Welcome

De-Clutterbug hopes that you enjoy reading the blogs. Some things just need to be said!

"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."

"I don't make jokes - I just watch the government and report the facts."


Monday 14 March 2011

HST2 (High Speed Train 2) Yes or No?

HST2 (High Speed Train 2) Yes or No?

Yes (FOR) =

  1. Arrive in Birmingham 15 minutes sooner!
  2. Providing further employment in Birmingham.
  3. Further employment on the network railway.
  4. Relieve 3% of traffic from Motorway network linking London to Birmingham.
  5. Fewer stops en-route to destination.
  6. Paving the way for additional High Speed service to Manchester then on to Scotland further alleviating traffic from main roads by 3%.
  7. Better and cleaner for the environment!

No (AGAINST) =

  1. Arriving in Birmingham 15 minutes sooner will also apply to those travelling to London.
  2. Beautiful countryside, villages and homes spoiled, demolished, by additional route.
  3. The railway will only be employing minimal staff quotas for the two suggested stops. 
  4. The traffic reduced from the motorways will be condensed onto the roads near the stations.
  5. The modern High Speed Trains does use power and fuel !
  6. The percentage of traffic that may be taken off the motorways and roads can not be equated.


No amount of compensation and compulsory purchase can recompense the loss of countryside, wildlife therein, of England's landscape tarnished by another 'white elephant'.

  1. Travel time saving  15 minutes off the already established service, does this really mean anything? After all, more and more office workers, are working on the commuter trains travelling into work (whether it be London or Birmingham) as it is and working from home. Will businesses really being using this High Speed Train to ship their employers from Birmingham - London, London - Birmingham?
  2. What additional employment will actually be made by this additional High Speed Train service?
  3. How many staff will actually be employed for this new railway line and to run the InterCity 125 trains?
  4. Motorway traffic will still be heavy even if 3% is redirected through using HS2 route in actual fact the road infrastructure will need to be reassessed to cope with the additional traffic expected at the new stations. Further upheaval, demolition, of the countryside.
  5. No doubt the plans have secretly been passed by the government and any opposition will just be politely listened to and not acted upon. The appeasing meetings held are in place to give the appearance of caring in the community, decisions have already been made.
  6. Lesson should be learnt from the High Speed Train (HST1) in Kent; which also was going to provide a service that would improve travel all round; roads, railways, motorways. Please note that there has been a financial loss (blamed on the weather and the country in recession!). The expected and proposed usage has not come into fruition any business would realise that working at such a loss does not warrant committing to another substantial amount of money in a similar project.
  7. How clean is the new high speed train? It is not pulled by horse so must be fuelled considerably by another source?
  8. With relation to the finances proposed to fund the HST2 with a country that is supposed to be billions in debt and in a recession how can we possibly afford this additional expense?
h.1) Money is, from what I can gather, already 'given', by the government, to the railway network annually to retain a 'service'. A service that is not up to a standard fit for animals let alone fee paying customers. Often at peak time standing room only, degrading those who have been charged. Perhaps standing room only should be given free to the passengers!   
h.2) Surely this money would be better spent upgrading and improving the existing, which will, no doubt, go into decline if all resources and money is 'thrown' at the proposed HST2.
h.3) Maintenance and upkeep of the new railway will take first position for resources etc so another reason why not to go any further with more expense spent on 'considering' the purpose and reason behind providing a train that will arrive at its' destination 15 minutes earlier.
h.3) The government is quick to say we should make cuts wherever possible and yet the best and largest immediate cut could be made be cancelling this project, immediately.

To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive, and the true success is to labour.


"Please don't spoil our countryside"

He travels the fastest who travels alone.

No comments:

Post a Comment