| Is this good for the Stadium Project 20:59 - Jan 22 with 2993 views | Bigears |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25839958
HS2 objections denied, cant appeal to the European court, so another step to Old Oak Common Rail link progressing forward.
We all know by now, the Owners of the club are all interested in the regeneration project as this will be worth Billions to them, and QPR is the vehicle they are using to start it all off.
If it is, and it does happen for many a year while this goes on we will have there finance and time to build. However if this falls down we could be in a weeee bit of trouble. | | | |  |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 21:16 - Jan 22 with 2953 views | BklynRanger |
I'd guess its probably a deciding factor in the scale of TF's project. If and when it goes through it will confirm the massive expansion of the number of people they expect to see coming through that area and see a cascade of funding coming down on them.
I've only started to read up about this whole thing in the last couple of months, but it seems like a hell of a lot of money and effort to get to and from Birmingham half an hour quicker. [Post edited 22 Jan 2014 21:19]
| | | |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 23:40 - Jan 22 with 2747 views | WanderR |
It's capacity more than anything else. Most of Britain's railways were built by the Victorians. If you've ever try to get to Sheffield via Birmingham from London you know you're lucky if you get a bit of floor in the corridor to sit on. | |
| |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 08:14 - Jan 23 with 2566 views | ElHoop |
I would have thought that they will have to build and expand more and more lines, whether they are HS or not. Oil is running out and is provided by increasingly unstable regimes and there's more people wanting it. So if there's any strategy at all it's probably along the 'lines' of expanding systems which can be powered by the grid as an alternative to the private car, which might increasingly be used for shorter journeys, perhaps powered by batteries or such like. | | | |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 08:31 - Jan 23 with 2534 views | hopphoops |
It brings the prospect of getting a train to the game and back in a day a bit closer, even though my round trip will go from 1998 to 2000 km. | |
| |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 09:04 - Jan 23 with 2478 views | Tonto |
I support the prinicple of HS lines - there should be HS3, 4 and more - going north east. north west and west for starters.
but the route chosen for HS2 seems wrong to me:
1 - why stop it at Euston when HS1 goes from St Pancras 300 yards down the road? Surley a joined up solution would be better?
2 - Why doesnt it go direct via Heathrow? You could reduce internal flying at a stroke with environmental benefits.
3 - the crucial bit for me is the extensions to the more northerly cities - Glasgow, Edinburgh, manchester and Liverpool. Leeds and newcastle too. the business case for the Birmingham bit is weak IMO
4 - all stations should be in the centre of towns - not new parkway jobs miles from anywhere.
BUt to answer the initial question - yes this is good for QPR! | |
| |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 09:57 - Jan 23 with 2415 views | BasingstokeR |
Agree with all of what Tonto has summed up there....
in particular number 3. | | | |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 10:10 - Jan 23 with 2388 views | isawqpratwcity |
Number 4, too. The advantage rail has over planes is that airports still leave a slow, expensive journey into town. Because of their vintage, railway stations usually have a desirably central location. | |
| |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 10:15 - Jan 23 with 2367 views | BasingstokeR |
As someone who's travelled a fair bit on trains in the rest of west Europe, we really do need to improve our own to catch up. | | | |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 10:22 - Jan 23 with 2356 views | Juzzie |
Without wishing to go off-topic, that's why everyone, even Cameron I bet despite what he says, want Heathrow to be expanded because it's simply the closest of the 'London' airports to central London than the others. 30 minutes is about all it saves... after travelling for hours, does an extra 30 minutes really make that much of a difference?
Anyways, I live pretty much next to the proposed HS2 line coming out of Euston and we've been told there will be some 'slight' movement whilst they're boring the holes. Well, as long as it's during the day it won't be a problem for me as I'll be at work. Just as long as I don't come home to find a huge hole where my flat used to be!
Regarding HS2 overall, it will happen. Whether it's our good friend SWF campaigning about some dilapidated fields being turned into a state of the art training facility or HS2, I'm sure it will go through. | | | |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 10:29 - Jan 23 with 2338 views | isawqpratwcity |
Isn't Heathrow preferred because it is also on the Tube? | |
| |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 11:14 - Jan 23 with 2267 views | Tonto |
I have a preferance for heathrow expansion -or one of the other existing airports rather than a brand new one, becuase there already is the issue of noise etc. People who move there already know what they are getting. the trouble with Boris island is that it will create new problems for new people.
plus the cost of all the extra imnfrastructure makes it seem pretty stupid IMO | |
| |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 11:16 - Jan 23 with 2266 views | Juzzie |
I guess so but that means Heathrow is having more air traffic (and by association there'll be more road traffic etc too) leaving the likes of Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton (and possibly even Soutend) all underused.
I don't think HS2 should go to Heathrow as it would actually make matters worse and encourage even more air traffic. As it's planned route is north of London, why not go via Luton Airport (ooo-eeeee-oooo) and thereby help spread the load to all the airports around London? Better still, the HS2 route actually goes right past Birmigham Airport (Luton is very much off-route) so wouldn't that be better to have more flights going there? [Post edited 23 Jan 2014 11:17]
| | | |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 11:24 - Jan 23 with 2239 views | isawqpratwcity |
Why are all those lovely airports under-used? Because they are pr*cks to get to or from.
Exactly the best reason for high speed rail. | |
| |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 11:25 - Jan 23 with 2238 views | Tonto |
I would actually have an HS equivalent of the M25: link Stanstead, ashford international, heathrow (maybe Luton) and Gatwick. Make these locations the hubs for interchange onto other HS lines potentially, and then have a couple of routes into ONE HS station - St Pancras.
but if there is only one HS line, I still think it should go via heathrwo, and you could eliminate much of the internal flights, so there wouldnt necessarily be a big increase in flight numbers. | |
| |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 13:07 - Jan 23 with 2133 views | Juzzie |
Agreed, and High Speed Rail should go to all of those, not Heathrow. | | | |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 13:15 - Jan 23 with 2102 views | R_from_afar |
Good call. Global oil production is falling 4% per annum, whilst demand is increasing. You can guess what happens next...
RFA | |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 13:27 - Jan 23 with 2084 views | Juzzie |
If everyone on an International flight jumped onto HS2 to go to B'ham, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle & Leeds that would cut down internal flights but only the ones serving Heathrow where people then catch a connecting International flight. There may still be demand for internal flights but it may indeed be reduced.
However, it wouldn't stop International flights though and infact would probably just increase them more as BAA (or 'Heathrow Airport Holdings' as they are now known... there's a huge clue there where their interests lay) would say "ooh look, we have more slots available now, more people can land at Heathrow and take HS2 elsewhere".
I don't think anyone can actually force them to cut flights, they are a private business, so they'll just replace the lost internal ones with International ones.
So, net result = zero difference in number of flights in/out of Heathrow.
edit: using this scenario, although the number of flights might stay the same, it will actually increase the number of passengers in Heathrow by about 10% and can it cope? That would probably then mean they'd want to build a new Terminal and where will it stop?....
What needs to happen is direct International flights are spread around all the other major cities national airports but as BAA don't own any of them, they're not interested in doing that. They're the ones causing Heathrow to be a hub because it makes more money for themselves, no interest in the passengers getting to and from their homes quickly or the impact it's having on the area.
[Post edited 23 Jan 2014 14:26]
| | | |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 13:32 - Jan 23 with 2056 views | kingo |
It is a fact that France has 3000 kms (and rising) of HS track, Germany similar, Belgium, Holland and Spain have well over 1000km. And the GB has 70 km. We have no sustainable alternative to using the roads or internal flights. Our rail system is simply decades behind the majority of counties. But unfortunately if you mention support for HS2 out where I live, you are likely to get lynched. | |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 13:55 - Jan 23 with 2019 views | QPR_Jim |
I prefer the hub for that very reason, once you have a single airport rather than 3-4 smaller ones you won't need to link them up. Put it on the peninsula and you can link it in with HS1 and by road via the m2. That solution does everything your HS equivalent of the M25 does and could potentially offer more in terms of another thames crossing to take the pressure off Dartford crossing, having approach paths over the estuary to reduce residences effected by noise pollution.
It's not a bad idea it's just expensive but it offers more of a linked up long tetm solution so in my opinion offers better value for money than just chucking an extra runway on Heathrow. | | | |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 14:13 - Jan 23 with 1993 views | Konk |
France, Germany and Spain are surely bigger physical countries than the UK, so need more high speed services. You can get from London to Brum in 1hr 15mins, Bristol, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham and Derby in around two hours. Leicester and Wolverhampton in less. Liverpool, Bradford and Preston in two-and-a-half. Newcastle in three-and-a-bit. I’m not sure shaving 20-45 minutes off these journies is going to have a huge impact on productivity or people deciding whether to travel by train or car. And the lines will probably end-up with premium ticket prices, with the tax payer effectively subsidising business travellers (and a private rail operator). I’d have thought we’d be better served investing those billions improving rail links in parts of the country where services are poor and doing whatever needs doing to extend platforms to accommodate longer trains where they’re required on services into our major cities. | |
| Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts |
| |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 15:03 - Jan 23 with 1923 views | kingo |
It isn't quite as simple to 'improve' some of our existing lines and stations, but that is a very long subject. With regard to shaving off times, why do people take internal flights, it is generally because of saving time. High Speed stations that join up with other transport networks like the tube, can take you into the city centre in similar times to flying to an out of city airport and are a better alternative to driving and parking in a city centre. Other European countries, plus Japan, Korea etc have invested in their rail systems, including HS and are now reaping the benefits. Unfortunately, our rail system was left to decay and in many cases is now too expensive to upgrade. HS2 is not the answer, but it is the first step in providing an alternative and sustainable transport system. | |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 15:21 - Jan 23 with 1905 views | Konk |
I’m sure expanding capacity through reconfiguring stations/platforms is complex, time-consuming and expensive, but then so is HS2. Who at the moment takes internal flights from London to any other English city other than Newcastle? Why traipse out to an airport, security, hanging about for a couple of hours etc and then head into town at the other end, when you can get into all major cities outside the NE in just over two hours? We have staff flying to Edinburgh and Glasgow — although 40-50% of the time people will get the train — and anywhere else in the UK, Brussels or Paris, they get the train. A lot of people don’t generally like flying because of the fannying about at airports, but often it’s cheaper, so the company push people in that direction.
I understand the need for High speed rail in larger countries, but I just don’t see it having a huge impact on the economies of the cities on the proposed route (other than in terms of construction during the project)
Plus, aren't half of the proposed stations along the route going to be considerably out of town and thus a ballache to get to (i.e. like schlepping out to a provincial airport)? | |
| Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts |
| |
| Is this good for the Stadium Project on 16:04 - Jan 23 with 1871 views | hopphoops |
the need is for more rail capacity across the country, and the argument is that making some of it high-speed is a worthwhile extra cost. but there's no point in making a rail-M25 high speed, as the trains would be braking before they got going.
As juzzie said, the only people who cash in on a hub are BAA and Cafe Rouge, but they can have spin off benefits. HS2 would help those who want to make Manchester into a hub. It's best positioned to get anyone from the north, Scandinavia, Poland etc to north America (on a great circle so cheaper). At the moment Manchester might want to be a hub but it couldn't negotiate higher landing fees with airlines because there isn't the guaranteed domestic market for flights. HS2 (and the 'northern hub') would help to bring in the northerners and save them having to fly in and out of Heathrow. Politically sensible, up there they want jobs, dahn sahf peace and quiet. Slightly greener as fewer miles flown and less queuing over Newham. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
