Do you want to discuss boring politics? (27 Viewers)

[fernandopartridge]

This story is a bit mental. As much for the way it happened as the content.

A story was seeded in the Times at the weekend headlined 'HS2's latest challenge? Cutting the speed of its trains to save money'. The sub headline suggests a linear relationship between speed and cost with every 1mph costing £1bn.

The response from both railway enthusiasts and engineers was swift and unanimous. The article was complete nonsense that didn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. The response of the journalist to questions about why he hadn't fact checked this with anyone with the slightest understanding of railway engineering was met with a shrugging gif.

Then today the other foot drops:

So now our new high speed line may run at 125mph rather than the intended, and designed for, 224mph.

This would be the most ridiculous decision to date, would make the earlier decisions a waste of money to a greater extent. One of the major reasons it has cost so much to date is the insistence on the straightest possible route to allow for the fastest possible trains.

Reeves and co really are stupid stupid people utterly indoctrinated in the household budget analogy.

 

---

[Captain Dart]

This story is a bit mental. As much for the way it happened as the content.

A story was seeded in the Times at the weekend headlined 'HS2's latest challenge? Cutting the speed of its trains to save money'. The sub headline suggests a linear relationship between speed and cost with every 1mph costing £1bn.

The response from both railway enthusiasts and engineers was swift and unanimous. The article was complete nonsense that didn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. The response of the journalist to questions about why he hadn't fact checked this with anyone with the slightest understanding of railway engineering was met with a shrugging gif.

Then today the other foot drops:

So now our new high speed line may run at 125mph rather than the intended, and designed for, 224mph.

I think it was always about building a parallel line to relieve the existing antiquated main line which has been getting less and less easy to keep going but it was politically unacceptable to admit.

 

[chiefdave]

I think it was always about building a parallel line to relieve the existing antiquated main line which has been getting less and less easy to keep going but it was politically unacceptable to admit.

The messaging was completely wrong from the start. The biggest benefit is by having a high capacity route between major cities you relieve the demands on the current infrastructure which can then run more, and less crowded, regional services.

But from day one the messaging was 'get to London a few minutes faster'. Which just meant anyone who didn't live or work in London didn't perceive much benefit while they experienced a lot of disruption.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

This story is a bit mental. As much for the way it happened as the content.

A story was seeded in the Times at the weekend headlined 'HS2's latest challenge? Cutting the speed of its trains to save money'. The sub headline suggests a linear relationship between speed and cost with every 1mph costing £1bn.

The response from both railway enthusiasts and engineers was swift and unanimous. The article was complete nonsense that didn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. The response of the journalist to questions about why he hadn't fact checked this with anyone with the slightest understanding of railway engineering was met with a shrugging gif.

Then today the other foot drops:

So now our new high speed line may run at 125mph rather than the intended, and designed for, 224mph.

The whole thing is genuinely a disgrace.