HS2 and 1780

[G4YVM]

I am reading Burton's book, The Canal Builders at the moment. In today's Telegraph there was an article about the furore of some land owners in response to the bulldozing through of HS2 track land purchase. Parliament and the company want the land for High Speed trains, the land owners want their orchards.

 

I had to do a double take to see which publication I was reading!. Nothing has changed in nearly 300 years it seems

 

D

[Pluto]

I am reading Burton's book, The Canal Builders at the moment. In today's Telegraph there was an article about the furore of some land owners in response to the bulldozing through of HS2 track land purchase. Parliament and the company want the land for High Speed trains, the land owners want their orchards.

 

I had to do a double take to see which publication I was reading!. Nothing has changed in nearly 300 years it seems

 

D

They got it sorted out much quicker in the eighteenth century! Very few canal land purchase problems ended up in court, most being sorted out by the arbitration system dictated by the canal's Act.

[Heartland]

I am reading Burton's book, The Canal Builders at the moment. In today's Telegraph there was an article about the furore of some land owners in response to the bulldozing through of HS2 track land purchase. Parliament and the company want the land for High Speed trains, the land owners want their orchards.

 

I had to do a double take to see which publication I was reading!. Nothing has changed in nearly 300 years it seems

 

D

 

No Nothing has changed.

 

Certain landowners had the power to lead canal companies to divert or hide their waterways in tunnels, cuttings and or fine ( and sometimes extravagent) architecture.

 

Sometimes this left infrastructure problems and sometimes additional cost. Early railway construction encountered similar problems.

 

Ray Shill

[mrsmelly]

No Nothing has changed.

 

Certain landowners had the power to lead canal companies to divert or hide their waterways in tunnels, cuttings and or fine ( and sometimes extravagent) architecture.

 

Sometimes this left infrastructure problems and sometimes additional cost. Early railway construction encountered similar problems.

 

Ray Shill

 

The biggest difference I can see is that in the past the decisions were made in order to make progress in life for the country. Rather than as now a totaly obscene unnecessary, unwanted, monstrosity that will further ruin our depleting countryside in an age were we no longer realy need to move bodily around at speed when most business can be done with gadgetry from a desk anywhere.

[Pluto]

The biggest difference I can see is that in the past the decisions were made in order to make progress in life for the country. Rather than as now a totaly obscene unnecessary, unwanted, monstrosity that will further ruin our depleting countryside in an age were we no longer realy need to move bodily around at speed when most business can be done with gadgetry from a desk anywhere.

Successful canals were built by local people to serve local needs and to benefit the local economy. Their promoters saw transport as a necessary evil - it adds no value to a commodity, though does make it more widely available. A national system of canals was never an object in building them. As soon as you think of transport as a national system, you require additional branches and links just to make the system complete, which is why the later stages of railway building ended up with so many unnecessary lines.

 

We need to get back to local thinking and production, rather than having an economy based on the southeast. This country was only economically successful when Manchester's economic importance, based on the local textile industry, was able to challenge London. Given the current north-south divide, we are no longer a successful country. The money laundered today in London does not make its way north, while much of the money made by the old industries of the north ended up supporting London.

[G4YVM]

Successful canals were built by local people to serve local needs and to benefit the local economy. Their promoters saw transport as a necessary evil - it adds no value to a commodity, though does make it more widely available. A national system of canals was never an object in building them. As soon as you think of transport as a national system, you require additional branches and links just to make the system complete, which is why the later stages of railway building ended up with so many unnecessary lines.

 

We need to get back to local thinking and production, rather than having an economy based on the southeast. This country was only economically successful when Manchester's economic importance, based on the local textile industry, was able to challenge London. Given the current north-south divide, we are no longer a successful country. The money laundered today in London does not make its way north, while much of the money made by the old industries of the north ended up supporting London.

 

 

Pluto, a very good point

 

D

[RLWP]

Of course, here in the fields and byways of the Midlands we lounged around chewing straws in the Black Country, Birmingham and Coventry. The shepherds of Cardiff tended their sheep, Liverpudlians gathered seaweed, in Glasgow and Edinburgh they happily danced to the bagpipes outside their crofts, Yorkshireman wandered up and down pretty hills buying bread and a rural idyll reigned.

 

Thanks goodness we had Manchester to save us all

 

Richard

[Pluto]

Of course, here in the fields and byways of the Midlands we lounged around chewing straws in the Black Country, Birmingham and Coventry. The shepherds of Cardiff tended their sheep, Liverpudlians gathered seaweed, in Glasgow and Edinburgh they happily danced to the bagpipes outside their crofts, Yorkshireman wandered up and down pretty hills buying bread and a rural idyll reigned.

 

Thanks goodness we had Manchester to save us all

 

Richard

In 1831, 55% of people employed in manufacturing worked in Lancashire or West Yorkshire - Birmingham and London were the next most important areas, but much less so. If you look at the overall economic benefit to the country, cotton textiles were around ten times more important than coal and three times more important than the iron and steel industries. The other textiles, such as wool, linen and silk, if added together, just about equalled the cotton industry. The cotton textile industry, predominantly in Lancashire, was the industry which made this country great. Birmingham, Scotland and West Yorkshire were comparative sidelines, though West Yorkshire was the most important of those three. Of course, Lancashire and West Yorkshire were where the most successful canals were based, though I might stretch the area a little to include the Weaver.

[davey b]

Pluto,

 

You state a good argument, but fail to acknowledge that without the support of the other industries (some in other areas) there would have been far less ability to produce, employ and expand in the textile industries (particularly in the North West). Your first point stands, the canals were built (and later railways) to enable these industries and later to allow the to expand. HS2 will not have a similar effect.

[Pluto]

Pluto,

 

You state a good argument, but fail to acknowledge that without the support of the other industries (some in other areas) there would have been far less ability to produce, employ and expand in the textile industries (particularly in the North West). Your first point stands, the canals were built (and later railways) to enable these industries and later to allow the to expand. HS2 will not have a similar effect.

The point I was making was that textiles were the most important of British industries, with in economic terms other industries just being there, to a great extent, to service textiles. The market for Lancashire's textiles was international, and I am not sure that the industry relied to a great extent on other industries, particularly in the early stages when machinery was comparatively simple. However, it did need canals, and perhaps slavery to produce the raw materials.

 

You can compare early railways with early canals, as both were basically local in nature and finance. However, those from the Mania periods were much less successful. They were considered to be part of a national network, financed significantly from London, and thus doomed to fail, though it did take decades before they did. Early canal promoters would have realised that transport, although necessary, did not add value and was thus something to be avoided if possible. This ideal disappears once you start thinking about a national, or international, system. Lancashire's predominance in cotton textiles declined when others started making the product locally - arguably a much better use of resources.

[furnessvale]

The biggest difference I can see is that in the past the decisions were made in order to make progress in life for the country. Rather than as now a totaly obscene unnecessary, unwanted, monstrosity that will further ruin our depleting countryside in an age were we no longer realy need to move bodily around at speed when most business can be done with gadgetry from a desk anywhere.

 

Apart from the "gadgetry from a desk" spurious argument (in the old days they used a horse) exactly the same thing was said about them new fangled canals, and don't get me started on those steam belching 20mph iron horse things!

 

I've said it before. Make your choice, either a new railway or a new motorway. Extra capacity is essential. I only hope that if the motorway wins it will follow the exact same route as the proposed railway, then watch the nimbys squirm!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Ray T]

I've said it before. Make your choice, either a new railway or a new motorway. Extra capacity is essential. I only hope that if the motorway wins it will follow the exact same route as the proposed railway, then watch the nimbys squirm!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

 

You'd sqirm if it were your house and home facing demolition.

[mrsmelly]

Apart from the "gadgetry from a desk" spurious argument (in the old days they used a horse) exactly the same thing was said about them new fangled canals, and don't get me started on those steam belching 20mph iron horse things!

 

I've said it before. Make your choice, either a new railway or a new motorway. Extra capacity is essential. I only hope that if the motorway wins it will follow the exact same route as the proposed railway, then watch the nimbys squirm!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

New railway or new road makes no matter it will be full immediately and nothing gained. For years between jcts 25 and 28 of the M1 there were the usual 3 lanes of traffic and always jam packed so they took a couple of years to build another lane and now we have 4 lanes of traffic always jam packed, same speed as before just even wider.

Its not in my back yard but I still dont want it. I dont want the poxy olympics either. It seems funny to me that we are supposedly skint and hugely in debt yet the powers that be seem to find countless billions at the drop of the hat for such schemes yet close the local multi million pound hospital A and E dept during the night through lack of funds. I know where my money would be spent had I the choice and it wouldnt be on yet another high speed anything.

[carlt]

It seems funny to me that we are supposedly skint and hugely in debt yet the powers that be seem to find countless billions at the drop of the hat

Friedrich Hayek must be spinning in his grave.

[furnessvale]

You'd sqirm if it were your house and home facing demolition.

 

I,ve had a house compulsorarily purchased from me (my father actually) so yes I know the feeling but the accomodations made to the stockbrokers of the Chilterns have to be seen to be believed.

 

Now if you live in a council house in Brinnington Stockport you get a massive grey steel warren girder bridge built in your back garden to accomodate the new motorway and like it or lump it.

 

I'm sorry I don't know the way to publish an image of the bridge but I have found a link which shows the bridge and its proximity to nearby council houses. Now that's what the stockbrokers should have to face!

 

http://motorwayarchive.ihtservices.co.uk/en/motorways/motorway-listing/m60-manchester-orbital-motorway/m66-now-m60-portwood-to-denton-j24-to-j27/index.cfm

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Edited April 11, 2012 by furnessvale

[Derek R.]

The Chilterns presented a challenge to engineers in their seeking a route to the North from London, and the 'Berkhamsted Gap' was chosen by both the canal and the railway engineers for its least difficult path.

 

About Chiltern stockbrokers I know little, but if I had the alleged wealth they are given, I too would seek a place where no future road, rail or airport be in some developers eye - if you have the money, you have a choice.

 

Pretty hideous view from some of those houses/flats in Brinnington, not unlike that experienced by occupants of terraces into Bristol - IKEA, full-on blue. However, when done right(?), some bridges are positively awesome, and dare I say - beautiful:

 

 

Though my thoughts towards speed travel are more inline with Mrs. Smelly. It was once well argued that a more economically and reliable service for passenger transport would have been to tarmac the long distance rail routes, and use fleets of coaches on the segregated 'new' roads. There was the additional plus point of HGV's using same. Not a scheme I currently have any details of now, but the argument was well thought out by the proposers.

 

Derek

[matty40s]

I,ve had a house compulsorarily purchased from me (my father actually) so yes I know the feeling but the accomodations made to the stockbrokers of the Chilterns have to be seen to be believed.

 

Now if you live in a council house in Brinnington Stockport you get a massive grey steel warren girder bridge built in your back garden to accomodate the new motorway and like it or lump it.

 

I'm sorry I don't know the way to publish an image of the bridge but I have found a link which shows the bridge and its proximity to nearby council houses. Now that's what the stockbrokers should have to face!

 

http://motorwayarchive.ihtservices.co.uk/en/motorways/motorway-listing/m60-manchester-orbital-motorway/m66-now-m60-portwood-to-denton-j24-to-j27/index.cfm

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[furnessvale]

Though my thoughts towards speed travel are more inline with Mrs. Smelly. It was once well argued that a more economically and reliable service for passenger transport would have been to tarmac the long distance rail routes, and use fleets of coaches on the segregated 'new' roads. There was the additional plus point of HGV's using same. Not a scheme I currently have any details of now, but the argument was well thought out by the proposers.

 

Derek

 

Actually, the argument was the most complete load of tosh ever thought out by the (now defunct) Railway Conversion League. It involved such concepts as unguided coaches passing each other at a closing speed of 140mph with a passing clearance of 16 inches!

 

Not with me as a passenger they don't.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[sociable_hermit]

 

Though my thoughts towards speed travel are more inline with Mrs. Smelly. It was once well argued that a more economically and reliable service for passenger transport would have been to tarmac the long distance rail routes, and use fleets of coaches on the segregated 'new' roads. There was the additional plus point of HGV's using same. Not a scheme I currently have any details of now, but the argument was well thought out by the proposers.

 

Derek

Yes. If you ignore some really quite fundamental truths, it was a really good, well thought out plan.

 

Back in reality, though, it was complete bollocks.

 

The most economical and reliable way of operating a motorway would be to drive everything at the same speed, thereby maximising capacity. If you were going to do that you could also save fuel costs and driver costs by linking the chains of vehicles together. Unfortunately a string of 100 cars would probably get a bit unwieldy to steer, so you'd probably need some form of guide rail to keep everything in line.

 

Well done, you've just built a railway.

 

The other very basic truth that report ignored was the limitations of rail infrastructure in terms of bridges and tunnels that could accomodate sufficient rail capacity (high density) but couldn't possibly cope with the same volume of traffic in individual road vehicles, without significant widening. At that point the rather optimistic economic calculations went straight out of the window.