By: nJayM - 21st July 2011 at 13:11
Those are the exact words in the early 1990s when we put in Video Conferencing
Those are the exact words in the early 1990s when we put in Video Conferencing with the full monty. Studios, cameras the lot to reduce face to face meetings, improve productivity and all the business cases. Did it heck.
It sure hasn’t altered a yot in business even though web cams and mobile devices have proliferated (anyone see the new projection for justifying IP address format increase 35 un decillion devices – back to crap about switching on your oven and washing machine from afar – in reality may be your neighbour’s oven with nothing in it causing the entire street to burn down 😡 or you switch on your oven only to get stuck in traffic and have cold dinner anyway – we did all this advanced technical research in the early 1990s and discounted it for UK consumers/business)
Social networking via internet/chat/web cam along with porn are proliferating but I’d any day be at a real air show, in a real sculling boat on a real river or in a real pub with real beer – none of this virtual stuff.
By: Sky High - 21st July 2011 at 12:55
“Journey times in the UK between distant cities and London, Birmingham and Manchester could be improved though (yes sadly some beauty may be lost or possibly re-done) making more productive business communication and commuting.”
But not by enough to justify the enormous costs, disruption and public antagonism. Are our lives so driven that we simply must be in Manchester 30 or 40 minutes earlier? I sincerely hope not!! In any case in another 20 years business communication will require less face to face meeting rather than more. The need for travel might actually be reduced, other than for leisure purposes.
By: nJayM - 21st July 2011 at 12:17
When I say needed it meant without destroying beauty
When I say needed it meant without destroying beauty – expensive but can be done.
When is the question and cost?
Yes sure TGV (my example) cuts through a much larger country of often desolate land (but yet in many ways not without it’s unique rural beauty) and hence new track laid is/was as good as ‘dead’ straight.
This did not include Eurostar – that’s a sore point.
Not easy in Britain I must admit.
If Scotland is to develop shortening the times between Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh (all 3 sides of the triangle) would be of benefit though but here we have terrain issues. They can’t even dig a ‘bl..dy” tunnel under the Forth instead they are having another wind prone bridge 🙁 so it’s unlikely to ever happen).:o None completion like the trams in Edinburgh (Trams in reality tending to white elephants).:D
Journey times in the UK between distant cities and London, Birmingham and Manchester could be improved though (yes sadly some beauty may be lost or possibly re-done) making more productive business communication and commuting.:cool:
By: Sky High - 20th July 2011 at 17:48
I see you have missed your “T” tonight Pete,;) Joking apart, No,for the sake of a few more minutes faster, just not worth the money. I.M.H.O.
Jim.Lincoln .7
:confused: Seldom have tea, Linc – but dinner beckons in about an hour….
By: low'n'slow - 20th July 2011 at 17:36
If you feel the same about it as I do, the government consultation on HS2 closes on 29th July. This is the ONLY opportunity you will have to object to the proposal.
Click this link: http://snag-against-hs2.org/have-your-say/index.asp. You then just choose and click one answer, or formulate your own, for each of the 7 questions, then click send.
By: Lincoln 7 - 20th July 2011 at 17:25
It hardly needs asking so obvious should be the answer. Bu I have no doubt that there are some who support it, although I cannot imagine what their reasons are or how they can conceivably justify it.
I see you have missed your “T” tonight Pete,;) Joking apart, No,for the sake of a few more minutes faster, just not worth the money. I.M.H.O.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Lincoln 7 - 20th July 2011 at 17:21
You was a tranport policeman?:confused:
Baz
Your going to get a slap young man, App til 21, then Engineer at Perkins, and Brotherhoods, joined THE real, not BL8888888888888y plasic ones.at 26
When your Spit disappears one winters night………………………………….:D
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Sky High - 20th July 2011 at 15:27
It hardly needs asking so obvious should be the answer. Bu I have no doubt that there are some who support it, although I cannot imagine what their reasons are or how they can conceivably justify it.
By: low'n'slow - 20th July 2011 at 15:18
The simple question has to be asked.
Is it worth spending £35 billion minimum, or £1500 for every man woman and child in the UK, to get the small proportion able to afford expensive tickets, to Birmingham 12 minutes faster?
Whatever your thoughts on the bulldozing of houses, and through Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, one has to ask whether we really need to spend so much money while the country is skint?
By: spitfireman - 20th July 2011 at 14:59
They should never have got rid of steam, even though I hated working on the damned things.
Jim.
You was a tranport policeman?:confused:
Baz
By: Sky High - 20th July 2011 at 13:22
Yes, indeed , but of course the proposed new train will run on new rails, just as the TGV does.
By: Lincoln 7 - 20th July 2011 at 13:00
S.H. And When you meet St Peter, you can tell him you arrived at the pearly gates quicker, as you were going faster, no 120 is plenty quick on the outdated rails etc we have at present.
Linear travel I imagine will, not in both our lifetimes be the way to go.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Sky High - 20th July 2011 at 11:33
Steam locos reach maxima of a bit over 120mph and electric getting on for 300mph, so they are a bit quicker…..:)
By: Lincoln 7 - 20th July 2011 at 11:14
I served my Apprentiship on steam and the very early days of diesel.
Why do we need to go faster than Mallard when it broke the world speed record?.
As for snow, leafes, etc one the lines, we never had any of that as I remember, they had “Sand boxes” on them to give better grip when needed.
However fast we want to go, there will always be the inevitable delays, and every excuse proffered for delays.
They should never have got rid of steam, even though I hated working on the damned things.
Jim.
Lincoln .7.
By: Sky High - 20th July 2011 at 10:34
Eurostar and TGV are completely separate locos and rail systems. My experience of Eurostar has generally been good, but I agree with your criticism of the TGV. And, yes, I can understand your anger at the Eurostar snow breakdown.
By: Comet - 20th July 2011 at 09:56
I cannot abide the TGV, I have travelled on it twice and found it cramped and hugely over rated. I also lost my Christmas holiday in December 2009 when the useless TGV-derivative known as Euro”star” broke down when it was snowing. Absolute rubbish, I should hate to see those things running over here. And alot of countryside is going to be destroyed for this expensive white elephant.
By: Sky High - 20th July 2011 at 08:38
I have had mixed experinces on the TGV but of course the big difference is that there are vast swathes of empty countryside in France where the train affects no one. In fact travelling on it it is astonishing how little habitation you see on some routes. The UK is a small heavily congested country and no one is going to be unaffected by a new railway.
PeeDee says it is very much needed. Why?
By: Portagee - 20th July 2011 at 00:36
Would be nice if the proposed UK High Speed Rail Link actually ran throughout the UK and not just stop at Manchester or Birmingham as some proposals have it
By: Dr Strangelove - 20th July 2011 at 00:12
All old hat 😉 Clarkson has it sussed.
By: nJayM - 19th July 2011 at 22:11
Needed yes but at what price to travel ?
Needed yes but at what price to travel ?
I find flying cheaper in UK as all the special offer rail tickets turn out to be myths of marketing fanatics.
Its a different story in Europe where e.g. TGV point to point is excellent
Sign In
July 19, 2011 at 7:02 pm