First Eurostar on its way to St. Pancras

[pembrokestephen]

Fine, supply every vehicle with a free (e.g. paid for by fuel tax) high efficiency catalytic converter/particulate trap + annual maintenance.

Alternatively, you could tax all vehicles based on the grottiness of what comes out of their exhausts - no exceptions, buses included.

Wait a minute, that would drive the bus fleet off the road, reducing congestion at a stroke - a double whammy......

Couldn't miss an opportunity for yet another fact-free and pointless sideswipe at buses, could you, Cobbles?

I'm no fan of the way the bus system in this country is run, but you manage to make me into a rabid advocate of it when I look at the kind of strange views you and your fellow laissez-faire petrolhead nutcases peddle...

 

[roryer]

higher tax on booze?

 

[roryer]

no wait a minute, instead of extra tax, we could just privatise the NHS, army, police force through some dodgy PPP shenanagans, and generate some extra cash. Surely nobody would notice.... oh yeah we've already done this....

 

[Crispy]

Scrapping nukes would free up a bunch of dosh. Oh and new aircraft carriers, and all the other shiny toys that a country this size really doesn't need to 'defend' itself.

 

[roryer]

No here's a better one, why don't we privatise public transport? Then we could sell the license to operate some mainline services on rail to the highest bidder, this way we encourage them to sweat the assets by investing small amounts in the sevice, but charging higher fares. Oh, we did that one already too.

 

[PacificOcean]

The journey from the Channel to London on old commuter lines was doing this country incalculable damage as far as tourism alone is concerned- certainly any tourist who ever came to England on the Eurostar

It's now only 20 minutes quicker. It's hardly like it transformed it into a supersonic speedway.

 

[pembrokestephen]

Scrapping nukes would free up a bunch of dosh. Oh and new aircraft carriers, and all the other shiny toys that a country this size really doesn't need to 'defend' itself.

Heh. If you read "Lions, Donkeys & Dinosaurs" (I'd have to find my copy to see who the author is), he makes some very interesting points about the vast levels of wastage in defence spending. 3 reasons are highlighted: inter-service rivalry, which means that a lot of headcount gets triplicated, plus huge amounts of R&D expenditure; BAe - basically a jobs-for-the-boys cash cow that bilks billions out of the government every year, and holds us all to ransom on inefficient, hopeless, overrunning projects that ultimately fail to deliver (eg Tornado, Eurofighter, various assorted small arms projects, radio communication systems...in fact, pretty much everything they've touched); and thirdly, our insistence on maintaining a military force that'd be appropriate for a major world player with an empire, not a big island off the coast of Europe with all kinds of strategic alliances...

So yes, it'd take a brave government to do it, but there's HUGE amounts to be saved on defence, if we were to take it on. And we could probably still have nukes, if we wanted them...

 

[Cobbles]

How many French, German or Belgium potential visitors would have come to London if the high speed link had existed from the off? How many who visited England came back and told friends and family what shitty and frustrating railway network we had, and what influence did that have on others? It all adds up you know...

Yes, potentially a lot, possibly as much as a sixth of the numbers who'd say "I'll go back when Heathrow has a 3rd runway"

I'd rather go with the experts and their reports on how the lack of a high speed rail network is preventing the nation from making up to £90bn:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:VdXBtp3ZYfwJ:www.greengauge21.net/assets/GG21_RAIL_QandA.pdf+%22the+case+for+high+speed%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=uk

Who's Greengauge21 and how do they qualify as "experts" as opposed to just theorists?

NB working on the development of a non guided busway in Bogota doesn't count....

If the estimate (note, not prediction but guesstimate) of 90Bn return from 25Bn investment held water (as opposed to just being a pipedream scenario) then surely it would have been a no-brainer to attract private investment.

That is, unless, it's just a mish mash of conveniently unquantifiable soft benefits - "oo-er, um pride in having a high speed rail network, that must be worth , oooooh , what? a fiver, no a tenner a head to the inhabitants of Edinburgh so get out the calculator".

 

[roryer]

HS1 is great to have, and much better than spending on roads.

Just a quick stat for all those road lovers. The M1 widening is costing an estimated £5.1 billion for just 120 miles, making this £43 million a mile! Makes the HS1 seem better value don't you think?

This said although I love trains and really dig travelling on Eurostar, and love St. Pancs. I personally think that the limited pot of money for transport we have would be better spent on small projects.

Improving local bus services, building bicycle lanes, creating livable neighbourhoods etc.

Things like travel planning, travel awarness and marketing information to convince the 70% of the population who are willing to change to actually do so have amongst teh best cost ratios in terms of reducing congestion available, although soft measures need to be accompanied by hard measures like reducing road space for cars and having more bus lanes etc.

They are just not sexy for politicians who want to be seen openning something.

 

[Cobbles]

to convince the 70% of the population who are willing to change

If you actually mean willing, then surely that should be more like 7%.......

 

[editor]

Scrapping nukes would free up a bunch of dosh. Oh and new aircraft carriers, and all the other shiny toys that a country this size really doesn't need to 'defend' itself.

Sure. But that's not really relevent to this debate, is it?

However, asking Cobbles who is going to foot the bill for these add-on freebies for car drivers is.

 

[Cobbles]

However, asking Cobbles who is going to foot the bill for these add-on freebies for car drivers is.

For the third time (sheeesh) the funding can come out of all the cash that the government gouges out of fuel tax (simply ring fencing the vat that's charged on top should do the trick).

All the government has to do is deliver any one of thee cost efficiencies promised under the Gershon review (as opposed to making the civil service annually more bloated and extensive).

Alternatively, the money could also come from a hefty surcharge levied on particulate spewing inefficient large diesels.

 

[T & P]

Yes, potentially a lot, possibly as much as a sixth of the numbers who'd say "I'll go back when Heathrow has a 3rd runway"

Funnily enough every report and study I've seen appears to suggest the benefits of having a high speed link in the UK would be far greater than giving Heathrow that third runway.

Who's Greengauge21 and how do they qualify as "experts" as opposed to just theorists?

NB working on the development of a non guided busway in Bogota doesn't count....

I suppose it counts a lot more than the expert opinions of you and me.

Though if he's saying something positive about the railways he clearly doesn't know a thing does he?

If the estimate (note, not prediction but guesstimate) of 90Bn return from 25Bn investment held water (as opposed to just being a pipedream scenario) then surely it would have been a no-brainer to attract private investment.

That is, unless, it's just a mish mash of conveniently unquantifiable soft benefits - "oo-er, um pride in having a high speed rail network, that must be worth , oooooh , what? a fiver, no a tenner a head to the inhabitants of Edinburgh so get out the calculator".

You should know as well as I the ingrained NIMBYism and hostility towards any kind of public investment in this country. As for private investment, it is not going to happen- not when the investors are not going to be able to cream large lumps of the profits generated directly.

 

[roryer]

If you actually mean willing, then surely that should be more like 7%.......

No surveys show that there are only about 20% of motorists are actively opposed to changing their behaviour. Just under 20% are keen to do what they can to help, the body of opinion is that change would be good but there are many excuses why it is impossible.

In Worcester a sustainable travel town a survey identified 6 types of people. Jeremy Clarksons
Indifferents
Accusers
Defeatists
Converted
Willing

Which are you?

Jeremy Clarksons: love driving, car enthusiasts, unlikely to change

Indifferents: uninterested and uninvolved in travel issues – the first step of any campaign would be to engage them and start them on a process of contemplation.

Accusers: recognise a problem but accept no responsibility and project the blame on to others. speak about the causes of such problems in the third person, and do not accept any responsibility for being a catalyst. In the case of traffic congestion, they project the blame onto parents whose children attend fee-paying schools and people who commute from Malvern to Birmingham and clog up the ring road. They are between a pre-contemplation* to contemplation* stage of behavioural change in that they recognise a problem and a need for behavioural change but do not feel part of the problem or a need to change their own behaviour – instead they see a need for others to change their behaviour.

Defeatists: recognise a problem and accept the need to act, but perceived obstacles prevent them from doing so [some may have already tried to change].

Converted: opt not to use their cars to commute to work or for other regular short journeys around Worcester. This behaviour is long established and was instigated as a result of various factors: such as financial reasons, convenience and exercise.

Willing: this group is the softest target. They recognise the problem, their involvement in it and accept the need to change.

 

[Cobbles]

if he's saying something positive about the railways he clearly doesn't know a thing does he?

Anyone can pontifficate and theorise about anything but the consultants don't actually have any experience of delivering any major projects so how can they be experts in anything other than shooting the breeze?

 

[Cobbles]

In Worcester a sustainable travel town a survey identified 6 types of people. .

34.66728181294876129487% of experts agree that 89% of surveys were dreampt up to support the viewpoint that the survey taker wanted to prove.

In real life things are different - in Edinburgh the DC spent hundreds of thousands on pre-referendum surveys trying to show how "the majority" agreed with their viewpoint - they predicted that they'd win hands down. When push came to shove and the vote arrived, contrary to their surveys, they lost 3 to 1.

If you actually asked people how much extra would you be prepared to pay out of your own pocket to have a greener environment, the answer would be a resounding bugger all.

 

[roryer]

I suppose that makes you a Jeremy Clarkson type then...

 

[editor]

Indeed, so why should the government squander huge sums simply to shave 20 mins. each way off the travelling time element of Southerners' Parisian week-ends?

Poor old Cobbles. His rabid hatred of public transport has led to him making an arse of himself again. The biggest increase in travellers hasn't come from "Southerners" - it's come from much further away.

The biggest leap in passengers has come from the regions following the high speed link with the number of travellers from the East Midlands and Yorkshire more than doubling. Passengers from the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and Scotland, also increased substantially, the company said. The growth in travellers from outside the capital has been boosted by the introduction of cheaper through fares to St Pancras and the new Ebbsfleet International station in Kent from regional stations.

And the investment in St Pancras looks like money well spent, and has helped persuade more people to take the train, not the plane.

The transformed St Pancras rail station in London has helped Eurostar, the cross-channel train operator, drive a 21 per cent increase in passengers.
More than 2.1 million people used the service in the first three months of the year, delivering a 25 per cent increase in ticket revenues to £178 million.

...Eurostar also reported a punctuality record of 93.6 per cent of trains reaching their destination on time or within 15 minutes of the scheduled time.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article3742254.ece

 

[starfish2000]

You will never get a High Speed North-South rail line in this country cos it would completely transform real estate prices in the north and the big loser would be the south-east, think about it, would you rather live in the yorkshire dales and commute to work in London in 1hr 10, or live in Luton and do it in 45 minutes?????

 

[citydreams]

You will never get a High Speed North-South rail line in this country cos it would completely transform real estate prices in the north and the big loser would be the south-east, think about it, would you rather live in the yorkshire dales and commute to work in London in 1hr 10, or live in Luton and do it in 45 minutes?????

Surely that's a good thing though.. The south's property prices are over inflated.

There was an ariticle today that showed it was cheaper to live in the centre of London than it is to commute. How does that make sense??

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

There was an ariticle today that showed it was cheaper to live in the centre of London than it is to commute. How does that make sense??

It's a good thing though, in itself (although it would be better if it was because the housing was cheaper and not because the travel was expensive). People being able to live closer to where they work has to be an aim if you want to reduce emissions IMO.

 

[citydreams]

Aye, but we should at least offer them a choice.. This way round means central london prices go up further so we all lose.

 

[Cobbles]

And the investment in St Pancras looks like money well spent, and has helped persuade more people to take the train, not the plane

Well, if it keeps teh terminally thick (e.g. those who can't work out how much of a waste it is spending 8 hours railing to Paris vs. a couple of hours by plane) out of the terminals then that's great.

"More than 2.1 million people used the service in the first three months of the year"

Woo - that's about 2 weeks carriage for Ryanair.......

 

[Lea]

Well, if it keeps teh terminally thick (e.g. those who can't work out how much of a waste it is spending 8 hours railing to Paris vs. a couple of hours by plane) out of the terminals then that's great.

Where are you travelling from to Paris that it takes 8 hours by train. I thought that the journey from St Pancras to Paris was only like 2 and 1/2 hours?

 

[Maggot]

Where are you travelling from to Paris that it takes 8 hours by train. I thought that the journey from St Pancras to Paris was only like 2 and 1/2 hours?

It is, he must be talking about travelling from Carlisle or somewhere.

 

[DG55]

"More than 2.1 million people used the service in the first three months of the year"

Woo - that's about 2 weeks carriage for Ryanair.......

What? How are they at all comparable? Ryanair operating over 150 regular routes whereas Eurostar operates a handful.

And whats all this about 8 hours. I doubt flying is even at all faster unless you just happen to live near an airport in the north which flys to Paris, and then just happen to be staying somewhere near the airport in Paris.

 

[editor]

Well, if it keeps teh terminally thick (e.g. those who can't work out how much of a waste it is spending 8 hours railing to Paris vs. a couple of hours by plane) out of the terminals then that's great.

I'm not sure what weird anti-rail fantasy land you inhabit, but the reality is of course, nothing like your bizarre ramblings.

This article compares times and price of a Bath to Paris trip. There's less than an hour's difference, but what price the lack of hassle, stress, queuing, comfort and ease of travel for the train? I know which I'd prefer.

Actually, don't bother answering, You've long since turned into a caricature and your answer will be painfully predictable.

By plane
Journey time 5 hrs 34 mins
Total cost £130.20 (including return train fare to Bristol airport but not taxis in Paris)
Carbon emissions 0.13 tonnes

By train
Journey time 6 hrs 22 mins
Total cost £135
Carbon emissions 0.01 tonnes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/e...8/Train-vs-Plane-Bath-to-Paris.html?pageNum=1

What? How are they at all comparable? Ryanair operating over 150 regular routes whereas Eurostar operates a handful.

Logic isn't his strong suit when it comes to matters involving public transport.

 

[Cobbles]

Where are you travelling from to Paris that it takes 8 hours by train. I thought that the journey from St Pancras to Paris was only like 2 and 1/2 hours?

You're right - it's 4 and a half hours from Edinburgh to King's Cross - allow a bit of time to schlep between the two stations (struggling with luggage) plus waiting times (have they synchronised the Eurostar departures with the hourly arrivals from Edinburgh) and 8 hours starts to look dicey............

 

[DG55]

You're right - it's 4 and a half hours from Edinburgh to King's Cross - allow a bit of time to schlep between the two stations (struggling with luggage) plus waiting times (have they synchronised the Eurostar departures with the hourly arrivals from Edinburgh) and 8 hours starts to look dicey............

Oh dear, lugging all that luggage next door to St Pancras is a real bummer.

No such problems with, say, taking your luggage all the way to the airport.

 

[editor]

You're right - it's 4 and a half hours from Edinburgh to King's Cross - allow a bit of time to schlep between the two stations (struggling with luggage)

Oh yes. The two stations are simply miles apart.

LOL!