https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-birmingham-29127834 An interesting watch... Almost the same arguments made against the M40 as HS2, and it performs the same function, bypassing "major roads" with a 3 lane highway, anyone want to say the M40 has been an ego-trip waste of time given it has millions of passenger and freight journeys per year?
No because it's cars and cars are the best thing ever to exist in the whole world ever. I mean there I'm totally ignoring the fact they're horrifically inefficient people movers.
Yeah, they're the experts who are saying we should build HS2. Or are HS2 proponents the PC brigade now? I've lost track of all these wild conspiratorial claims.
Aside from this there is also Research and development from some American companies direct on locomotive diesel engines
Really? Or maybe they are saying that because of ulterior motives driven by those in power and business who have a lot to gain on a personal level. Me just being cynical? Perish the thought!
- HS2 is not the answer. - What is the answer? - I don't know, but people in the know will. - The people in the know say HS2 is the answer. - The people in the know are capitalist scum driven by greed. Wut?
What is the answer? I don’t know but there are people in the know who do and there are people in the know who are perfectly capable of inventing ways to make what we already have more efficient for what we need but their decisions are influenced by ulterior motives. That’s politics for you guv. Whut? That sort of thing doesn’t happen does it!?
Right. Lets take a look at 3 solutions I could come up with: Add an extra 2 tracks to the WCML dedicated to freight This would bring huge capacity benefits to the WCML alowing more commuter and freight trains, however, it'd lead to a whole host of bridges having to be rebuilt, mainline stations on the route would have to be rebuilt (or their surroundings destroyed, one of the two), countless trees and a few green spaces, and quite a few buildings would have to be destroyed, and that's just between Willesden and Watford. That's fairly destructive and arguably more destructive than HS2. Put the above in a tunnel Well done, you've just created a public health nightmare, without creating ventilation shafts and emergency exits, in which case, good luck finding a place to put them. Re-open the GCML While I would like to see the GCML re-open (doubt it's going to happen though) and it could be useful, that just pushes the problem onto the London - Aylesbury route, and would join up to the WCML at Rugby, much further south than HS2 will. Plus, you'll make the intercity trains slower, while also either being as destructive as adding 2 tracks to the WCML, or clogging the Chiltern Main Line and potentially causing many delays there, and annoying Chiltern Railways. Build an entirely new conventional main line dedicated to intercity services That's just HS2 but with a lower speed limit. If you can come up with any others, please do say.
If you listen to the railway people (as in people who work in the best interest of the railways rather than those who are shareholders or politically involved) then they see HS2 as a lifesaver IF (and only if) ALL high speed lines south of Birmingham from the midlands and north west are routes down HS2, meaning the classic lines are free to be normalised which will treble their capacity... Not having to leave huge chunks of space for 125mph running really does throttle the WCML That and the electrification of other areas allowing for complete electric haulage of freight on the line would rid the area of over 75% of emissions, CO2 rates would drop hugely and capacity is still increased Where the government is dropping the ball at the moment is that the East West line isn't being electrified... So all trains will be diesel which is just stupid in a country which wants to be carbon neutral in the next train lifecycle
Someone, somewhere, has something to gain from anything. The same thing can therefore be said of those arguing against HS2, who is funding them to argue against it? What ulterior motives do they have? What do they have to gain from it not going ahead? The cynicism works both ways. Back when the Channel Tunnel was being debated there was a 'grassroots' movement against it that turned out to be nothing more than a bunch of Ferry companies pouring money into publishing articles and leaflets because they thought the tunnel would finish them off. In the end they needn't have bothered, the channel tunnel didn't kill off ferry companies at all, in fact the overall increase of passengers travelling by car across the channel benefitted them greatly. The fact is HS2 will ultimately help the railways overall even if you do not think it is the best way to help them, as yet, the only alternative posed in this thread to HS2 is "someone can figure out a way to better utilise the WCML" which is quite a gamble to take on the future of one of the most important transport links in the country.
The Upgrades of the mid 2000s to the WCML have taken things as far as they can with existing infrastructure. Its safe to say that even with a relatively low share of journeys pre covid the network was hitting capacity. HS2 is basically a new double track relief line and as the marginal cost of 200mph is not much more than 125mph it makes sense to build a high speed alignment. There are parts of HS2 I'm not a fan of - but if we want to accommodate more passengers then make do and mend is probably not going to cut it.
The Broken Windows fallacy. Read your Bastiat. (In short, it isn't actually creating new wealth, just moving it to another part of the economy. The money funding HS2 and the knock-on business is just money not being spent elsewhere)
In fact, since the Copenhagen Accords in 2010, the US has decreased its carbon emissions more than any other signatory. This is mostly thanks to the wholesale move to natural gas from coal and petroleum; the fracking revolution has done more for the environment than all the windmills and solar cells ever made. (PS: the previous administration did not "pass rules requiring states to invest in coal power." It merely revoked the brutal penalties imposed by its predecessor in an attempt to kill off coal entirely. It certainly never "required" anything- and the states have nothing to do with power generation anyway.)
In absolute or percentage terms? I've not seen anyone state before that the US has decarbonised more than anywhere else before so just wondered where that "statistic" came from
Spooky- I genuinely thought of saying that but it seemed to me that the facts about fracking (the toxic chemicals involved, geological instability including actual earthquakes and the poisoning of water supplies) spoke so eloquently for themselves. ...And I like Tom Lehrer.
