Westministenders: Canada Plus and the Transition Phase

[RedToothBrush]

As we approach the 31st January, we slowly tick towards exit and transition.

Things are not yet signed off though the No Deal planning has quietly been stood down with no press release and the government have said they won't talk about trade deals post 31st Jan because the public are bored of them and don't understand.

The new EU president has said that the UK doesn't have time to make a full deal with the EU before 31st December with a deadline which isn't flexible.

We still have no idea what the government plans are. We still have many EU citizens feeling very vulnerable.

Perhaps we should start talking about this rather than Royals for a couple of weeks...

How about wanting to see if you can obviate the need to travel ?

In a modern economy this is just a silly non-argument.

For sure you can reduce the need to travel, but people are still going to need to get around unless you are doing a Jacob Grease Smugg on us and want us all to go back to the 18C.

I'm happy to do over 90% of my work meetings by Skype but sometimes you have to be physically present. And preventing families and friends who live in distant locations from ever reuniting would be ... popular. Not.

We need to dramatically reduce long-distance carbon-intensive travel and the best way to do that is to get people onto trains.

We need, as an environmental imperative, to stop people flying as much as they do, and to stop people driving as much as they do. High Speed rail with make some headway into both problems. It will also, as stated earlier allow lorries to be removed from the roads.

100% in agreement with Louise here. Great post.

Louise imo HS2 is not - yet - a party issue, or a left / right or Leave / Remain issue either
Both sides of the debate are spread around the political spectrum

We do need a professional cost/ benefit analysis, with projections of how UK transport needs to be in say 20 years

• what is the likely need for different types of transport, what quantity
• what are the alternatives

Yes there could be much more WFH, but a great many jobs, especially manula ones, personal / care services that will always require people to commute in some way to do them

I want to see facts and figures from a professional study, as for any large project I'd assess in business, before deciding about HS2

I don't know enough about HS2 either. Not sure whether I've missed articles on it, or because I didn't read them.
But I agree with various points:
-there needs to be massive investment in railways
-the UK's commuter culture is bonkers and environmentally damaging I think the latter issue is compounded by the education system, catchment areas and high use of private schools, meaning people live where they want their kids to be educated, not where they themselves work

Is HS2 the solution? Dunno. But the ballooning budget surely isn't a sign of v good forward planning, is it?

In other issues, has anyone read the extract from "A Very Stable Genius" on the Guardian website today? It's mindblowing and almost made me feel sorry, just for a sec, for Kirstjen Nielsen.
The parts about how DT suggested federal agents should just break the law, the US gvmt would be sued and "then we'll work it out" are terrifying. This bit is symptomatic:

“Federal law enforcement doesn’t work like that,” Nielsen told Trump in one such meeting. “People could get in trouble. These people
have taken an oath to uphold the law. Do you really want to tell them to do the opposite?”

“Then we’ll pardon them,” Trump said.

My admiration for imaginative thinking doesn't extend quite that far.

Thanks maylis , so will the high speed line go direct or will it be a means of taking on more commuter capacity and stop frequently ?

The problem is we cannot say what the future will require. Beeching thought railways were dead and the car would rule the world forever. Every UK city dug up its electric trams and trolleybuses and now wishes it hadn't.

The problem is that HS2 won't stop people flying - fares are going to be really expensive..... so it will still be cheaper to fly.

It's an ego project from what I have read - also there was much fanfare about the importance of linking the north to Europe for business - well seemingly they don't fucking want that....

It's a shambles - very close to me, people are being served eviction notices, leaving their properties or risk prosecution, but have not had a cent of compensation..... many don't know what their compensation will be. It's a travesty and. Right royal fuck up. And I don't understand why there is not outrage about THAT on the front page of the paper rather than Megan and Harry .

Mockers
Yes, and now when people try and replace them, the technology is far more expensive so the investment is huge compared to what an upgrade over 60 years would have cost. Increased car traffic to negotiate, as well as bus and cycle lanes and the complex networks of other underground cables and wiring, etc. makes it far more difficult than if the tramlines had been there as before.

My Dad watched all the trams in Edinburgh being taken off the streets in the 50s and then the extortionate fiasco of the one tramline that has now been brought in.

Not so much NIMBY. More not right through my friends' house. Or the ancient woodland or their neighbours' houses.

The problem is that HS2 won't stop people flying - fares are going to be really expensive..... so it will still be cheaper to fly.

Not necessarily. Isn't that what tax policies are for ?

Of course we're in the position where the taxes needed to save the planet are the same taxes that will throw millions of people out of work. Once again, the dichotomy of life. What's the point of looking to the motor and aerospace industries to save the economy when the reality is we should be doing all we can to prevent people driving and flying ?

We should be looking to conserving fish stocks, not landing more.

etc etc

Will the latest potential pandemic from middle earth make all this so much birdsong ? We'll have to wait and see.

HS2 would not stop people flying, but it is intended to stop people flying between Heathrow and Manchester, and such flights could easily be stopped by making their landing slots prohibitively expensive, something a third runway will make more difficult.

Rather than pave over the M25, far better to go ahead with HS2 and make Heathrow a transport hub with new links to Reading and Woking and restrictions on cars entering the airport.

There is an entire giant ghost rail terminus under Terminal 5 where this was meant to happen, but airlines being airlines prefer runways.

High Speed rail with make some headway into both problems. It will also, as stated earlier allow lorries to be removed from the roads

Why HS when an ordinary railway will do exactly the same for a far cheaper outlay?
So hydrogen trains aren't HS but dont use fossil fuels and will be the future, goods don't need to travel at 250mph either.

We need more shorter railways e.g. Manc to Leeds to Birmingham and an alternative to the Dawlish line to the s/w.

Spending extra billions to save 20 to 40 minutes is madness.

Normal modern railways aren't that slow, easily capable of travel well over 100mph and for commuter rail lines, speed isn't that vital, as they are stopping v often.

Once the network is up to scratch (and affordable) then spend the billions on a north/south HS line, integrated with the european network - UK should have rejoined the EU by then.

HS2 would not stop people flying, but it is intended to stop people flying between Heathrow and Manchester, and such flights could easily be stopped by making their landing slots prohibitively expensive, something a third runway will make more difficult.

Unless the overall journey time is cut massively, it's a waste of time. I have said before that I can drive to London - to my DFs house - in 90 minutes. Legally too (given some recent threads). The same journey by train would be about 150 minutes and cost at least three times as much. And that's before you factor in the taxis to and from the stations to make it door to door.

For HS2 to replace my drive, the travel time from Birmingham (New St.) to London (Euston ?) would need to be about 45 minutes. Even then unless there is a train every 15 minutes, it would probably still make sense to drive instead. It would also need to cost no more than £15. Otherwise (again) it would be cheaper to drive.

The new HS2 station will be Curzon St, with a possible stop at Birmingham International, before heading for Heathrow interchange (for Crossrail) and then onto New Euston.

The transfer of passenger traffic to HS2 frees up the old West Coast mainline for more local services and more freight.

The bigger question is do we need any of this? Would it be better to invest in 5,6,7 and 8G etc removing much of the need for travel.

The new HS2 station will be Curzon St, with a possible stop at Birmingham International, before heading for Heathrow interchange (for Crossrail) and then onto New Euston.

In that case the journey time needs to be 20 minutes or it's simply no use to me.

Do a lot of people fly between London and Manchester then ?

Do a lot of people fly between London and Manchester then ?

I had colleagues that did. Enough that the airmiles clocked up in booking were a significant factor in deciding a pilot project with Capita that I worked on to rationalise travel expenses would not go ahead.

Mind you I flew Birmingham to Glasgow (and back) a few times because it was faster and cheaper.

Railways in the UK really do not have a lot going for them as things stand.

DS travels between home and uni by plane. Significantly faster and easier, and about a third of the price of the train (even factoring in the rail fare to our nearest airport).

Anyway, as the FlyBe incident demonstrates, no one is going to do anything to make flying more expensive. Which doesn't bode well for HS2, does it ?

So we're going to end up with a 200 mile fast track that nobody in their right mind is going to want to run trains on (because there's no profit). Cue a government fudge to pay operators to bid (who remembers when they had to pay companies to prepare bids for the HMRC gig, as no one wanted to touch it) and finally a wallet-watering subsidy to actually run the trains.

All from the taxpayers teat.

But at least we headed off that loony Corbyn and his cloud-cuckoo ideas of using public money in the rail network.

Oh, hang on ....

Meanwhile, in other news, Jess Philips has quit the leadership race. A matter of supreme indifference to myself, now, but some might care.

Philips was the only one I wasn't keen on. I think Starmer or Nandy would be really good.

I've flown Manchester to Heathrow before as part of a longer journey where I can't fly direct to my destination.

The reason has been because of flight times, cost of trains and cost of hotels.

I live within 25mins drive of Manchester Airport.

It's not cost effective nor time efficient to drive to Heathrow. Its about 4hrs not allowing for traffic. If you have an early flight, you either have to drive through the night or get an overnight hotel at the airport plus parking.

So that's petrol cost, plus hotel cost, plus car parking for the duration of your trip. And potentially an extra day off work at one or both ends of your trip, depending on flight times.

Or you can get the train. Train is 25 mins away (plus waiting time) and then just over two hours to central London, and then you have to change to get to Heathrow. Realistically the peak hour fares mean that its prohibitive to travel at certain times. Or its just a none starter if you have an early flight out of Heathrow. So again you are looking at an overnight in London.

Your cost then becomes your train fare, plus hotel.

Or you can pay maybe an extra £50 per person to go via Manchester fly and change in Heathrow. For the cost and convenience it's a no brainer.

If they put landing fees up at Heathrow, if they didn't at Charles De Gaul for example, all you'd do would be to fly to Paris instead of London as its really not much difference in time and then on to your destination from there.

So unless you had all the airports close to the UK doing the same thing and all putting up fees, it won't change habits of travellers from Manchester travelling via Heathrow.

Ultimately the question is why would I travel by train or car to Heathrow rather than fly from Manchester wherever I'm headed because of the travel times and cost? A more joined up airport plan for the North would make more sense than putting up landing fees by a huge amount. I'd be willing to fly out of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds or Birmingham in theory if I had to if it was cost effective because travel times mean I don't need the additional hotel in the same way. Plus I much prefer flying through regional airports because the experience is much easier and less stressful than the hell which is Heathrow.

Also, it's cheaper and easier for me to visit my friends in the Netherlands than to visit my friends in London. Especially if you have to factor in hotel costs.

We've also found it easier and cheaper to meet up with friends for a holiday in Europe than to do so in the UK by the time you factor in accommodation costs.

Same old issue about the cost of land and accommodation in the UK...

As I Recall, Jess Phillips was getting a lot of love, pre election. Certainly on the Westminstenders threads. And on the occasions I have heard her speak, there seems to be a damn good heft of common sense.

That said, I noticed on other MN boards, she was under fire for some (sigh) trans views.

Either way, it's academic to me. I voted Labour, not bought the package. They can sort themselves out without me. As they have done since 1982 when I decided to follow Groucho instead of Karl when it came to Marxism.

It's not cost effective nor time efficient to drive to Heathrow

But there is a damn good tube line to it.