EU referendum are you in or out

[F-ZeroOne]

The Japanese railway system is largely privatised and is generally regarded as one of the finest, if not the finest in the world. I have personally had a Japanese person tell me how bad things were under Japan National Railways. [1]

Of course, the infrastructure was built with large sums of public money, a large amount of debt was effectively written off helped by some creative accounting and the geography of Japan in general helps - on the main lines. A number of rural lines are struggling, at least those that haven't employed cats as station managers...

[1] And just to prove that "Bring back B.R!" isn't just a British thing, an anime series was made recently set in an alternate universe where JNR was never privatised...

[Rhythm]

Some have argued that the whole speed thing was a tactical mistake by the government PR wise to begin with. It is not the only reason HS2 is being built; capacity is the rarely mentioned benefit, something which is reportedly badly needed on the West Coast Main Line. With HS2 taking over on some routes, there is the opportunity to free train paths to allow either more stopping services or add a bit more "give" in the timetable. Some passengers may have slower journeys as a result, but some communities may gain additional services as a result too.

I've seen a bunch of (usually London-based) Redditors talking about this "the whole point was actually about capacity" thing re: HS2 recently but I don't buy it. It smacks of the governing body trying to pivot and change the focus in the backlash of "do we really need our journey to/from London cutting by 15 minutes?". The project is literally called "High Speed 2" FFS. Being sat in "the North" it feels very much like an exercise in expanding the London commuter zone.

And if it really is about capacity, what's happening at the other ends of the line? Sure, London has a (mostly) decent inner-city transport network once you arrive there, but what happens when travelling in the other direction? When you get to Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester and realise there's no corresponding transport network to hook into?

I've spent the last 4 years in a job that involves travel around the country to various different jobs for clients. IMPE, issues with capacity on inter-city routes (both road and rail) seem to actually be fine. The problems arise at the bottlenecks of getting into the towns themselves. By way of example, I'm based in Leeds and can reach the outskirts of Manchester in 35-40 minutes by car. But it then takes 45 minutes to an hour to actually get into the town itself.

If research is to be believed, the vast majority of bottleneck traffic isn't the people doing actual inter-city travel, but rather commuters who are relatively local to the destination being given no real option other than to travel by car due to lack of public transport or high-priced public transport. HS2 seems to be like trying to fix a slow draining sink by spending money increasing the water flow rather than looking down the plug for the source of the clog.

[gilesgoat]

Some have argued that the whole speed thing was a tactical mistake by the government PR wise to begin with. It is not the only reason HS2 is being built; capacity is the rarely mentioned benefit, something which is reportedly badly needed on the West Coast Main Line. With HS2 taking over on some routes, there is the opportunity to free train paths to allow either more stopping services or add a bit more "give" in the timetable. Some passengers may have slower journeys as a result, but some communities may gain additional services as a result too.

I've seen a bunch of (usually London-based) Redditors talking about this "the whole point was actually about capacity" thing re: HS2 recently but I don't buy it. It smacks of the governing body trying to pivot and change the focus in the backlash of "do we really need our journey to/from London cutting by 15 minutes?". The project is literally called "High Speed 2" FFS. Being sat in "the North" it feels very much like an exercise in expanding the London commuter zone.

And if it really is about capacity, what's happening at the other ends of the line? Sure, London has a (mostly) decent inner-city transport network once you arrive there, but what happens when travelling in the other direction? When you get to Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester and realise there's no corresponding transport network to hook into?

I've spent the last 4 years in a job that involves travel around the country to various different jobs for clients. IMPE, issues with capacity on inter-city routes (both road and rail) seem to actually be fine. The problems arise at the bottlenecks of getting into the towns themselves. By way of example, I'm based in Leeds and can reach the outskirts of Manchester in 35-40 minutes by car. But it then takes 45 minutes to an hour to actually get into the town itself.

If research is to be believed, the vast majority of bottleneck traffic isn't the people doing actual inter-city travel, but rather commuters who are relatively local to the destination being given no real option other than to travel by car due to lack of public transport or high-priced public transport. HS2 seems to be like trying to fix a slow draining sink by spending money increasing the water flow rather than looking down the plug for the source of the clog.

Two more cents to add something to this story, which has some 'similarities' to what happened in Italy the place I live.

I have been a commuter by train/busses for over 10 years in the between M. and Trieste, Trieste has ONE ( at least ) VERY good thing, a system of busses that is "amazing" ..

Cheap, LOADS, frequent, you can reach any nook and cranny of the city by bus.

On the other side going in/out/around Trieste by car is a MEGA NIGHTMARE and it's also like travelling a weird maze of one-way-streets, some streets are very narrow, very steep, extremely traffic ridden especially in certain hours.

Big problem of Trieste, you can get there from my place in 30 mins then you could EASILY spend over 1 hour trying to figure out "how to get in and where to park the car" with the added "bonus" ( malus ) wherever you park it you could get a dent on it cause someone else and the extreme traffic.

Everyone living in Trieste has 2 cars, a "good one" to go in "good places" and "the shitty one for town" cause "for sure it will get damaged at some point" which increases the number of cars people have ...

But the huge problem as commuter was that "trains and busses were highly decoupled", while in Trieste itself that wasn't a big problem at all cause the big number of busses all time it was a serious problem for any other city nearby trying to connect with it usually with things like "the train you need departs 5 mins earlier the bus arrives" or reverse "the train arrives i the station 10 mins after the bus just left" leaving gaps of hours or at very least 30 .. 40 mins before the next bus

They NEVER EVER sorted that shit, despite TONS of complaints by people, bus service saying "we can not change our scheduled times" and trains the same.

Yeah from what I've seen also here in Wales, capacity and times and routes I'd dare to say are "more of a problem than speed", some trains have literally TWO vagons and people are like sardines, other times trains are not so frequent as they could be, MOST of time THEY ARE ALWAYS ON DELAY .. when they are not cancelled at all ...

Unless "speed" also means "they can fit more trains on the same track" but I don't know.

Yeah you mentioned price in UK .. that's another point, to be useable it SHOULD "more convenient than the car" or at very last "not more expensive than the car" .. but it isn't ..

Even the LOCAL bus here from this place to Carmarthen that is literally a few miles costs FIVE POUNDS for a round trip !!

Now "once in a blue moon out of necessity" could be "ok" but think 5 days a week 4 weeks .. that's 100 pounds a month for a "stupid bus that does a few miles" .. now honestly is cheaper by car .. but the thing is bus should be lot cheaper given that many people SHOULD ( they don't because it's not cheap ) use/share it.

The train system pricing and such as it works in UK I don't know "something SHOULD be done" because "can't be a train is MORE expensive than taking an AIRPLANE !!!" ..

In Italy, before all the privatisation, I was used to pay something like 25 pounds per month for a monthly train pass, that was allowing me to do 40 miles from M to T with some LITTLE exceptions by taking "any train, any time, any lines, how many times per day I wanted" as long as I did not exceed 40 miles per use.

And nobody ever complained about those kind of prices and services even if trains were not "so perfect" but fook me it was so bloody useful !!!

Yes it wasn't first class but what the heck and there was basically - some little exceptions not many special trains really - no restrictions at all, there's a train going to T at any time X, jump on it and go.

But in UK "makes my eyes and wallet cry" any time I need to get a train, it's insane.

[F-ZeroOne]

Some have argued that the whole speed thing was a tactical mistake by the government PR wise to begin with. It is not the only reason HS2 is being built; capacity is the rarely mentioned benefit, something which is reportedly badly needed on the West Coast Main Line. With HS2 taking over on some routes, there is the opportunity to free train paths to allow either more stopping services or add a bit more "give" in the timetable. Some passengers may have slower journeys as a result, but some communities may gain additional services as a result too.

I've seen a bunch of (usually London-based) Redditors talking about this "the whole point was actually about capacity" thing re: HS2 recently but I don't buy it. It smacks of the governing body trying to pivot and change the focus in the backlash of "do we really need our journey to/from London cutting by 15 minutes?". The project is literally called "High Speed 2" FFS. Being sat in "the North" it feels very much like an exercise in expanding the London commuter zone.

Could I argue its not "About THIS!" or "No, its about THIS!". Its about a number of different things. Speed is one aspect of HS2, just as capacity is another aspect of HS2. There are other aspects, such as freeing up train paths. Revenue generation, in the long term, is another (which may benefit other aspects of the railway). Network Rail, the government and some people who are rail enthusiasts argue that upgrading the WCML would be just as expensive and provide less capacity than going for HS2. Some rail enthusiasts hate HS2 with a passion.

You have to call it something. Theres already a HS1. What alternative name would have been acceptable, presuming that a new high-speed rail line was going to be built? Is "HS3" an unacceptable name?

And if HS2 had been presented as, say, being launched between Manchester and Birmingham only, ignoring London completely, how likely is it that it would even have been started to begin with? There may never be that £56 billion - or £80 billion - to argue about spending elsewhere on the network (or hospitals, or schools, or defence instead) to start with.

You also have to begin somewhere. They didn't build the first shinkansen line from Kumamoto to Hiroshima. It can be argued that once you have HS2 in place, then people will start designing onward links around it because they may be financial and other incentives to do so.

[KlaxonCow]

Spotted this in my Google news feed today:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/the ... dy-exists/

Basically, there is already a train line - the Great Central Line - that runs pretty much the route that HS2 is planned to take.

It was one of the last "Great" train lines - Great Western, Great Eastern, Great Central, etc. - to be built and, as such, they built it wider to potentially take "continental gauge" trains. Or, alternatively, if it were brought back into use today, then you could use that extra width for electrification of the entire distance instead.

Beeching shut it down. Like he did large swathes of the train network, which we're now looking at and saying "we haven't got the capacity!!". Well, we fucking well did have the capacity, but the government shut it all down!

Bring the Great Central Line back into use again. It's already there!

[zip accident]

Spotted this in my Google news feed today:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/the ... dy-exists/

Basically, there is already a train line - the Great Central Line - that runs pretty much the route that HS2 is planned to take.

It was one of the last "Great" train lines - Great Western, Great Eastern, Great Central, etc. - to be built and, as such, they built it wider to potentially take "continental gauge" trains. Or, alternatively, if it were brought back into use today, then you could use that extra width for electrification of the entire distance instead.

Beeching shut it down. Like he did large swathes of the train network, which we're now looking at and saying "we haven't got the capacity!!". Well, we fucking well did have the capacity, but the government shut it all down!

Bring the Great Central Line back into use again. It's already there!

Is it? a lot of Beeching's victims have since been ploughed under or built upon, the rails were sold for scrap very soon after the closures.

The main advantage of HS2 is the cost, every penny spent is a penny earned on the other side, and if you think the people doing the earning aren't Tories, I suggest you think again.

Is this stuff really relevant to the Brexit thread? HS2 is interesting, but this is a Brexit thread, even if there's not a lot of Brexit news at the moment.

[F-ZeroOne]

Have started a new thread here to prevent further - if you'll pardon the expression - thread derailment:

http://www.yakyak.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=88312

[Absolute_Zero]

Thanks to some subtle aspects of a confidence vote that I hadn't previously appreciated, it seems BJ has a cast-iron path to a no-deal Brexit. At least that appears to be the plan, Bercow, Grieve et al notwithstanding.

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87321

[matt303]

I've been through both Holyhead and Dublin port this week and it's an interesting insight into how different the UK and Ireland are looking at the possibility of no deal.

Dublin Port: Brand new customs clearance areas for cars and HGVs including rearranging the traffic flow around the docks.

Holyhead: Nothing, in fact the whole place was having issues handling the amount of traffic for the space available.

One of these countries is preparing to minimise the affect of no deal the other one is shouting more and more about making it happen while not having anything in place.

[zip accident]

I've been through both Holyhead and Dublin port this week and it's an interesting insight into how different the UK and Ireland are looking at the possibility of no deal.

Dublin Port: Brand new customs clearance areas for cars and HGVs including rearranging the traffic flow around the docks.

Holyhead: Nothing, in fact the whole place was having issues handling the amount of traffic for the space available.

One of these countries is preparing to minimise the affect of no deal the other one is shouting more and more about making it happen while not having anything in place.

Train wrecks are profitable. That's why there is no planning to avoid one, because the planning might work, and that would cut into someone's profits.

[gilesgoat]

I feel like "all is lost" and just waiting for "whatever shit to happen" and try to avoid the worst.

I have not a clue what will happen, I have no idea, there's nothing I / we can do about it, it's NOT going to be good, we'll someway try to pass through.

Meanwhile in Italy it appears the government finally collapsed and they are going into new elections, now here there's to fear, in THEORY people should have seen/known better to vote for "something else" and I did tell my mum "vote for who you want but DO NOT VOTE AGAIN for those two !!!".

But there's a big BUT, it seems "they managed to fuck up mind of people real good", it looks like almost "the sole and most important problem of Italy are refugees/immigrants and nobody wants them" .. but yeah .. "nobody puts a finger on/about those countries they are escaping from and what's going on there" ..

The big "but" is that there's a very serious risk Lega becomes the sole and only majority party, if that really happens "I'll feel completely ashamed to be Italian" and Italy is going to become something worse than when Mussolini was at power, if that really happen Italy is going to be a place you do not want to be

At that point the only missing thing would be the Pope escaping to France and then Nostradamus was correct ( tinfoil hats ).

This guy that now is looking for "absolute power" is the one that is basically saying things that "to let immigrants to die is the will of the Virgin Mary" and shit like that .. and quite some people seems to buy it !!!!

The age of reason is DEAD, we are in the age of dunno what .. and to think that Italy was a good place for the Renaisseance and "the age of reason" now that's past , forgotten and even distorted history.

Hopes for the future ? Only this : "survive and try to avoid the worst".

[merman]

The Leave campaign never mentioned No Deal - in fact there are multiple references in official literature and interviews where the aim is to negotiate a deal BEFORE triggering Article 50. Dodgy Dave and Toxic Theresa messed that up.

And "taking back control" means an unelected Prime Minister being "advised" by the unelected Dominic Cummings (part of the Leave campaign found guilty of electoral overspending, and closely connected to Cambridge Analytica) setting course for No Deal - which has ZERO mandate from voters.

[Ollie]

The Leave campaign never mentioned No Deal - in fact there are multiple references in official literature and interviews where the aim is to negotiate a deal BEFORE triggering Article 50. Dodgy Dave and Toxic Theresa messed that up.

I don't think the EU would have allowed that. But certainly working out what we wanted from a deal and getting Parliament to agree to it in principle before triggering A50 would have been a good idea.

[skab]

Glasgow to London times to about 3 hours and 40 minutes

Add at least half an hour for border controls.

*ducks*

[skab]

The Leave campaign never mentioned No Deal - in fact there are multiple references in official literature and interviews where the aim is to negotiate a deal BEFORE triggering Article 50. Dodgy Dave and Toxic Theresa messed that up.

I don't think the EU would have allowed that. But certainly working out what we wanted from a deal and getting Parliament to agree to it in principle before triggering A50 would have been a good idea.

Actually, the whole "meaningful vote" thing, where the parliament was given the last word about any deal, which was hailed as a big victory against the Brexit government back then, has completely backfired now. If there hadn't been a vote (or two, or three...), the deal would have been through by now. Now it looks like a Boris no deal instead, which is what nobody wanted, except, of course, Boris and his cohorts. Only way out now seems to be a no-confidence vote and an independent candidate for PM that would be acceptable for the whole opposition and some moderate Tory rebels to get a majority in the parliament for a new government, and get it quick enough that Boris doesn't get the time to just sit it out. Can't really see that happen, though...