Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, brack said:

They were protected under uk conservation acts prior to the European protection. They've been falling in numbers for most of the past century from habitat loss. Trouble is, whilst rare overall in the country, that doesn't mean they aren't extremely abundant locally.

Everywhere  you want to dig a hole..

Edited by TheQ
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I've just been browsing the BBC website and saw a list of which Parliamentary  bills have been carried over to the next session of Parliament.  Only three out of 13 have been carried forward and all the others have now been lost. Rather significantly one of the three is the bill for stage 2a of HS2 from the West Midlands to Crewe. If in all the political turmoil of this last week the HS2 bill has been saved I would suggest that the project is relatively  safe. 

 

Jamie

Edited by jamie92208
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎09‎/‎2019 at 11:17, TheQ said:

Everywhere  you want to dig a hole..

 

I still cant find any next to my house as Barratt want 105 child sized shoe boxes to be built there!

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HS2 project was started long ago as a labour party project, it has been supported through the conservative years by them. Only the ardent anti HS2 MPs are against it.. ie those whose voters have it going through their back garden..

10 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

I still cant find any next to my house as Barratt want 105 child sized shoe boxes to be built there!

Ah clever animals ,they only turn up if the project is something usefull, like a bypass round a traffic jammed village, or Dualling the Acle straight..

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the money we'll save cancelling HS2, build both!

 

C6T. 

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/09/2019 at 17:54, Classsix T said:

With the money we'll save cancelling HS2, build both!

 

C6T. 

 

Shortly followed by cancellation due to running over budget without the first sod being cut!

 

 

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the London news tonight.

A demonstration at Euston with Chris Packham very prominent trying to show the evils of HS2 and the number of trees it will destroy.

Bernard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

On the London news tonight.

A demonstration at Euston with Chris Packham very prominent trying to show the evils of HS2 and the number of trees it will destroy.

Bernard

You can always grow more trees, not so easy with Packham........

 

Swings and Roundabouts :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Financial Times had a story today,  they speculate the Euston connection to be cancelled,  ,  the extension  to Leeds to be cancelled,  and a reduction in linespeed to 210  mph

Edited by Pandora
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Pandora said:

The Financial Times had a story today,  they speculate the Euston connection to be cancelled,  ,  the extension  to Leeds to be cancelled,  and a reduction in linespeed to 210  mph

I read that this morning

Link here:

https://www.ft.com/content/16593c8a-e693-11e9-b112-9624ec9edc59

 

Quote from the article: "The panel is also exploring whether to ditch an expensive track development into Euston station in Central London and instead ending the line at a proposed new hub in West London."

More madness IMHO, who wants to end up in West London?

Edited by melmerby
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, melmerby said:

 

More madness IMHO, who wants to end up in West London?

Airline Pilots......:lol:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be good news if you were a property developer looking to pick up some London real estate cheaply.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This report was based on an internal report from HS2, which suggested a number of options.

 

HMG has responded by saying it will wait for the independent report due in the next month or so.

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

It would be good news if you were a property developer looking to pick up some London real estate cheaply.

 

But would be a classic case of cutting your nose off to spite yourself.

 

Lets take a look at all other high speed operations - they penetrate to the heart of their capital cities not stop at some ‘development zone’ miles from the centre.

 

People need to understand that the only reason we need to massively expand Euston is because the original builders designed it around small trains.

 

Take a look at most of the French terminal stations in Paris and you will note that even before the invention of the TGV said stations were massive unlike the pokey British affairs.

 

As with things like the ability to accommodate double deck trains, HS2 is doing it not as some form of ‘vanity’ / ‘luxury’ position - it’s merely correcting the mistakes our railway builders made in the past. 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

But would be a classic case of cutting your nose off to spite yourself.

 

Lets take a look at all other high speed operations - they penetrate to the heart of their capital cities not stop at some ‘development zone’ miles from the centre.

 

People need to understand that the only reason we need to massively expand Euston is because the original builders designed it around small trains.

 

Take a look at most of the French terminal stations in Paris and you will note that even before the invention of the TGV said stations were massive unlike the pokey British affairs.

 

As with things like the ability to accommodate double deck trains, HS2 is doing it not as some form of ‘vanity’ / ‘luxury’ position - it’s merely correcting the mistakes our railway builders made in the past. 

The first LGV started at Montbard, about as far from Paris as Reading is from London; it terminated about ten miles north of Lyon. This would have been about 1981/2. It was only about ten years later that the high-speed branch from TGV- Interconnexion was made from near Roissy to Gare du Lyon. Until then, the approach to Paris was a very leisurely one; that into Lyon still has a certain rustic charm.

Paris may have some large termini, but this was because there were fewer companies, and the French state took, and still takes, a very active role in strategic planning. There are few competing routes. There have been several large, and disruptive, rebuilding projects at the major termini, not always to the passenger's benefit. At Gare du Lyon, the suburban lines were buried, to give space on the southern side, whilst non-TGV services were transferred to Gare-du-Bercy ( a bit like some services from Paddington starting near Wormwood Scrubs) A similar situation obtains at Gare Montparnasse, though there, Montparnasse- Vaurigard starts at the equivalent of Royal Oak. 

Edited by Fat Controller
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

...

Lets take a look at all other high speed operations - they penetrate to the heart of their capital cities not stop at some ‘development zone’ miles from the centre.  [emboldening added]

...

 

That's simply not true. As well as the historic example given of the TGV, take a look at the Shanghai Maglev - surely the ultimate in high speed operations? It connects Shanghai airport with, well, a station in the middle of suburbs that's a long way from anywhere useful.

 

I'm not suggesting it's ideal. In fact, in many ways it is completely dumb. But it shows that not "all" high speed operations are as you say.

 

Paul

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

... People need to understand that the only reason we need to massively expand Euston is because the original builders designed it around small trains. ...

This is not true!

I worked for BR at Kings Cross as an architect at the time of the demolition of the Euston Arch. We all took part in protests up the road at the intended demolition of Philip Hardwick's masterpiece.

The LMR architects of Euston took exception to the other Regional architects all protesting at the demolition because, they argued, they needed space right down to the Euston Road to accommodate much needed longer trains. These could not be pushed northwards up Camden bank. 

 

The truth was they never took advantage of the loss of the Euston Arch, instead BR simply let off the space to Colonel Sieferts to build another of his Pi$$ poor vast spec. office blocks.  

I am quite sure the same will now happen to the the cleared west side of Euston station.

dh

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, runs as required said:

This is not true!

I worked for BR at Kings Cross as an architect at the time of the demolition of the Euston Arch. We all took part in protests up the road at the intended demolition of Philip Hardwick's masterpiece.

The LMR architects of Euston took exception to the other Regional architects all protesting at the demolition because, they argued, they needed space right down to the Euston Road to accommodate much needed longer trains. These could not be pushed northwards up Camden bank. 

 

The truth was they never took advantage of the loss of the Euston Arch, instead BR simply let off the space to Colonel Sieferts to build another of his Pi$$ poor vast spec. office blocks.  

I am quite sure the same will now happen to the the cleared west side of Euston station.

dh

 

When I say 'builders' - I mean the original Victorians / Edwardians.

 

Take a look at the width of the approaches into Paris gare Du Nord for example and compare it to the Euston approaches for example - and I doubt that difference can be explained simply because SNCF demolished swathes of property on the approaches where as BR didn't!

 

While its true the UK suffered like all 'early adopters' / inventors of new tech from not understanding just how popular it would become, there is no reason to perpetuate such mistakes over 100 years later

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

st

8 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

The first LGV started at Montbard, about as far from Paris as Reading is from London; it terminated about ten miles north of Lyon. This would have been about 1981/2. It was only about ten years later that the high-speed branch from TGV- Interconnexion was made from near Roissy to Gare du Lyon. Until then, the approach to Paris was a very leisurely one; that into Lyon still has a certain rustic charm.

Paris may have some large termini, but this was because there were fewer companies, and the French state took, and still takes, a very active role in strategic planning. There are few competing routes. There have been several large, and disruptive, rebuilding projects at the major termini, not always to the passenger's benefit. At Gare du Lyon, the suburban lines were buried, to give space on the southern side, whilst non-TGV services were transferred to Gare-du-Bercy ( a bit like some services from Paddington starting near Wormwood Scrubs) A similar situation obtains at Gare Montparnasse, though there, Montparnasse- Vaurigard starts at the equivalent of Royal Oak. 

 

However TGV trains still ran right through to Gare Du Lyon from day 1 didn't they - there was no question of terminating them in a new station built in the freight yard near Creteil was there?

 

Whether this was achieved by the formation being wide enough already to handle extra services, money being spent widening the formation or other trains diverted away doesn't change the point that penetration into the heart of the city was deemed essential.

 

HS2 is supposed to be integrated into our national rail network - and terminating at Euston with its Underground connections plus the Kings Cross / St Pancras Mega hub being in easy walking distance goes a long way to achieving that at the London end. Finishing at Old Oak with only Crossrail available for onward travel does not come close for day to day operations*

 

* As an emergency termini to prevent folk having to be taken all the way back to Birmingham in the event of Euston being shut -  by a fire alarm it works fine.

 

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fenman said:

 

That's simply not true. As well as the historic example given of the TGV, take a look at the Shanghai Maglev - surely the ultimate in high speed operations? It connects Shanghai airport with, well, a station in the middle of suburbs that's a long way from anywhere useful.

 

I'm not suggesting it's ideal. In fact, in many ways it is completely dumb. But it shows that not "all" high speed operations are as you say.

 

Paul

 

Do not confuse high speed infrastructure with high speed trains services!

 

TGV trains ran into the heart of Paris and Lyon from day one - even if the actual high speed line started well outside the cities concerned.

 

One of the inherent problems with MagLevs / monorails is the need for brand new infrastructure right into the heart of the city centre - rather than making use of existing infrastructure .

 

The ONLY reason HS2 is having to continue all the way to Euston rather than emulate the French example is our railway corridors are too small and hemmed in by development (as are our terminal stations) to cope with the additional (and much longer) high speed trains used (i.e. 2xTGVs). This requires extensive demolition and / or tunnelling to correct - but it is only a consequence of us being the inventors of railways and not being prepared for just how popular they would become...

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

When I say 'builders' - I mean the original Victorians / Edwardians.

 

Take a look at the width of the approaches into Paris gare Du Nord for example and compare it to the Euston approaches for example - and I doubt that difference can be explained simply because SNCF demolished swathes of property on the approaches where as BR didn't!

 

While its true the UK suffered like all 'early adopters' / inventors of new tech from not understanding just how popular it would become, there is no reason to perpetuate such mistakes over 100 years later

There has in fact been an extension onto a wider footprint, or a change of use of the existing footprint, in the approaches to the Gare du Nord.  Thus in some respects it differs not too much from the changes that have taken place in the approach to Paddington over a roughly similar period.  Prior to the 1967 layout changes there were six passenger running lines into/out of Paddington if you include the suburban platforms - in 1967 two lines went to exclusive use by the H&C but a new passenger running line was created out of the Down E&C Line leaving 5 passenger running lines but only four west of Portobello Jcn.

 

The alterations in connection with the Heathrow link created an additional padssenger running line with all 6 now running from the station throat to a point nearer to Ladbroke Grove than to Portobello Jcn with a total of 5 continuing to appoint just west of Ladbroke Grove.   the layout changes for crossrail will narrow the 6 tracks down to 5 in the vicinoty of Sbway jcn but there will be six again from the Crossrail Jcn onwards to  roughly the existing limits of six and  then the five track formations.  Over the years, as at Gare du Nord various ancillary lines once used for engine and sy tock movements have become running lines - something which has not happened at any other major London terminus although I believe the Euston rev building effectively created additional passenger running lines by exactly the same process of upgrading existing lines.  Kings Cross of course went in the opposite direction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Eastern section of HS2 is cancelled it wil go down very badly indeed in the East Midlands as well as the North, North-East & Scotland.

 

We have already lost the MML electrification north of Kettering to Sheffeild as a result of Network Rail and Grayling's failures. HS2 was intended to replace this, with a 10 year delay. The MML and ECML are full. Without HS2, Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield and connected places will just be on a slow, delay-prone, congested, diesel-only secondary line. If there is no HS2 East, we have to get MML electrification and route improvements back to increase capacity and reliability. Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle all have better services than this now, without HS2.

 

I am aware of, and really regret the environmental impact of HS2, but the Chilterns section seems likely to go ahead anyway.  With less benefit to the rest of the country.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.