Heathrow, Gatwick, both, other, none?

[jeremyp]

If you are saying that these are decisions that should have been taking 30 years ago - I agree. The UK probably has the worst infrastructure planning system of anywhere in the developed world.

As was seen in France, the "19th century solution" may actually be a more efficient and effective solution than a supposed 21st century solution. TGV beats flying hands down over 500 km. Trains go from city centre to city centre. Aircraft go from remote airfield to remote airfield. Access and ground handling times can be considerably greater than actual travelling time. And if you want to see how effective and popular  modern rail systems can be, go to Japan and use the shinkansen.

From personal experience, I would say the easiest way to get from London to Brussels is on the Eurostar. HS2 is slightly more controversial because the easiest way to get from the centre of London to the centre of Birmingham is already by train.

[Harrowby Hall]

From personal experience, I would say the easiest way to get from London to Brussels is on the Eurostar. HS2 is slightly more controversial because the easiest way to get from the centre of London to the centre of Birmingham is already by train.

It ought not to be about getting from Birmingham to London but from (say) Glasgow to London or Birmingham to Brussels. However, the inability of the United Kingdom to plan its infrastructure in anything other than a reactive and incremental way is scarcely credible. HS2 is 30 years behind the times, should start in (say) Inverness and physically connect with HS1.

When the Channel Tunnel was constructed it was envisaged that services could run from Scotland and Manchester to Paris and Brussels and a number of "North of London" trains built (which would fit the smaller UK loading gauge). Their international use was killed off by the Immigration Service who refused to countenance domestic and international travellers using the same train.

The train sets were eventually used on the ECML.

[Nearly Sane]

It ought not to be about getting from Birmingham to London but from (say) Glasgow to London or Birmingham to Brussels. However, the inability of the United Kingdom to plan its infrastructure in anything other than a reactive and incremental way is scarcely credible. HS2 is 30 years behind the times, should start in (say) Inverness and physically connect with HS1.

When the Channel Tunnel was constructed it was envisaged that services could run from Scotland and Manchester to Paris and Brussels and a number of "North of London" trains built (which would fit the smaller UK loading gauge). Their international use was killed off by the Immigration Service who refused to countenance domestic and international travellers using the same train.

The train sets were eventually used on the ECML.

All of it is 130 years out of the time. Saving 20 minutes is useless and ignoring climate change. Sort out broadband, and full connectivity now,  and stop worrying about getting to a meeting slightly earlier when there doese need to be a meeting

[Harrowby Hall]

All of it is 130 years out of the time. Saving 20 minutes is useless and ignoring climate change. Sort out broadband, and full connectivity now,  and stop worrying about getting to a meeting slightly earlier when there doese need to be a meeting

Try to widen your viewpoint. I am well into retirement and don't have any need to attend "meetings". I'm not saying that you are wrong, but there are other reasons for travelling other than "business".

And which is more favourable, climatically: one train carrying 500 passengers or 500 motor vehicles each containing only one person?

[Nearly Sane]

Try to widen your viewpoint. I am well into retirement and don't have any need to attend "meetings". I'm not saying that you are wrong, but there are other reasons for travelling other than "business".

And which is more favourable, climatically: one train carrying 500 passengers or 500 motor vehicles each containing only one person?

or neither? Maybe omit the strawman. There are many reasons to travel for business but few can't be done without worrying about 20 minutes

[jeremyp]

It ought not to be about getting from Birmingham to London but from (say) Glasgow to London or Birmingham to Brussels.

I don't understand that argument. You seem to be claiming that we shouldn't build a railway line between Birmingham and London because some people want to go from Glasgow to London. If we follow that to its logical conclusion, we wouldn't build any railways.

However, the inability of the United Kingdom to plan its infrastructure in anything other than a reactive and incremental way is scarcely credible. HS2 is 30 years behind the times, should start in (say) Inverness and physically connect with HS1.

Sorry, but that is pure fantasy. Given the costs involved, we have to build incrementally.

When the Channel Tunnel was constructed it was envisaged that services could run from Scotland and Manchester to Paris and Brussels and a number of "North of London" trains built (which would fit the smaller UK loading gauge).

The original Eurostar trains must also fit because they were designed to run on the existing Southern railway lines.

Their international use was killed off by the Immigration Service who refused to countenance domestic and international travellers using the same train.

Bloody Immigration Service.

The train sets were eventually used on the ECML.
[/quote]

[jeremyp]

And which is more favourable, climatically: one train carrying 500 passengers or 500 motor vehicles each containing only one person?

It's not that simple because the motor vehicles still have to exist and quite a lot of the time, the train isn't carrying 500 passengers. It still has to run if there are only 10 passengers.

NS is right about business meetings though.

[Harrowby Hall]

It ought not to be about getting from Birmingham to London but from (say) Glasgow to London or Birmingham to Brussels.

I don't understand that argument. You seem to be claiming that we shouldn't build a railway line between Birmingham and London because some people want to go from Glasgow to London. If we follow that to its logical conclusion, we wouldn't build any railways.

Anyone with an understanding of the geography of the island of Great Britain would realise that Birmingham (and Manchester for that matter) would be intermediate stops on the route between Glasgow and London.

However, the inability of the United Kingdom to plan its infrastructure in anything other than a reactive and incremental way is scarcely credible. HS2 is 30 years behind the times, should start in (say) Inverness and physically connect with HS1

.
Sorry, but that is pure fantasy. Given the costs involved, we have to build incrementally.

Then how can other countries plan and build high speed rail systems?

[Harrowby Hall]

Try to widen your viewpoint. I am well into retirement and don't have any need to attend "meetings". I'm not saying that you are wrong, but there are other reasons for travelling other than "business".

And which is more favourable, climatically: one train carrying 500 passengers or 500 motor vehicles each containing only one person?
or neither?

Maybe omit the strawman. There are many reasons to travel for business but few can't be done without worrying about 20 minutes

What straw man? I'm not playing silly Knave-like mind games with you but trying to engage in discussion about a subject which interests me.

I agree with you - 20 minutes is neither here nor there. But why don't you go and spend some time in Japan? The shinkansen was planned to benefit large sections of the country, not just individual cities. The San-yo line was built in two stages: the first to Osaka the second to Fukuoka. Each stage enabled several important citiesto be joined to the network.

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe omit the strawman. There are many reasons to travel for business but few can't be done without worrying about 20 minutes

What straw man? I'm not playing silly Knave-like mind games with you but trying to engage in discussion about a subject which interests me.

I agree with you - 20 minutes is neither here nor there. But why don't you go and spend some time in Japan? The shinkansen was planned to benefit large sections of the country, not just individual cities. The San-yo line was built in two stages: the first to Osaka the second to Fukuoka. Each stage enabled several important citiesto be joined to the network.

The strawman that it is either 500 people on a train or 500 people on their own in cars. We should be looking to reduce the travel not increasing it. That the plan one  Japan was sensible, and well thought out does not mean it is the current solution for the UK. 

[Harrowby Hall]

I'm sorry, NS, I still don't follow.

Are you saying that people should be imprisoned in their homes and never travel?

Are you saying that I should never go to the theatre or to a concert? I live in a smallish town that has facilities for neither.

Are you saying that I should not travel to my residence secondaire in France?

Are you saying that I should never visit my my daughter who lives abroad?

Are you saying that I should never go away on holiday?

The invention of the railways, nearly 200 years ago was the principal agent in opening up the world so that everyone could enjoy it, from world in which few people ever ventured more than a few miles from their home village in their lives to a world which everyone can share.
The invention of the railways improved the gene pool by enabling people to travel beyond the half-dozen inbred families of their locality.

Do you really want us to give up the world and just live with digital representations of reality instead?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry, NS, I still don't follow.

Are you saying that people should be imprisoned in their homes and never travel?

Are you saying that I should never go to the theatre or to a concert? I live in a smallish town that has facilities for neither.

Are you saying that I should not travel to my residence secondaire in France?

Are you saying that I should never visit my my daughter who lives abroad?

Are you saying that I should never go away on holiday?

The invention of the railways, nearly 200 years ago was the principal agent in opening up the world so that everyone could enjoy it, from world in which few people ever ventured more than a few miles from their home village in their lives to a world which everyone can share.
The invention of the railways improved the gene pool by enabling people to travel beyond the half-dozen inbred families of their locality.

Do you really want us to give up the world and just live with digital representations of reality instead?

No, but then the 20 minutes saved are not relevant to you. The vast majority of rail travel and what HS2 is seeking to cater for is commuting.