UNITED KINGDOM | Railways

[elfabyanos]

And if the votors put transport at the top of their agenda they'd have one less thing to maon about, and where would the British be without moaning about something? We'd all die or something. We know the government is too inept to fix the NHS, so we can hammer on at them to fix it safe in the knowledge it will never happen and we can keep moaning. If we don't have transport as well we'll only have the weather, and what with global warming we might run out of things to moan about entirely. We can't have that.

[hoosier]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

Because the politicians don't get many votes in it, they don't see it as a priority. Iraq's not really cost that much (OK, more than the transport budget), however no one seems to want to blame funding students through post-16 education, or shoddy management of money in the NHS, or overpaying MPs, or our subsidy of projects in Spain, Ireland, Greece etc over the years. Why is it always Iraq? If we hadn't gone, the money still wouldn't have been put into transport. And we've cost cut on Iraq in shocking ways - what country sends it's troops into a war zone without proper equipment? To be honest, the Americans would have gone anyway, and we'd still be there, doing the same things - peacekeeping and handing over power to the Iraqi state.

Britain did not have to send troops or any peacekeeping mission to Iraq. That was a choice the government made. Britain didn't send troops to Vietnam did it?

The money spent on Iraq should be singled out because it was an entirely unnecessary affair based on lies, fabrications, and forgeries.

If the political will existed to send troops to die in an unnecessary war and the funding could be found for it, then goddamnit the political will could have been generated to build those 5 HSR lines.

The solution? VOTE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT!!!!

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by hoosier

Britain did not have to send troops or any peacekeeping mission to Iraq. That was a choice the government made. Britain didn't send troops to Vietnam did it?

While we chose to enter the war for the offensive stages, we'd still have had to have gone in anyway. We'd have had the choice to help clean up the American's mess, but there's no way we could have said no, seeing as our armed forces are the best trained at peacekeeping (and generally). See also Afghanistan (perhaps more so, and unluckily we got the problem province).

The money spent on Iraq should be singled out because it was an entirely unnecessary affair based on lies, fabrications, and forgeries.

but it would have been spent anyway, maybe not all of it on defence - some of it may have built a hospital or school. Definitely not an HSR or other such 'luxury' transport item, or transport at all. There wouldn't have been the reasoning "hey, we're not spending money on a war, lets spent the money we would have spent on that on transport" - get out of you fantasy world and live in the real one! There's tons of other wastes of money out there - on over-filled middle management, on computer systems that won't work, on making sure there's profits for companies that have PPPed, etc

If the political will existed to send troops to die in an unnecessary war and the funding could be found for it, then goddamnit the political will could have been generated to build those 5 HSR lines.

no it wouldn't: the political will wasn't there to get the government to give money to protect our troops sufficiently - the papers tried to get every solider out there decent body armour, but failed, partially as people like you kept crying on about how we shouldn't spend money on Iraq and partially as Her Majesty's Treasury hates spending money.

The solution? VOTE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT!!!!

what a group of people who have no ideology I like - a couple of their policies, but not the reasoning behind those policies and I oppose many of their policies on matters I rank higher than the ones where there's more agreement. But then again, they won't get into power anyway, so voting for them wouldn't matter.

The problem you seem to have is that we live in a democracy, and we democratically decided to go to war (and that Government was re-elected after doing that, even though we hadn't found any evidence to suggest that we weren't lied to - it was only it dragging on too long and too many soldiers dying that tipped the balance of opinion). Also that that democracy voted, repeatedly, for a government who's transport policy is basically to hit people with a stick and throw in the occasional carrot if it's really good for business or if it's unavoidable (not that it had any choice, it was that, or people who have the same view, but wear different coloured rosette) - on the basis that they don't really care about transport - they care about 'education, education, education', crime, terrorism and hospitals and so on. Transport is an issue where people feel strongly, but don't consider it important enough.

Unlike you, Average Person isn't going to have a wet dream about 5 HSLs - he might approve, but he'd want to make sure that the NHS and School system is running OK, the country sufficiently policed and defended, that the economy is in good shape and so on first.

Of course, talking about 5 High Speed Lines shows that you don't have a clue - 5 corridors will be covered by 3 lines. What would the point be in a Chiltern HSL if there's already a West Coast one, for instance? You are just a build absolutely everything, absolutely everywhere, infrastructure fetishist, who salivates at the prospect of some new transport link. Not everyone is like you - most people love to feel that children are being well educated, that if they get sick they get decent treatment, that they can feel safe from crime - they don't rank getting from A to B fast highly enough.

[hoosier]

I see no reason why good schools, health systems, and transportation cannot be achieved. You place to much value in the knowledge of the average voter. Wasn't it your former PM Churchill who stated that "The greatest argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"?

Why Britain even maintains such a large military is beyond me. Perhaps it is to support whatever foolhardy war America is waging. I thought the days of the British Empire were over? I guess not.

An independent, vigorously investigative, and skeptical press is necessary to keep the voter informed, but alas, the mindless tabloid rags of Rupert Murdoch and the expansion of American TV shows have dumbed down the average Brits' intellect. The UK should avoid becoming more like America. My country sucks. I reckon that Labor was re-elected in 2005 because of other issues, and the Iraq War was not one of them. In the U.S. opponents of the Iraq War were equally enraged at the lack of equipment provided for the troops. Meanwhile, politically connected contractors were receiving no-bid contracts and performing sub-standard work without repercussion. It demonstrated the cronyism of the Bush administration and its militaristic, but not pro-military policies.

Please don't call me uninformed because I erred in a minor semantic matter, not recognizing that the HSR proposal called for THREE lines on five corridors.

[Svartmetall]

The thing is, the WCML and the ECML already have a decent level of service and a decent speed for an "all-stop" train. It's not like there isn't a service in existance already.

[elfabyanos]

All stop train?

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by hoosier

I see no reason why good schools, health systems, and transportation cannot be achieved.

ever heard of a thing called money? there's just not enough of it...

You place to much value in the knowledge of the average voter. Wasn't it your former PM Churchill who stated that "The greatest argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"?

I'm not - democracy does... You are constantly ignoring the fact that the average voter might want better transport, but they don't vote on that issue

Why Britain even maintains such a large military is beyond me.

let me see - best training program, lots of peacekeeping experience - we're in demand. If we're not helping the Iraqi or Afghani governments to combat terrorism, then we're helping stop people trafficking, piracy, peacekeeping in areas such as the former Yugoslavia, etc. We're over-stretched and almost need a bigger military to cope with all these requests for our help.

An independent, vigorously investigative, and skeptical press is necessary to keep the voter informed, but alas, the mindless tabloid rags of Rupert Murdoch and the expansion of American TV shows have dumbed down the average Brits' intellect. The UK should avoid becoming more like America. My country sucks.

This is getting tiring, you are bordering on racism (and I think you can be racist of your own country) with your hatred of all things American. Britian has a thriving, independent press, though most people don't bother with it, partially because the education system is failing and needs more money put into it...

A recent poll says that Britain is far more anti-American than it should be, mostly due to the media. The lies spouted by the Iranians and Bin Laden have been swallowed hook, line and sinker by Europe, who now have started a few of it's own - that America hates Muslims, that it's awful at climate change (the US has better CO2 reduction than the EU) and so on.

I reckon that Labor was re-elected in 2005 because of other issues, and the Iraq War was not one of them. In the U.S. opponents of the Iraq War were equally enraged at the lack of equipment provided for the troops.

in the UK the anti-brigade refused to support our troops, and has consistantly cried "get out of there". Good to see that you also recognise that governments get elected on other issues to war - now apply that to transport, which come below defence.

Meanwhile, politically connected contractors were receiving no-bid contracts and performing sub-standard work without repercussion. It demonstrated the cronyism of the Bush administration and its militaristic, but not pro-military policies.

which is completely off-topic - the topic is basically at the moment "would it be the case that if the UK didn't go Iraq, these HSLs would be closer to being built" and the answer is "no" despite your protests. Hospitals would have slightly more middle managers who don't really do much and one new hospital.

Please don't call me uninformed because I erred in a minor semantic matter, not recognizing that the HSR proposal called for THREE lines on five corridors.

No - I used your enthusiasm that 5 lines might get built to show that you are a BAANAE - build absolutely anything near absolutely everywhere - the opposite of a BANANA (build absolutely nothing at-all near anything) - you don't think pragmatically when it comes to it, you'd consider it normal to have two new lines from London to Birmingham. You keep on failing to realise that the average joe doesn't put transport high up it's priorities when voting nationally, and so transport is rather ignored. Just because you love new infrastructure, doesn't mean everyone else is as passionate. Even so, I don't why I can't call you uninformed anyway, seeing as you get a piece of information wrong.

You are naive simply because you fail to grasp the political reality in the UK - the NHS eats all the money (it is the third largest employer in the world), and whatever is left goes into Education and local government, the loose change goes on the police and defence and the stuff down the back of sofa goes into transport. I've explained that average Joe has dictated that it's this way - that ill people get looked after, that children are taught, that the country and it's people are safe from crime and outside threats as priorities and near the bottom of the list of things that the Government should do is allow us to move about quickly and in comfort - as long as we can move about, even if slowly and standing up, it's not too bad.

[hoosier]

Britain doesn't have to respond to where its military is "demanded", especially in areas where that demand was fabricated (Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan).

There are two motorways that connect London and Birmingham but no high speed lines? Lack of funds comes from 11 years of horrific Thatcherism and the rightward shift of the Labor Party as a result.

In what ways was my post racist? Is America a distinct color? I hate my government and my nation's culture. As a patriot, I criticize what I disagree with. The Constitution grants me that right.

And America is anti-Muslim. It arbitrarily detained and tortured thousands of Muslim men after 9/11 including U.S citizens and operates torture camps in Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe, in addition to sending suspected terrorists to Middle Eastern allies that practice torture.

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by hoosier

There are two motorways that connect London and Birmingham but no high speed lines? Lack of funds comes from 11 years of horrific Thatcherism and the rightward shift of the Labor Party as a result.

The journey time between London and Birmingham by train is currently an hour and a half. The London - Birmingham corridor is incredibly dense as well with numerous towns en route and so there is very little to be saved by investing millions in a service which is perfectly good at present.

1hr 30min is faster than you could drive centre to centre.

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by hoosier

Britain doesn't have to respond to where its military is "demanded", especially in areas where that demand was fabricated (Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan).

all three the demand isn't fabricated - Iraq was initially, however you can't deny that the Iraqi government has needed outside help to counteract the opposition (also outside backed) in this civil war - we're having to bribe the government to allow us to not fight! Afghanistan is also the case that we're supporting the government. Kosovo was to stop what was becoming a genocide (against Muslims). And of course, the UK military doesn't have to answer 'yes' to requests for help. However to say that the UK military is too big is totally absurd. To say that it takes too much money is also absurd, given that it's under-funded. And finally that any money saved in defence would be spent on transport.

There are two motorways that connect London and Birmingham but no high speed lines?

no there's not - there's one motorway (the M40) and one motorway that heads nearby en-route to Yorkshire that has a connecting motorway that was always to link the east 'coast' route of the M1 to the west coast route of the M5/M6 (that goes through Birmingham). There's also an HSL (WCML), plus a 100mph+ route (not currently served - Paddington via Oxford and Leamington, as it goes a long way round, and the 75mph Chiltern route is quicker from Banbury).

Lack of funds comes from 11 years of horrific Thatcherism and the rightward shift of the Labor Party as a result.

no it comes from a Government that sees transport as not really worth funding. Nothing to do with left and right - Thatcher (and Major)'s Government came up with far more radical transport plans - both roads and rail. Labour under Blair and Brown have been absolutely shocking on transport - they've been fighting new infrastructure from day 1. Pretty much everything that has been built in the last ten years, and that which is to be built in the next ten, was scrapped from the programme (may not have had assent, but was in the early stages of planning) in '97 and then brought back on because it just had to be. Billions of pounds were wasted on studies that failed to give the answer that Labour wanted (and therefore done again), even though these studies had been done before '97.

In what ways was my post racist? Is America a distinct color?

no, but American is a nation. Racism isn't always about colour, but then you have your US press bias that it is.

I hate my government and my nation's culture. As a patriot, I criticize what I disagree with. The Constitution grants me that right.

You can't be a patriot if you hate your country (funnily enough, the American bad guys in 24 always use the argument "I'm a patriot" to justify mass murder of American citizens). The constitution grants you the right to oppose the government, it doesn't give you the right to slander all it's citizens.

And America is anti-Muslim. It arbitrarily detained and tortured thousands of Muslim men after 9/11 including U.S citizens and operates torture camps in Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe, in addition to sending suspected terrorists to Middle Eastern allies that practice torture.

Evidence - a lot of that is just propaganda from the anti-American brigade? And how can you justify such actions as Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan (in the 80s) where America has actively supported and protected Muslims from others - it's not anti-Muslim, it's anti-genocide (shame about Sudan - but that was because it was Muslims doing the genocide) and anti-aggressive-anti-Americanism. They've arrested people in Afghanistan and Iraq because they were fighting against them - it wasn't because they were Muslims, or arbitrary, it just happens to be the case that Islam hates the American way of life. It's shocking the way that many of them have been treated (though there's little evidence of torture, and the few cases that there have been have been dealt with by criminal convictions) - I totally agree with that - however to call America anti-Muslim from that is a joke, a very bad joke. Basically it's doing the same as what's happening in Camp X-ray - you're declaring them guilty before proven so. Those terrorist suspects sent to the Middle East, are returned home - if those countries torture those people, it's not the US's fault. If it were the case that they weren't sent home, you would complain that they were detained in a foreign country...

However, once again, I'm going to assert what this debate is about to try and stop you going off topic for the third time - the right and wrongs of Iraq and American (and British) foreign policy are not relevant - what's relevant is that you have completely failed to back up your argument that "This fucking Iraq War is draining resources from Britain as well I see." It's not really true - a couple of billion extra on the defence budget, and it's definitely not true that these HSRs would have been built if we hadn't gone there - the bit of the budget spent on Iraq would have been spent (if not on decent equipment for the Army, Navy and RAF elsewhere) on hospitals, schools, etc. Not some very nice, 'luxury' transport infrastructure to wizz business men about and allow commuters to have a bit more comfort. I totally want at least a London-Birmingham HSR (because it's needed), however I know that most people aren't as bothered as I am about it, so while it will happen, I'd have to wait.

[iampuking]

Why has a thread about British Railways descended into a political discussion? It's a complete yawnfest and you could easily argue about it elsewhere.

The reason there isn't a high speed line in Britain (except for HS1) is because the government are short sighted morons that don't realise the benefits.

[elfabyanos]

Sotonsi - I'd re-evaluate the bit where you say Islam hates the american way of life -I think you mean Islamic fundies - could start a flame war with that!

[sotonsi]

Not all those who call themselves Muslims follow Islam - many people just the bits that they want to and reject the bits that they don't like. And to be honest, even these liberals would come down pretty harsh on things like sleeping around not only being OK but being almost a good thing, violence being entertainment, getting wasted, greed, etc... OK, it's not quite what America is, but it's what you see from outside.

Islam hates America, most of all, because it's not in the 'house of peace' but the 'house of war' - in other words it hasn't embraced Islam. Most real Muslims, even in places like the UK would agree with that, even if they want to change that peacefully. To disagree with such a thing, while I'm not an Islamic scholar, is to basically not follow Islam. The basic creed about Allah and Mohammed defines Islam - to not say that all other world-views are wrong and declare war against Allah is to deny that creed. It is an exclusive truth-claim - there's no room for the conflicting exclusive truth-claim of relativism. 'Why can't we all get along' doesn't work - simply as you are basically forcing relativism on everyone for that work. There's going to be disagreements, there's going to be various ways in which that disagreement is manifest - the terrorist take the extreme action, others use diplomacy and non-violent protest, still more don't bother trying to resolve the difference and try to ignore it.

I don't want to start a flame war, but I'm disagreeing with many people who call themselves Muslims, but have removed the less appealing bits of Islam (quite rightly) and actually don't follow Islam. Islam clearly is against many of the things that America and the West (more so places like France than America) stand for. I'll ignore all the explanation of Koranic hermeneutics and verses that basically explain that Muslims should be opposed to the modern Western way of life, or they aren't actually Muslims, simply as this isn't the place.

Anyway, back to British Railways...

Is it me, or is Portsmouth-Southampton the most awful intercity journey for it's length? It's very, very slow.

[hoosier]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

(funnily enough, the American bad guys in 24 always use the argument "I'm a patriot" to justify mass murder of American citizens). The constitution grants you the right to oppose the government, it doesn't give you the right to slander all it's citizens.Evidence - a lot of that is just propaganda from the anti-American brigade? And how can you justify such actions as Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan (in the 80s) where America has actively supported and protected Muslims from others - it's not anti-Muslim, it's anti-genocide (shame about Sudan - but that was because it was Muslims doing the genocide) and anti-aggressive-anti-Americanism. They've arrested people in Afghanistan and Iraq because they were fighting against them - it wasn't because they were Muslims, or arbitrary, it just happens to be the case that Islam hates the American way of life. It's shocking the way that many of them have been treated (though there's little evidence of torture, and the few cases that there have been have been dealt with by criminal convictions) - I totally agree with that - however to call America anti-Muslim from that is a joke, a very bad joke. Basically it's doing the same as what's happening in Camp X-ray - you're declaring them guilty before proven so. Those terrorist suspects sent to the Middle East, are returned home - if those countries torture those people, it's not the US's fault. If it were the case that they weren't sent home, you would complain that they were detained in a foreign country...

It's clear you don't know what you are talking about and choose to read the right-wing Murdoch rags that downplay the criminal and murderous policies of the West towards the Muslim world. Do a little bit of goddamn research and you will find the evidence that corroborates my assertions. THe U.S. government knew exactly what it was doing when it sent suspects to be tortured in Middle Eastern countries. And if those men arrested in Afghanistan were guilty, why were so many later released with many others never being charged? Have you heard of habeus corpus? It is a crucial component of any free society, and both the U.S. and U.K. ignore it now. The U.S. didn't help Muslims in Afghanistan in the 80s. THey sent aid to right-wing religious anti-communist fanatics.

Fundamentalist Islam doesn't hate the American way of life as you so ignorantly claim- they hate how the U.S.: 1) supports unpopular and repressive governments in the region, notably Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan; 2) continues to meddle in the affairs in the region; 3) and steadfastly supports Israeli crimes against the Palestinians and Israeli expansion into the occupied territories.

Here are a few resources to start:

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/torture/renditions.htm

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/rendition.html

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/06/13/usint19126.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...an-cover_x.htm

[elfabyanos]

Sotonsi you are being an idiot. Muslim is the participle of the same verb of which Islām is the infinitive. I have many friends who follow Islam and they do not hate America, nothing about their faith would give them cause to do so, some of them even work for an American company with me!!! What the hell are you talking about not all muslims follow Islam?

As in Christianity one the main tenets of Islam is that you do not kill. Before you continue to talk utter crap about billions of people read some history of Islam and you will find out where your misinformed ideas have developed from. I cannot believe you would go on to a public forum and declare Islam "the house of war". What a moron.

[jarbury]

Geez.... what the heck does this have to do with Britsh Railways? Come on guys let's leave it before the mods need to hack into this thread with a chainsaw.

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by elfabyanos

Before you continue to talk utter crap about billions of people read some history of Islam and you will find out where your misinformed ideas have developed from. I cannot believe you would go on to a public forum and declare Islam "the house of war". What a moron.

I haven't said Islam is "the house of war" - I said that it states that those outside it are in "the house of war". Islam is "the house of peace" according to it's teaching. You are putting words in my mouth, though maybe I was a little bit inelegant and didn't make myself clear.

I also suggest that you look at the history of Islam as well - I have studied it quite a bit and, funnily enough, many of my ideas come from that. My relatively brief studies of the Koran and Hadith, and Koranic hermeneutics (ie what bits have more importance, what it actually means, etc) also have shaped my ideas. I've tried to steer away from anything that should be contraversial in there but the brainwashing of the "Islam doesn't hate us" brigade has got to you, so even asserting what is one the main teachings of Mohammed (get into "the house of peace with Allah" and hate "the house of war against Allah") is contraversial, simply as it doesn't fit in with the many who call themselves Muslims (but aren't) views.

I love Hoosier's second reason as to why the fundies hate America, which is basically "the Islamic fundamentalists hate America as it supports governments that agree with Islamic fundamentalism" Even an American like Hoosier should be able to see the irony there that shows it to be bull. The fundamentalists hate those outside Islam, simply because they are outside Islam - things like Israel and other meddling in the middle east and the suspension of habeas corpus (only really a UK/US thing - most Western countries don't even have it - I do concur that it's a bad thing) just add fuel to the big smokescreen-producing fire that legitimises the terrorists cause (though not the means) in the Western press and amongst the liberal Muslims.

However all this is by-the-by for this thread. Portsmouth-Southampton - a truly awful route that needs upgrading - sadly the plans for diverting the route via Southampton Airport haven't amounted to anything - even less news than the E-W rail link, which might go ahead in 10 years time, linking Oxford and Aylesbury to Milton Keynes. There seems to be lots of plans, but not much talk on those plans, let alone action - the British transport situation under New Labour (not that other governments were better, nor that the other parties will be better).

[elfabyanos]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

I've tried to steer away from anything that should be contraversial in there but the brainwashing of the "Islam doesn't hate us" brigade has got to you

You still haven't provided any proper support to your claims, even the adjusted ones that have been more eloquently phrased. You have advised that you have done some brief study on the subject - which is an appeal to authority and not therefore justification whatsoever - but can you show the anti-American doctrine in the Quran? (And yes I do know that that is a trick question. Nonetheless please back up your nonsense or withdraw it).

Then, as quoted above , you have used an ad hominem argument against me, to undermine my position, and without any basis.

That's 2 logical fallacies right there. Frankly you are the one that sounds like the fundementalist - ranting nonsense, ranting divisive rhetoric and failing to speak and communicate rationally.

[G5man]

Can we save politics for the skybar and get back on track.

Such as why Eurostar carriages look short in comparison to German ICEs?

[Songoten2554]

yeah people take the political talks elsewhere this is about British Railways not politics so does anybody has more pictures of the Railways and metros and such?

so does anyone have pictures of HS1 and the East London Extension or something?