RMweb Gold Budgie Posted March 17, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 17, 2015 One thing which is puzzling about modern life is why everyone chooses to work the same hours, creating the peaks? Is it written down somewhere that all work must be done between 9 and 5? The inclination of humans to behave like flocks of sheep, despite a highly developed brain, is a bit of a mystery. If you or your company decided to change working hours to say 11-7, you could travel on cheap off-peak fares, on less crowded trains. And what's more you could probably get more work done without interruptions in the final 2 hours, while everyone else is stuck on the train. Martin. In a similar vein, where is it written down that all work must be done in London? My other half works in the financial industry and needs to be there to respond to calls, queries etc when other parts of the business is operating. Before I retired I was a computer programmer in the financial industry, and for a few years I was working New York hours (i.e. 2-10 pm) . That was very stress-free, and the work still got done. I've said this before on this thread and I'll say it again. The only solution to this problem is to separate the political and financial capitals of this country. As it is extremely unlikely that the financial capital will want to move away from the south-east, the government should lead by example and move the political capital to somewhere in the north (I suggested Consett, one of the towns that was devastated when the steel industry closed down), and set up the new houses of parliament up there. That should reduce the travelling requirement into central London by half or more. Of course it won't happen. But it should. How long will it be before all our transport in the south-east breaks down completely, and nobody can get to work at all? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I think that's pretty unworkable - one of the key things is that it should be somewhere easily accessible transport-wise to as much of the UK as possible, which Consett, erm, isn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted March 17, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 17, 2015 Just make sure HS2 goes there then. Anyway, Consett was only an example, a "green-field site" so to speak, where all the required infrastructure can be created from scratch. Next, you'll be telling me that it would cost a fortune to implement. What's the cost of not doing something similar? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 17, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 17, 2015 As I understand it, London is built on clay. Looking at aerial views showing all those massive buildings, adding more all the time, and x million inhabitants + y million more during the day, increasing all the time, you can't help wondering about the total weight of the whole thing. I think I shall avoid going to London, in case I'm the straw which breaks the camel's back, and the whole thing sinks into the mud on my arrival. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted March 17, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 17, 2015 My wife and I have discovered that the best way to travel from London in comfort avoiding the Gatwick passengers with their riddiculous (and in some cases downright dangerous) amounts and sizes of luggage is to travel (ironically) on the Gatwick Express. Caught a ten car 442 formation the other night from Victoria, we sat in the front unit, had the entire front couple of coaches to ourselves!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Just make sure HS2 goes there then. I know it's detractors reckon it'll blight 90% of the entire country, that doesn't mean that it creates a useful train service to it... Realistically, if you said "not London" - it'd have to be somewhere in the midlands, not the North... ...a "green-field site"......What's the cost of not doing something similar?... In terms of dealing with the transport capacity growth needed by government workers - Nothing? I'm trying to skirt political territory here - but the size of national government operations shouldn't be growing exponentially in the same way that London is, London's growth should be coming from businesses - so (in simplistic terms) moving every national government function out of London to wherever will not stop or reduce the rate of growth that London needs to deal with (though it may give you a temporary bit of transport capacity). But if you decide those functions need to be dropped in the country in a location with no transport links then you are going to have to spend a lot to create a lot of that from scratch - versus nothing needing to be spent serving them where they are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 17, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 17, 2015 Every commuter who is forced to sleep on a station bench is one more that you don't have to bring back in the morning. Do I detect the beginnings of a plan here? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenman Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 ... Realistically, if you said "not London" - it'd have to be somewhere in the midlands, not the North ... Is that the "midlands" of the UK, or the "midlands" of England...? While we all seem to be caught up in the rhetoric of austerity, the UK today is one of the richest nations that has ever existed in the whole of human history. If we want to move our political capital from London to AN Other Place, there is no financial reason why we cannot do so - and build the infrastructure it needs to support it. It's more a question of will. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jamie92208 Posted March 17, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 17, 2015 Perhaps the ideal opportunity is about to arise as they decide whether or not to repair the Palace of Westminster. A move to somewhere on a branch line operated by pacers and reduced broadband coverage would benefit a huge area of the country. (Remove tongue from Cheek) Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lurker Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 At least the MPs would have an excuse for being out of touch with the country Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted March 17, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 17, 2015 Perhaps the ideal opportunity is about to arise as they decide whether or not to repair the Palace of Westminster. A move to somewhere on a branch line operated by pacers and reduced broadband coverage would benefit a huge area of the country. (Remove tongue from Cheek) Jamie You're right, and you don't need your tongue in your cheek when you say it. Whenever and wherever parliament is moved to, all the infrastructure needed to support it and all the trains needed to run on that infrastructure will be upgraded to the latest versions as soon as possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 and all the trains needed to run on that infrastructure will be upgraded to the latest versions as soon as possible. Any chance we could stick to some facts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Is that the "midlands" of the UK, or the "midlands" of England...? Given that Wales and Scotland are semi-autonomous, England...assuming the parliament of England is in the same place as the parliament of the UK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium corneliuslundie Posted March 17, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 17, 2015 It has been done: Canberra, Washington, Brasilia (not so successful), but two of these were a long time ago and at a time when the countries were not so developed. Of necessity Bonn, but moved back to Berlin ASAP. Someone mentioned Wales and Scotland. Ironically, both have their capitals at one corner, not somewhere in the middle (Llandrindod Wells and Aviemore anyone?) By the way, London is sinking, even without the effect of clay (or is it the sea level rising, can't remember?) So there is going to be some serious cost in keeping the city going over the next century. The Thames Barrier will be no use. Jonathan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 It has been done: Canberra, Washington, Brasilia (not so successful), but two of these were a long time ago and at a time when the countries were not so developed. Of necessity Bonn, but moved back to Berlin ASAP. Someone mentioned Wales and Scotland. Ironically, both have their capitals at one corner, not somewhere in the middle (Llandrindod Wells and Aviemore anyone?) By the way, London is sinking, even without the effect of clay (or is it the sea level rising, can't remember?) So there is going to be some serious cost in keeping the city going over the next century. The Thames Barrier will be no use. Jonathan In terms of shifting capitals, there's also the biggest, Islamabad, which replaced Karachi. Egypt keeps trying to establish new centres outside Cairo, due to the infrastructure problems of the old city, but all attempts thus far have, at best, only partially succeeded due to insufficent provision of public transport. There is an article on the latest proposition in today's Guardian. The whole of the South-East is sinking; curiously due to the effects of the Scottish ice-sheets melting (a process called 'isostatic readjustment', if my memories of A-level geomorphology are correct) It is this that manifests itself in the numerous minor earthquakes we hear of . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
railsquid Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I have used London Bridge regularly in the past and commuted into London from various directions for over 35 years, so I hope my comments will not be felt out of order. Several people, have said, effectively, "don't work in London". That is the crux. Despite feeble attempts from time to time by governments to decentralise, England is getting more centralised on the South East. Sure you can move out here to mid Wales if you are retired or don't mind being unemployed (but if too many of you do it will push up house prices!). Government departments have largely stopped shifting activity outside London, efforts to do so have largely been ineffective, and London is getting more important as an international financial centre. There seems at present to be no political will to transfer jobs away from London. So many people will always have to commute into central London. It is unfair to blame them for it. So I have every sympathy with those who complain. And it if helps them retain their cool in stressful situations them RMWeb is doing a service. But it would be nice to have more news on what is going on at and around London Bridge, please. It is worth noting that many capital cities have the same problems even if not the same solutions. Japan suffers from a similar problem, i.e. everything is centred on Tokyo (and surrounding conurbation). There was even a long-running plan to move the government away from Tokyo to a putative New Capital City somewhere in the boondocks, but that's been quietly dropped at some point in the last few years. On the other hand, rail is and always has been an investment priority, and the projects which have been executed over the last half-century probably equate to multiple CrossRail projects. Only last weekend they opened another stretch of line connecting two of Tokyo's main stations (albeit one which was severed several decades ago due to Shinkansen construction, it's now been rebuilt as a viaduct above the Shinkansen line). On the other other hand, I smirk when I read about people complaining about sometimes not being able to get a seat at peak times to/from London, here you can consider yourself lucky if you can commute without body contact with your fellow commuters. (Personally I work from home and only venture out when the trains are pretty empty, but that's an exception). This happy state of affairs (well, apart from the whole overcrowding business, though it's nowhere near as bad as it used to be) can be achieved by a) having a construction industry which leaves the finance industry standing when it comes to distribution of brown envelopes stuffed with cold hard cash, and b ) private railway companies which own their own infrastructure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lurker Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 No only is London sinking but the water tables are rising too - now there is less industry in the area, less groundwater is being taken, so is starting to rise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lurker Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Japan suffers from a similar problem, i.e. everything is centred on Tokyo (and surrounding conurbation). There was even a long-running plan to move the government away from Tokyo to a putative New Capital City somewhere in the boondocks, but that's been quietly dropped at some point in the last few years. On the other hand, rail is and always has been an investment priority, and the projects which have been executed over the last half-century probably equate to multiple CrossRail projects. Only last weekend they opened another stretch of line connecting two of Tokyo's main stations (albeit one which was severed several decades ago due to Shinkansen construction, it's now been rebuilt as a viaduct above the Shinkansen line). On the other other hand, I smirk when I read about people complaining about sometimes not being able to get a seat at peak times to/from London, here you can consider yourself lucky if you can commute without body contact with your fellow commuters. (Personally I work from home and only venture out when the trains are pretty empty, but that's an exception). This happy state of affairs (well, apart from the whole overcrowding business, though it's nowhere near as bad as it used to be) can be achieved by a) having a construction industry which leaves the finance industry standing when it comes to distribution of brown envelopes stuffed with cold hard cash, and b ) private railway companies which own their own infrastructure. Taking this one step further, Tokyo wasn't historically, the capital. IIRC it was Kyoto. When did that change occur? Was it at the end of the Tokogawa Shogunate/ time of Admiral Perry? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 What about going back to the original capital of Winchester? Direct rail links to London, Birmingham, Manchester etc. Near to Southampton Airport. Adjacent to motorways and dual carriageways. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidH Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Whatever did the people of Winchester do to deserve that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted March 17, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 17, 2015 What about going back to the original capital of Winchester? Direct rail links to London, Birmingham, Manchester etc. Near to Southampton Airport. Adjacent to motorways and dual carriageways. We could run through a whole gamut of places which were once the capital - sometimes briefly, sometimes of not the whole kingdom. For example Oxford must have a pretty good claim although some might not like the idea of reinventing one of Charles I's temporary seats of government. But we are where we are and if the inhabitants of that big riverside place in London spent all their time thinking of where they'd be moving to there'd be even less money spent on much needed, and timely, infrastructure schemes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
number6 Posted March 19, 2015 Author Share Posted March 19, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b054xn4r/south-east-today-18032015 Top story on South East on Wednesday. But I would draw your attention to the little 'what planet are they on' comment from Rail minister Claire Perry [ 2:25 ] saying that people want to get home 'to relieve the nanny'. I should imagine if she said that stood on the concourse at London Bridge during the rush hour there would have been a few choice heckles. Sigh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakydoke Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Couldn't the Au Pair be able to relieve the Nanny? I'm sure the Head Butler and Housekeeper would be able to oversee a smooth handover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caradoc Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 The thought of relieving the nanny has brought some entirely inappropriate images into my head. However it might explain why some commuters get so angry when delayed on the way home ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 The thought of relieving the nanny has brought some entirely inappropriate images into my head....... I trust you were thinking along the lines of XXX type videos, rather than a Mrs. Doubtfire? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.