Jump to content
 

HS2 under review


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Firstly, HS2 doesn't go to Scotland! Yes the trains may do so via the links to the classic rail network near Warrington and York but in terms of the actual new build networkHS2 itself doesn't.

 

Secondly, it has long been proved that the sort of distances where High Speed rail is best poised to capture a large chunk of the travel is those routes which the train can do in 3hrs or less. In UK terms that means the likes of Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle to London.

 

One of the key drivers for HS2 is that Virgin have secured something like 70% of the London to Manchester journeys - but at the expense of using up every possible train path on the existing WCML. There is scope to increase this further if additional infrastructure is provided.

 

Trains to Scotland by contrast have not increased patronage by nearly as much in the same period - because flying is always significantly quicker. Thus those travelling by train from London north of Lancaster tend to be those for whom time is not a pressing concern.

 

Competition on the London to Scotland route is not the car - its the plane and even with HS2 it will still be significantly quicker to fly. This means that the BCR for HS2 from a London to Scotland angle is poor (it won't beat the plane) - just as the BCR for London to Birmingham ONLY is also poor - though in that case its because the time savings are not worth the high infrastructure costs associated with very high speeds.

 

By contrast the when it comes to journeys from Manchester and Leeds to London, the BCR looks quite good - the time savings are actually useful and the train will definatly be quicker than the plane.

 

 

All this rather illustrates how HS2 is a PACKAGE of measures and reliance on any one particular aspect (e.g. a very high speed will allow much faster journeys to Scotland) is flawed. Yes faster Scottish trains will be welcomed - and will no doubt increase rail use slightly, but such benefits are relatively small compared to those which accrue to passengers from Manchester, etc ( or even Birmingham when we talk of train capacity as in time a 400m double decked train will give far more seats thann any amount of tinkering with the classic network).

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you say may ring true for the last 50 years but looking forward appears flawed.

Government duty is to plan for the next 50 to 100 years and not be to convince the public within a term of office that their idea should be worth voting them back in for.

 

London to Scotland even with 150mph running should be achievable in under 3 hours. The APT could even have managed it!

That smashes air travel. I have done that route to Scotland both ways and despite trains rammed full, better than taxi airport airport taxi. 2 hours by train to Scotland would be fantastic and rail should be upgraded throughout the country if Boris wants his united UK.

Unfortunately UK currently heading toward £2 trillion debt and government tool kit appears to only be equipped with spades and axes

 

 

Edited by letterspider
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
41 minutes ago, letterspider said:

 

What you say may ring true for the last 50 years but looking forward appears flawed.

Government duty is to plan for the next 50 to 100 years and not be to convince the public within a term of office that their idea should be worth voting them back in for.

 

 

While I competently agree with you, most of the UK population and the media do not! The days of politicians having the luxury of saying 'trust us it will all work out well in the end are LONG gone.

 

Politics have become ever more focused on the short term as a result - hence this fixation on Birmingham (the first phase to be completed) as far as HS2 goes rather than the full project when discussing its worth.

 

47 minutes ago, letterspider said:

 

London to Scotland even with 150mph running should be achievable in under 3 hours. The APT could even have managed it!

That smashes air travel. I have done that route to Scotland both ways and despite trains rammed full, better than taxi airport airport taxi. 2 hours by train to Scotland would be fantastic and rail should be upgraded throughout the country if Boris wants his united UK.

Unfortunately UK currently heading toward £2 trillion debt and government tool kit appears to only be equipped with spades and axes

 

 

Look do you want HS2 or not?

 

Its pretty obvious that a large section of the electorate want the thing scrapped (for a host of different reasons) and unless costs can be trimmed then they may well get their way!

 

A 186mph / 200mph HS2 is vastly better than nothing - or a HS2 that only goes as far as Litchfield.

 

As someone once said we have to deal with the world as it is - NOT as we want it to be. With respect to HS2 that means trying to find ways of demonstrating we have listened to the critics and are willing to try and take on board some of their criticisms without ruining HS2 in the process. A modest reduction in speed is a small price to pay if it keeps HS2 alive.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I was in a pub earlier (shock horror) and I overheard a chap say that a multi million pound contract had been let this week for construction work at Curzon street, it was also mentioned that the cancellation penalty charges were pretty steep, as well. If they're letting contracts now, I can't see that its going to get cancelled any time soon.

 

And no I'm not currently in Plymouth, but the wrong side of the M4.

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, melmerby said:

From that single comment you have shown how completely out of touch you are with future rail transport needs in the UK and where the priorities greatest needs are.

I demonstrate my "being completely out of touch"  by  the link to the report for alternative  transport schemes for the £50 bn loose  pocket change  if HS2 is cancelled:

 

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/16562/attachments/original/1558213640/GBTC_REPORT_FINAL_REVIEWED_18MAY2019.pdf?1558213640

 

My favourite is  scheme 14,  £18 bn to connect Liverpool to Hull including Manchester, Sheffield  ,Leeds, Bradford,York.

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Pandora said:

I demonstrate my "being completely out of touch"  by  the link to the report for alternative  transport schemes for the £50 bn loose  pocket change  if HS2 is cancelled:

 

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/16562/attachments/original/1558213640/GBTC_REPORT_FINAL_REVIEWED_18MAY2019.pdf?1558213640

 

My favourite is  scheme 14,  £18 bn to connect Liverpool to Hull including Manchester, Sheffield  ,Leeds, Bradford,York.

I got to the bottom of page 2 and say Lord Burk lee was involved and couldnt read any further.

 

Could you point me to which scheme/ schemes relieve pressure on the lower end of the WCML, ECML and MML please because that is the main reason for HS2, many thanks.

 

Edit-

Okay I had a look and #32 gets my vote, as for #6, 10. 18, 26,28, 33, they can sod right off!

 

I note no mention of completing the completely illogically 'finished' GW electrification.

Edited by royaloak
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, Pandora said:

I demonstrate my "being completely out of touch"  by  the link to the report for alternative  transport schemes for the £50 bn loose  pocket change  if HS2 is cancelled:

 

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/16562/attachments/original/1558213640/GBTC_REPORT_FINAL_REVIEWED_18MAY2019.pdf?1558213640

 

My favourite is  scheme 14,  £18 bn to connect Liverpool to Hull including Manchester, Sheffield  ,Leeds, Bradford,York.

 

And you quote the fount of all knowledge "The Taxpayer's Alliance"

 

I rest my case.

Edited by melmerby
  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

It's like any of the "trial balloons" of government policy that hit the media, but with the added feature that the review was started/completed prior to the election which will have likely changed the opinion of the government regarding some of those areas that might have been proposed to lose in the new funding proposal.

But it also likely demonstrates that they government isn't interested in solving the funding issue, but rather tinker with it to decrease any political fall out to the party in power.

 

A Realpolitik comment on the state of play.

As is the news about the continued cutting of central grants to Local Authorities in deprived areas outside the South East in favour of 30% additions to longtime Conservative voting areas such as Wokingham, East~Sussex  and Northants; Surrey a gain of £35M. 

Co Durham gets a £10M hit to services in Sedgefield, Bishop Auckland and Consett/Stanley the New Blue areas.

Birmingham and West Bromwich get reductions too, despite the Conservative Mayor; this reinforces the Mayor's difficulty in trying to co-ordinate WM transport.

The reason? The cutting of the cake was done before the December election ! 

dh

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pandora said:

I demonstrate my "being completely out of touch"  by  the link to the report for alternative  transport schemes for the £50 bn loose  pocket change  if HS2 is cancelled:

 

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/16562/attachments/original/1558213640/GBTC_REPORT_FINAL_REVIEWED_18MAY2019.pdf?1558213640

 

My favourite is  scheme 14,  £18 bn to connect Liverpool to Hull including Manchester, Sheffield  ,Leeds, Bradford,York.

 

Your "favourite scheme" has already been costed at £39 billion, by Northern Powerhouse, and that is without the contribution from HS Phase 2B, about £15 billion, so in reality, around £54 billion, before any detailed design, ground surveys or any of that other funny stuff that has so bedevilled the Evil Empire of HS2.

 

Let's ignore the fact that several of the schemes are road improvements, already rejected in the DfT (HA) long term plan (especially dualling Durham to Edinburgh, which has already been costed at twice the price quoted here, and that was in 2012, and that it was not intended to further encourage road haulage north of Newcastle, which this scheme would most certainly do). Let's also ignore the fact that some of the rail schemes are already in active development, under different funding.

 

Let's concentrate on the fact that many of the rail schemes are complete shams. Local pressure groups have been pushing them for as long as I can remember. Take Beverley to York - this was costed in 2005, and grossly underestimated the costs of demolition and land purchase/compensation, for a route that has, in the York area and to a certain degree in the Beverley and Pocklington areas, been built over. What does it actually serve?? A combined population (not including Hull) less than the entire catchment of Haxby and Strensall, two stations north east of York that have been awaiting re-opening for some 20 years. Just because North Yorkshire CC cannot be arsed. That just tells us everything about local rail policy, no matter who the listed "sponsor" happens to be.

 

None of these schemes either solve Britain's greatest bottlenecks, or do so at grossly under-estimated costs. Tells us mostly though, about the people who believe this sh1t....

  • Like 3
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Pandora said:

A link to the National Audit Office Report for HS2

 

http://stophs2.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/NAO-report-HS2-a-progresss-update.pdf

 

From the report,  the public have beem kept in the dark for some time on costs and late delivery,  I have heard enough,  I have no issues if HS2 is cancelled provided the  £56 bn goes to    rail and public transport projects  in the North

 

It won't.

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

I was in a pub earlier (shock horror) and I overheard a chap say that a multi million pound contract had been let this week for construction work at Curzon street, it was also mentioned that the cancellation penalty charges were pretty steep, as well. If they're letting contracts now, I can't see that its going to get cancelled any time soon.

 

And no I'm not currently in Plymouth, but the wrong side of the M4.

 

 

Irresponsible at best to award contracts with high cancellation charges whilst project is reviewed. May turn out to be a big mistake later.

Edited by ruggedpeak
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

A combined population (not including Hull) less than the entire catchment of Haxby and Strensall, two stations north east of York that have been awaiting re-opening for some 20 years. Just because North Yorkshire CC cannot be arsed. That just tells us everything about local rail policy, no matter who the listed "sponsor" happens to be.

.

 

My feeling is that Strensall and Haxby are under control of York City Council and they are wedded to their Park and Ride.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

I was in a pub earlier (shock horror) and I overheard a chap say that a multi million pound contract had been let this week for construction work at Curzon street, it was also mentioned that the cancellation penalty charges were pretty steep, as well. If they're letting contracts now, I can't see that its going to get cancelled any time soon.

 

And no I'm not currently in Plymouth, but the wrong side of the M4.

 

Very possible and add to this article in today`s Torygraph (not known for supporting HS2)


I quote a few lines -

Baroness Vere of Norbiton, a transport minister, praised “Victorian pioneers” for building the train lines which form the “vast part of our national railway”.
She also criticised “naysayers” who block such projects and praised the “courage” of politicians who see them through.
Speaking in the House of Lords in an HS2 debate on Thursday, Baroness Vere said: “Thinking back nearly 200 years to the 1830s, our predecessors were here debating not one, two or three but four new major train lines."...

That to me sounds optimistic and that the government`s thinking is to build it.

 

 

Edited by class26
additional info
  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Coombe Barton said:

 

Thanks for this, but a bit muddled. Seems to be a standard regeneration of work as the project moves from design to delivery, on the one hand, but also some prudent stalling on Phase 2B work, awaiting decisions, on the other?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

None of these schemes either solve Britain's greatest bottlenecks, or do so at grossly under-estimated costs. Tells us mostly though, about the people who believe this sh1t....

However, what they will do Mike, because I assume they are distributed across the country (I've not gone through the link*) is persuade a lot of people the schemes are more valuable than HS2, because one or more is close to where they live.  They probably won't use it - just like they won't use HS2 - but they know someone who might, so it must be more worthwhile.

 

In a recent Heritage Railway a guy writes to say Hawes to Garsdale really needs reopening because of congestion in Hawes on some summer days.  He's obviously experienced that and to him it's a problem.  The fact that only about five other people a day have experienced being delayed for 30 seconds in Hawes is irrelevant.  He's probably never been unable to get a seat South of Crewe on the WCML so doesn't believe that's a problem.

 

*I've now had a look and perhaps 50% of the schemes are actually quite a good idea, 20% might be worth looking at (although the figures are probably spurious), 20% are pet schemes of one of the authors and the remainder are complete nonsense.  The economics of Keswick-Penrith have been debated here before, sadly no matter how enthusiastic Mr Martindale is, it ain't coming back.  And why is Cullompton in need of re-opening but not Wellington just up the line, which has almost twice the population?

Edited by Northmoor
Update
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

My feeling is that Strensall and Haxby are under control of York City Council and they are wedded to their Park and Ride.

 

 

True, but only since 96, before which they came under Ryedale, and transport policy was in the hands of North Yorks CC. Everyone thought that the York takeover would enhance the case, but in reality, it clearly did not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pandora said:

I demonstrate my "being completely out of touch"  by  the link to the report for alternative  transport schemes for the £50 bn loose  pocket change  if HS2 is cancelled:

 

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/16562/attachments/original/1558213640/GBTC_REPORT_FINAL_REVIEWED_18MAY2019.pdf?1558213640

 

My favourite is  scheme 14,  £18 bn to connect Liverpool to Hull including Manchester, Sheffield  ,Leeds, Bradford,York.

I had a quick look through.

I thought 28 (the Portishead branch) is already going ahead anyway, mind you as it was first talked about in 1986 the 5 year timescale would be impressive.

 

Just  thought, I do hope the cost estimates for those schemes are all accurate - and not likely to rise when environmental issues get in the way!

 

cheers

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, class26 said:

 

Very possible and add to this article in today`s Torygraph (not known for supporting HS2)


I quote a few lines -

Baroness Vere of Norbiton, a transport minister, praised “Victorian pioneers” for building the train lines which form the “vast part of our national railway”.
She also criticised “naysayers” who block such projects and praised the “courage” of politicians who see them through.
Speaking in the House of Lords in an HS2 debate on Thursday, Baroness Vere said: “Thinking back nearly 200 years to the 1830s, our predecessors were here debating not one, two or three but four new major train lines."...

That to me sounds optimistic and that the government`s thinking is to build it.

 

 

I completely agree with her sentiments, but my inner pendent feels the need to point out that those railway pioneers pre-date the Victorian age by a few years. I'm assuming that's the Journalist's mistake and not the Baroness. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
23 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

I completely agree with her sentiments, but my inner pendent feels the need to point out that those railway pioneers pre-date the Victorian age by a few years. I'm assuming that's the Journalist's mistake and not the Baroness. 

Williamean age of course. (also classed as Regency)

The Grand Junction Railway opened just 2 weeks after Victoria ascended the throne.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pandora said:

I demonstrate my "being completely out of touch"  by  the link to the report for alternative  transport schemes for the £50 bn loose  pocket change  if HS2 is cancelled:

 

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/16562/attachments/original/1558213640/GBTC_REPORT_FINAL_REVIEWED_18MAY2019.pdf?1558213640

 

My favourite is  scheme 14,  £18 bn to connect Liverpool to Hull including Manchester, Sheffield  ,Leeds, Bradford,York.

 

This is likely a waste of time, but anyway.

 

  • p2 - so we know these large infrastructure projects all fail to meet their budgets, so do we be sensible and say only allocate half of the (2018 estimated) £50 billion?  Nope, in order to get their bang for the buck they allocate the entire amount and the blind belief that all of their chosen (and for the most part entirely uncosted) projects will be delivered on their estimates.
  • p3 - 6 judges, not one appears to be a transportation expert or even someone who could judge who realistic the budgets are.
  • p6 - "environmental impact is likely to be minimal and air quality may improve" - really, upgrading single carriageway to dual carriageway or motorway, which will dramatically increase the number of vehicles using the road, will have no environmental impact and improve air quality?  Not realistic - improving to motorway standards would likely involve significant land acquisition for both the width and for easing curves.
  • p10 - "would increase capacity of the rail network by transferring commuters from national trains to supertrams" - because anything with the word "super" in it must be good.  Replacing regular trains with trams is a questionable increase in capacity, but 5 to 6 years to tunnel under Leeds is extremely doubtful given I assume no preparatory work has been done.  And what about the people on those existing lines beyond tram distance?
  • p11 - "much of the trackbed remains in place" - the cheaper way of saying a lot of the trackbed has been built on thus we would require a lot of property purchasing, at large cost and time.
  • p12 - really don't believe you upgrade 73 miles of track from 60 mph to 90mph for a mere £30 million - likely to be a very large amount more.  Biggest claim to fame is somehow taking trains of the ECML, but that is of doubtful advantage and seems more of a justification for upgrading a line that doesn't merit it.
  • p13 - need to upgrade track to 90mph, need to ease curves, this will cost more than £15 million and not a hope of 3 years and even 5 would be doubtful.  But the benefit is better access to the Settle & Carlisle line from Manchester, etc. - so this explains the proposal is all about desperately trying to find ways to justify upgrading the Settle & Carlisle.  No wonder Transport for the North excluded it, not a surprise as claimed.
  • p14 - much better covered by Mike Storey, but really?  Yet another claim about reopening the Woodhead Tunnels.  This has been much discredited here on RMweb as viable.
  • p19 - "West Midlands Railway diesel electric fleet of trains would be used" - so what services get cancelled to allow this?  Given that the delayed cascade of rolling stock has exposed that there is a signficant shortage in spare diesel rolling stock there it is very doubtful existing stock could be used - thus add in the cost of new rolling stock.  Perhaps some diesel stuff would be available if other projects met their targets, but...
  • p20 - "project is shovel ready" - really, somebody has paid for all the design work and the various legal process have completed?  If you can't get that much right the rest is questionable.
  • p21 - "Electrification of the existing MML .... would be an important alternative to HS2" - yep, another whopper.  Already covered on here that electrification, while nice, doesn't increase capacity and thus is not an alternative to HS2.  But I guess it got double points for claiming the private sector could build it cheaper than than NR - I mean, who do they think NR uses to build things?
  • p25 - Crossrail is not meant to be a Cambridge - London line, and extending to Cambridge would likely cause numerous problems - not to mention I doubt the good taxpayers of Cambridge want a train service with no toilets.
  • p26 - sorry, any new roads in London are not going to cut congestion.
  • p28 - really, with all of our experience with budgets increasing your not just going to claim a made up budget will work but that it can actually be done cheaper?  I also doubt those Class 165 trains are truly surplus.
  • p30 - ah yes, can't have all the dreams getting dusted off of shelves without the LSWR through North Devon added to the list.  Except that the claimed £500 budget is not what NR claims - they are more in the £900 million plus range, and there is not and likely won't ever be sufficient population to justify the service between Tavistock and Okehampton.  And again this claim of all this diesel rolling stock being surplus I suspect will be a surprise to someone, so far aren't seeing and ROSCO's panicking about idle assets.
  • p31 - doubt you can reopen 15 miles of railway for a mere £25 million
  • p33 - cycle paths can certainly have benefits, but alongside motorways just seems to be questionable and not likely very good value for money.
  • p34 - marketing fluff.  Cycle paths along motorways, at over a £1 billion, in no way "represents the best use of taxpayers' money".  As for "support from the public", that it a total unknown - try and start implementing any of these projects and watch the opponents start to come out of the proverbial woodwork.  "Positive environmental impact" - that precludes pretty much every entry that was road based.

Essentially a marketing scam, designed to claim there are better ways to spend the money when the money in question likely wouldn't even cover half of them, and half the projects would see opposition from the Taxpayers Alliance if they were formally proposed and funded - again, really, they would support cycle paths along motorways as a good use of taxpayer money?

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ruggedpeak said:

Irresponsible at best to award contracts with high cancellation charges whilst project is reviewed. May turn out to be a big mistake later.

 

Any contractor is going to incur expenses setting up for work on any project, if the project is at risk of cancellation the bidders are going to require protection from being stuck with those expenses and no project to pay for them.

 

Otherwise known as capitalism / the private sector at work.

 

As for awarding the contracts, until such time as the government in charge either pauses or cancels the project then everything must continue.  A lowly manager can't decide to not award a contract on the basis the project may or may not be cancelled.  I mean how many years now has HS2 been under threat of cancellation?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pandora said:

I demonstrate my "being completely out of touch"  by  the link to the report for alternative  transport schemes for the £50 bn loose  pocket change  if HS2 is cancelled:

 

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/16562/attachments/original/1558213640/GBTC_REPORT_FINAL_REVIEWED_18MAY2019.pdf?1558213640

 

My favourite is  scheme 14,  £18 bn to connect Liverpool to Hull including Manchester, Sheffield  ,Leeds, Bradford,York.

I see that it has those wishlist perrenials of building 'Brighton Main line 2' out of the Uckfield line, and transpennine lorry shuttles via a reopened Woodhead.

 

And then there's this bit in pidgin English on extending Crossrail to Cambridge 

 

"East Anglia COST: £4 billion It  is  important that the train  does not end at Stansted;  terminus stops at  airports tend to  lead to  monopoly rents, as exists  with  the Heathrow Express. It should continue  to Cambridge, which has poor transport connections to London."

 

So into Stansted, stop for 5 minutes so everyone can get off and the driver change ends, and then reverse out and carry on to Cambridge, thus adding 20 minutes to the jouney and providing a way better service than the 6 or direct trains an hour to London that Cambridge has to make do with.

 

It's all a bit weird. 

Edited by pete_mcfarlane
  • Agree 4
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

I see that it has those wishlist perrenials of building 'Brighton Main line 2' out of the Uckfield line, and transpennine lorry shuttles via a reopened Woodhead.

 

And then there's this bit in pidgin English on extending Crossrail to Cambridge 

 

"East Anglia COST: £4 billion It  is  important that the train  does not end at Stansted;  terminus stops at  airports tend to  lead to  monopoly rents, as exists  with  the Heathrow Express. It should continue  to Cambridge, which has poor transport connections to London."

 

So into Stansted, stop for 5 minutes so everyone can get off and the driver change ends, and then reverse out and carry on to Cambridge, thus adding 20 minutes to the jouney and providing a way better service than the 6 or direct trains an hour to London that Cambridge has to make do with.

 

It's all a bit weird. 

 

It's all about getting HS2 cancelled - they (as in the Taxpayers Alliance) don't actually expect any of these alternative projects to go ahead - and for many of them if they did get funded the Taxpayers Alliance would probably fight them as well given their aim is to eliminate most tax funded expenditures.

 

But many of the chosen schemes likely have devoted followers who all proceeded to write their letters to their MPs saying cancel HS2, its a waste, we can do this instead and instead of the letter writers being ignored this gives them a look of credibility.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...