In message
Neil Williams wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:26:57 +0100, Graeme
wrote:

Which goes to show that you don't understand the project at all.

No, I disagree with the view that it is the only way to provide the
required capacity elsewhere on the network. It is an expensive and
poor way to do it.

Why?


We should be electrifying and increasing capacity on existing lines by
lengthening trains - to me that would mean 12 or 16-car EMUs on all
London commuter lines and 4 to 8 car trains in every other big city.

Exacly how does that help capacity on the WCML which is already electrified
and running the longest trains that Euston can cope with for the most part?

On IC, it would mean 12 or 14-car Pendolinos etc, and the building of
a load of standardised Mk3 and Mk4 compatible rolling stock to do the
same on other IC lines. Platforms could be extended, but where this
is not feasible SDO could be used.

All very laudable but where does that impact on the case for HS2?


Much beyond that, and IMO we should start looking at why ever more
people are travelling, particularly commuting, and looking as to how
to discourage it.

Well the current government are doing something to address that problem,
people without jobs don't need to commute.


That then only really leaves Scotland, which for the numbers involved
might as well stay with air.


The numbers are?

What about freight?

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/