 

[Nobody Interesting]

Oh dear.

It really is all falling apart.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/aug/31/english-schools-told-to-close-buildings-made-with-crumble-risk-concrete

[squirrelarmy]

11 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Oh dear.

It really is all falling apart.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/aug/31/english-schools-told-to-close-buildings-made-with-crumble-risk-concrete

I remember working on a huge school redevelopment program where lots of old schools and hospitals were being rebuilt and these old materials wouldn’t have been an issue. 
 

All of a sudden this redevelopment program stopped and I was made redundant. You’ll never believe what happened at the same time. 

[Crazyfool01]

42 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Oh dear.

It really is all falling apart.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/aug/31/english-schools-told-to-close-buildings-made-with-crumble-risk-concrete

if they repair them can they call them new schools ? just like the 40 new  hospitals and the added police ?

[Nobody Interesting]

1 minute ago, Crazyfool01 said:

if they repair them can they call them new schools ? just like the 40 new  hospitals and the added police ?

That really should not have made me laugh, but it did and the answer is probably yes especially if your name is Johnson.

[Neil]

2 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

I have not said Captial

you've said better spent elsewhere, which was always the tory justification for not making the required  capital spending on the railways, to the point where "they'd be better privatised".

[fraybentos1]

I do feel like the Green party has wild aversions to things and will generally let perfect be the enemy of good. For example, they're against nuclear power which imo is just ludicrous for a party which also wants no fossil fuel usage.

[Nobody Interesting]

26 minutes ago, Neil said:

you've said better spent elsewhere, which was always the tory justification for not making the required  capital spending on the railways, to the point where "they'd be better privatised".

and I also backed up the better spent elsewhere by giving details of how the entire network could benefit from the same investment rather than just one small line that benefits less than 1%........................... and if you are even remotely suggesting that anything I have written means I support what the Tories have done and think privatisation is a good thing then you need to read what I write again.................................... if you are not suggesting that then all well and good.

 

What I would ask you is why do you think HS2 from London to Birmingham is going to be better and more beneficial than using the investment to benefit the entire network by way of rolling stock and refurbished stations?

[Nobody Interesting]

1 minute ago, fraybentos1 said:

I do feel like the Green party has wild aversions to things and will generally let perfect be the enemy of good. For example, they're against nuclear power which imo is just ludicrous for a party which also wants no fossil fuel usage.

They are against it for three main reasons;
1) The waste, where is it all being kept that can be certain to be safe?
2) The cost and price of the electricty
3) The time it takes to  build - 15 years and counting

If that money were used in solar, wind, hydro and tidal then the electricity would be on grid within 5 years and been a fraction of the price of nuclear. There would also be money left over to upgrade the grid to carry the extra power.

Renewables also do not require Uranium as nuclear does. Uranium rich countries include Russia, Ukraine and Niger.
Hardly a recipe from ridding our reliance on bad states or those in conflict.

They have very good reasons for what they think is the best way forward. I do not agree with all of their policies but for nuclear I absolutely do as there are faster, cheaper and safer ways to do what we need to do.

[Neil]

5 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

and I also backed up the better spent elsewhere by giving details of how the entire network could benefit from the same investment rather than just one small line that benefits less than 1%........................... and if you are even remotely suggesting that anything I have written means I support what the Tories have done and think privatisation is a good thing then you need to read what I write again.................................... if you are not suggesting that then all well and good.

 

What I would ask you is why do you think HS2 from London to Birmingham is going to be better and more beneficial than using the investment to benefit the entire network by way of rolling stock and refurbished stations?

Do you think no one considered whether the same spend would be better made on current network. You'd better give the railway a call cos you're the genius that's worked out what bo one else has. How it can be better spent on the current network. And for that to be something more than hollow words from you.

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

They are against it for three main reasons;
1) The waste, where is it all being kept that can be certain to be safe?
2) The cost and price of the electricty
3) The time it takes to  build - 15 years and counting

If that money were used in solar, wind, hydro and tidal then the electricity would be on grid within 5 years and been a fraction of the price of nuclear. There would also be money left over to upgrade the grid to carry the extra power.

Renewables also do not require Uranium as nuclear does. Uranium rich countries include Russia, Ukraine and Niger.
Hardly a recipe from ridding our reliance on bad states or those in conflict.

They have very good reasons for what they think is the best way forward. I do not agree with all of their policies but for nuclear I absolutely do as there are faster, cheaper and safer ways to do what we need to do.

they phase out, because no way renewables can plug the hole left by fossil fuels for a few decades at least. I agree with why nuclear isn't great either...especially the waste bit..needs to be buried underground for 1000s of years or something...

[lost]

13 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

I do feel like the Green party has wild aversions to things and will generally let perfect be the enemy of good. For example, they're against nuclear power which imo is just ludicrous for a party which also wants no fossil fuel usage.

They need to take a look at what has happened in Germany. Their green party was born out of the anti-nuclear movement in the 60's. They got their wish shutting nuclear down and are now burning more coal than India as alternatives don't provide the always on base current.