Go to first unread
Back
to top
B1138 - High Speed Transportation Bill Watch
This discussion is closed.
Report
#4
I would rather a high speed link went through Newcastle but I am biased as I live in Northumberland. Are railways nationalised on TSR these days? If not I'll be against this until they are.
0
Report
#5
First of all, I would like to be a tiny bit picky by saying that the formatting can be improved just a tad DreamlinerFinder. Secondly, I do support HS2 (High-Speed 2) as I can certainly see the economic benefits it provides. Point 1.1 is an interesting point you've made, proposing to extend the line to Glasgow, that will certainly help with the issue of the "North-South divide" but where the funding comes from is a potential issue. This is something that the Government needs to look into, in particular, the Transport Secretary, DMcGovern. Also, I share your concerns with the "North-South divide" and the need to improve infrastructure where needed of which is something, we as a Government need to address.
0
Report
#6
The cost far outweighs the benefit. It's just not that significant to people to get from London to Manchester or Birmingham and back a bit faster. I'd much rather see funds (which would most likely be a fraction of what would be spent on high speed two) go towards improving our current trains. I'm against the high speed project as it is, extending it only strengthens my opposition.
Nay.
Nay.
2
Report
#7
I totally agree with this, perhaps also make for the provision of extending Leeds to Newcastle then on to Edinburgh too rather than Birmingham to Manchester to Glasgow then Edinburgh.
0
Report
#9
(Original post by DayneD89)
I would rather a high speed link went through Newcastle but I am biased as I live in Northumberland. Are railways nationalised on TSR these days? If not I'll be against this until they are.
I would rather a high speed link went through Newcastle but I am biased as I live in Northumberland. Are railways nationalised on TSR these days? If not I'll be against this until they are.
0
Report
#10
I am strongly against this I'm afraid. £82bn is a frightening amount of money for a non-essential project like this and I wouldn't be surprised if the final cost ended up being a lot higher.
3
Report
#11
(Original post by CoffeeAndPolitics)
The railways aren't nationalised in this present day in rl and nationalisation of things like the railway is only effective if it actually makes improvements to service etc. not just for the sake of it!
The railways aren't nationalised in this present day in rl and nationalisation of things like the railway is only effective if it actually makes improvements to service etc. not just for the sake of it!
That said I may be against this anyway. I thought of my area of Northumberland. I live in a town of 40,000 where there are no train links at all, or where my parents live where there are two trains per day. The same investment in local services would help all the Northern towns I know a lot more than this would even if it went right through my region.
0
Report
#12
(Original post by Quamquam123)
I am strongly against this I'm afraid. £82bn is a frightening amount of money for a non-essential project like this and I wouldn't be surprised if the final cost ended up being a lot higher.
I am strongly against this I'm afraid. £82bn is a frightening amount of money for a non-essential project like this and I wouldn't be surprised if the final cost ended up being a lot higher.
0
Report
#13
(Original post by DayneD89)
Not irl but if that's the same in our current law then I would oppose this for that reason alone. I'll support investment in infrastructure where that investment goes back into the public good, but not where it effectively just subserdises investments that should be made by private enterprise if that's where the profits will directly end up.
That said I may be against this anyway. I thought of my area of Northumberland. I live in a town of 40,000 where there are no train links at all, or where my parents live where there are two trains per day. The same investment in local services would help all the Northern towns I know a lot more than this would even if it went right through my region.
Not irl but if that's the same in our current law then I would oppose this for that reason alone. I'll support investment in infrastructure where that investment goes back into the public good, but not where it effectively just subserdises investments that should be made by private enterprise if that's where the profits will directly end up.
That said I may be against this anyway. I thought of my area of Northumberland. I live in a town of 40,000 where there are no train links at all, or where my parents live where there are two trains per day. The same investment in local services would help all the Northern towns I know a lot more than this would even if it went right through my region.
You've said you like in Northumberland and have a lack of train links; I'm just struggling to understand why you wouldn't compromise the idea of nationalisation of the railways to support HS2 as a means of improving transportation links and resolve the issue of the "North-South divide". Also, the current government does recognise the need to improve infrastructure and increase investment to areas that needs it most.
0
Report
#15
(Original post by CoffeeAndPolitics)
I don't think you understand but the majority of the MHoC bills relate to rl. I do understand your concerns about ensuring investment in infrastructure goes back into the public good but as I've said in the other post, I would only support nationalisation as a TSR Labour MP if it actually will make a vast difference to how things are running etc.
You've said you like in Northumberland and have a lack of train links; I'm just struggling to understand why you wouldn't compromise the idea of nationalisation of the railways to support HS2 as a means of improving transportation links and resolve the issue of the "North-South divide". Also, the current government does recognise the need to improve infrastructure and increase investment to areas that needs it most.
I don't think you understand but the majority of the MHoC bills relate to rl. I do understand your concerns about ensuring investment in infrastructure goes back into the public good but as I've said in the other post, I would only support nationalisation as a TSR Labour MP if it actually will make a vast difference to how things are running etc.
You've said you like in Northumberland and have a lack of train links; I'm just struggling to understand why you wouldn't compromise the idea of nationalisation of the railways to support HS2 as a means of improving transportation links and resolve the issue of the "North-South divide". Also, the current government does recognise the need to improve infrastructure and increase investment to areas that needs it most.
We can have a debate on nationalisation another time as that isn't the aim of this bill but let's just go with the idea that nationalisation would improve the service end users receive.
If the railways are in private hands then it is their responsibility to improve the network. That's the tradeoff for selling those off, that we wouldn't have to keep paying for them while the new owners take the profits. In short they don't get to buy the profits but leave the public paying for the investments.
0
Report
#17
(Original post by DayneD89)
At least when I was speaker of this house the laws we made here over wrote existing Rl law? Thus if one of the many nationalisation bills I've worked to pass has been repealed they should be nationalised in our make believe world.
We can have a debate on nationalisation another time as that isn't the aim of this bill but let's just go with the idea that nationalisation would improve the service end users receive.
If the railways are in private hands then it is their responsibility to improve the network. That's the tradeoff for selling those off, that we wouldn't have to keep paying for them while the new owners take the profits. In short they don't get to buy the profits but leave the public paying for the investments.
At least when I was speaker of this house the laws we made here over wrote existing Rl law? Thus if one of the many nationalisation bills I've worked to pass has been repealed they should be nationalised in our make believe world.
We can have a debate on nationalisation another time as that isn't the aim of this bill but let's just go with the idea that nationalisation would improve the service end users receive.
If the railways are in private hands then it is their responsibility to improve the network. That's the tradeoff for selling those off, that we wouldn't have to keep paying for them while the new owners take the profits. In short they don't get to buy the profits but leave the public paying for the investments.
0
Report
#18
(Original post by Quamquam123)
There was a Great Repeal in August 2014 so that may have had an impact.
There was a Great Repeal in August 2014 so that may have had an impact.
0
Report
#20
(Original post by DayneD89)
All the laws I knew are gone then. Anyone know if our railways are nationalised or not then? Is the wiki up to date? I'll go try to find out...
All the laws I knew are gone then. Anyone know if our railways are nationalised or not then? Is the wiki up to date? I'll go try to find out...
0
X
new posts
Today on TSR
-
Oxford rated world's best uniTops global league table for fourth year running
- A level subject combination?
- Boyfriend moving in with me at uni
- Going to the cinema alone?
- Stuck between 2 career paths
