High speed train would cut through Bucks countryside

This Is Local London: High speed train plan would cut through Bucks countryside High speed train plan would cut through Bucks countryside

A HIGH speed train route should follow a new track through Chalfont St Giles and Old Amersham and near to Great Missenden, the Government said today.

The move ends months of speculation over plans for the 225mph trains and rules out using the other Chilterns line through Beaconsfield and High Wycombe.

The move is likely to cause concern as the trains – set to make London to Birmingham a 45 minute journey – will not stop in Buckinghamshire and cut through the protected Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Detailed maps (pdfs, right click to save):

For the first Chalfonts map click here.

For the second Chalfonts map click here.

For the Amersham map click here.

For the Great Missenden area map click here.

Click the link at the bottom of this story for a map of the proposed route or click here (pdf, 6mb, right click to save).

The new line would be part tunnelled and open and run through Chalfont St Giles and Amersham and to the north of Great Missenden.

The move will be consulted on.

Aylesbury MP David Lidington today questioned the Government over the proposal in the Commons.

He told The Bucks Free Press: "This will be devastating news for a lot of my constituents.

"I want the Government to explain the environmental benefits the scheme would bring and the cost of driving a new railway so close to homes of hundreds of people."

He said he is meeting transport minister Lord Adonis this afternoon to discuss the plans.

Wycombe MP Paul Goodman said: “It is rather less of a matter for Wycombe. I think the main practical question from my constituents will be whether or not there are serious knock on effect to Chiltern line services.”

Yet he said it was ‘doubtful’ the plan would go ahead as the Conservatives ‘are not committed to it and we may form a Government’.

And he said: “We are going through a public spending contracting and therefore there must be a question mark against the proposal taking off at all.”

He said he was ‘not convinced by the economic or environmental case’.

The Amersham Society conservation group said it was ‘alarmed and shocked’ by the move.

In a statement it said: “The announcement includes details of the preferred route through the Misbourne Valley passing between Old Amersham and Coleshill.

“The Society considers this outrageous and completely inappropriate possibility given the narrowness of the valley, its AONB status and proximity to a number of historic and important local communities such as Old Amersham.”

The move would have ‘huge destructive implications in terms of construction and operation for local residents and business’.

It said: “Therefore any national benefits accruing from such a possible route would be at enormous and unjustifiable damage to communities such as Amersham were this route to be selected, initially in the form of complete ‘planning blight’.”

The group urged people to ‘join together to resist this particular destructive option’ and said it would call and ‘emergency public meeting’.

It said: “This is a huge threat to the quality of our lives and all living within the Chilterns and surrounding area.”

The Chilterns Conservation Board, charged with protecting the AONB, also hit out. It said: "The board believes that the net benefits of the new line, both environmental and economic, have not been proven and therefore there is not a strong enough case to justify causing irreversible damage to the Chilterns AONB."

Buckinghamshire County Council leader Councillor David Shakespeare said: “It's ironic that HS2 will give Buckinghamshire all the environmental disadvantages while promoting economic benefits elsewhere.

“Our residents won't benefit as the trains will pass through the county without stopping, simply leaving Buckinghamshire with huge damage to our environment and Green Belt.”

It said councils in the county had backed using the West Coat Main Line route by Berkhampstead and Tring, which had also been supported by Network Rail.

John Taylor, chairman of The Chiltern Society conservation group, said: “The proposed route will have a very damaging impact on the Chilterns particularly along the beautiful and historic Misbourne Valley.

“Even though tunnelling is planned, the effect on the tranquilty and landscape either side of the tunnel will be devastating.”

Chesham and Amersham MP Cheryl Gillan said: “The Chilterns are a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty with a rich variety of unique assets and must be protected.

“Whilst we all want to see the infrastructure developed to make the UK competitive, we have to take account of our precious natural environment.

“This is a sensitive landscape and must be dealt with sensitively.

"I will be doing all I can to ensure the final route - which under a Conservative Government would be re examined - does not damage the homes and environment of people in Chesham and Amersham."

The Government's report today says the line will ‘best meet the Government’s objectives for minimising journey times and cost, and managing impacts on the local environment and communities in an acceptable way’ it said.

It says: “This route would run in tunnel from a rebuilt Euston Station, surfacing in West London to follow the route of the existing Chiltern Line, leaving London near Ruislip.

“The route would proceed largely in tunnel from the M25 as far as Amersham, and then continue to the west of Wendover and Aylesbury, partly in tunnel and partly following the existing A413 and Chiltern Line corridor.”

Chairman of Chiltern Railways Adrian Shooter said:

“Chiltern Railways has always believed in innovation and investment in the rail network, and is a strong supporter of High Speed rail which we believe has the potential to attract significant new customers to rail travel.

"Although the proposed high-speed line passes through the Chiltern hills, the route is separate from Chiltern Railways. The only location at which the High Speed rail route is proposed to run adjacent to the Chiltern Railways route is between South Ruislip and West Ruislip stations.

"At Wendover, the High Speed route runs adjacent to the Chiltern Railways station but on a completely separate alignment.

"We will work closely with HS2 to ensure that the service we offer to our passengers is not impacted by this development. I would also like to reassure our passengers that it will not distract us from our own, separate investment programme.

"We will be spending £250m on a comprehensive upgrade of the existing Chiltern Railways route to reduce journey times by 20%.

"We will also be creating a new route from Oxford to London via the Chiltern mainline, the first new link to London from a major British city for 100 years.

"The project to create the Chiltern Mainline is the largest rail passenger infrastructure upgrade since before the first world war not to call on the taxpayer for support and will be paid for by Chiltern Railways through encouraging new passengers onto the existing rail network.”

What do you think? Leave your comments below.

Comments (84)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:08pm Thu 11 Mar 10

Malc London says...

This rail service is unnecessary and horrendously expensive. Why not just upgrade the existing track and rolling stock. Do we really need to get to Birmingham in 45 minutes? You can spend that long waiting for a train to come.

I think the money would be better spent on comfort and safety and reducing fares. You could do all that and still have a few billion left over.

What's worse is that the Chalfonts have no train service and a very poor bus service and there will be no benefit and lots of disruption to the local villages.

Lets hope the project is abandoned.
This rail service is unnecessary and horrendously expensive. Why not just upgrade the existing track and rolling stock. Do we really need to get to Birmingham in 45 minutes? You can spend that long waiting for a train to come. I think the money would be better spent on comfort and safety and reducing fares. You could do all that and still have a few billion left over. What's worse is that the Chalfonts have no train service and a very poor bus service and there will be no benefit and lots of disruption to the local villages. Lets hope the project is abandoned. Malc London
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Thu 11 Mar 10

Wharfrat says...

One has to assume this is chosen because not one single Labour voter will be affected. Destroying green belt and AONBs seems to be all they stand for.
One has to assume this is chosen because not one single Labour voter will be affected. Destroying green belt and AONBs seems to be all they stand for. Wharfrat
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Thu 11 Mar 10

MCarey says...

ruining our countryside and we have no benefit here, no to this track being in our area of outstanding natural beauty, thank you very much
ruining our countryside and we have no benefit here, no to this track being in our area of outstanding natural beauty, thank you very much MCarey
  • Score: 0

1:28pm Thu 11 Mar 10

JP80 says...

From the route, the railway line passes very close to Old Amersham in a new cutting; the Grade 1 Hartwell House in Aylesbury will be about 200m from a thundering rail line; a 4km viaduct will be built over the Colne / Grand Union at Denham.
.
still, omelette, eggs and all that. Who will actually travel on this route? You can bet commuters will be priced right out.
From the route, the railway line passes very close to Old Amersham in a new cutting; the Grade 1 Hartwell House in Aylesbury will be about 200m from a thundering rail line; a 4km viaduct will be built over the Colne / Grand Union at Denham. . still, omelette, eggs and all that. Who will actually travel on this route? You can bet commuters will be priced right out. JP80
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Thu 11 Mar 10

motco says...

You might ask what use an electoral bribe has after the election.
You might ask what use an electoral bribe has after the election. motco
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Thu 11 Mar 10

demoness says...

Great - so nature is once again disrupted because of man's need for so called progress.
I am normally supportive of train type initiatives but when it disrupts areas of outstanding beauty for profit then no.
And this will benfit no one in Bucks as if they want to go to Birmingham quickly they will still have to get to London to do it.
Go figure cos I can't.
Great - so nature is once again disrupted because of man's need for so called progress. I am normally supportive of train type initiatives but when it disrupts areas of outstanding beauty for profit then no. And this will benfit no one in Bucks as if they want to go to Birmingham quickly they will still have to get to London to do it. Go figure cos I can't. demoness
  • Score: 0

2:04pm Thu 11 Mar 10

OllieNewbury says...

Well I support it. The Chilterns form a natural arc north-west of London so any route has to go through them somewhere. They should however provide a station in the area. Looking at the map the line will pass close by to Aylesbury. How about there?
Well I support it. The Chilterns form a natural arc north-west of London so any route has to go through them somewhere. They should however provide a station in the area. Looking at the map the line will pass close by to Aylesbury. How about there? OllieNewbury
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Thu 11 Mar 10

claire69 says...

As a resident of Great Missenden I am angered by the enviromental and visual impact this proposed route will have on this beautiful and historical area.
It will be of no benifit for the communities it will impact upon.
As a resident of Great Missenden I am angered by the enviromental and visual impact this proposed route will have on this beautiful and historical area. It will be of no benifit for the communities it will impact upon. claire69
  • Score: 0

3:35pm Thu 11 Mar 10

Farmer Pickles says...

This is great news.

It will reduce the use of inefficient internal flights from Heathrow and London City airport and therefore have environmental benefits as well as reducing the problem of aircraft noise in the Chilterns.

It will also give people a viable alternative to using the M40, reducing the congestion and constant noise suffered by many Wycombe residents.

These highspeed trains are so efficient they are virtually silent compared to the old boneshaker trains we get through High Wycombe.

Not only that it will also allow people to see our beautiful Buckinghamshire countryside.

It was the Nimby brigade that used to claim that trains would turn cows milk sour. They didn't stop the building of the railways then and hopefully they won't stop our country having the efficient and reliable rail service it deserves now.
This is great news. It will reduce the use of inefficient internal flights from Heathrow and London City airport and therefore have environmental benefits as well as reducing the problem of aircraft noise in the Chilterns. It will also give people a viable alternative to using the M40, reducing the congestion and constant noise suffered by many Wycombe residents. These highspeed trains are so efficient they are virtually silent compared to the old boneshaker trains we get through High Wycombe. Not only that it will also allow people to see our beautiful Buckinghamshire countryside. It was the Nimby brigade that used to claim that trains would turn cows milk sour. They didn't stop the building of the railways then and hopefully they won't stop our country having the efficient and reliable rail service it deserves now. Farmer Pickles
  • Score: 0

3:36pm Thu 11 Mar 10

BA123 says...

When hundreds of pot holes in the area can't even be fixed properly, surely the money would be better spent on improving the current travel systems.
When hundreds of pot holes in the area can't even be fixed properly, surely the money would be better spent on improving the current travel systems. BA123
  • Score: 0

3:39pm Thu 11 Mar 10

cressexpert says...

1. I though the educated residents of Great Missenden could spell "environmental".
2. Any predictions when we might see the last blade of grass in the country disappear?
1. I though the educated residents of Great Missenden could spell "environmental". 2. Any predictions when we might see the last blade of grass in the country disappear? cressexpert
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Thu 11 Mar 10

demoness says...

OllieNewbury wrote:
Well I support it. The Chilterns form a natural arc north-west of London so any route has to go through them somewhere. They should however provide a station in the area. Looking at the map the line will pass close by to Aylesbury. How about there?
I am sure the trees, birds, badgers, foxes, the environment at large will be soooo happy that you support it Ollie.Not to mention the insects and the ecosystem
Personally I am devastated - man's inhumanity and lack of respect to his fellow creatures saddens me beyond belief.

And I am not being a nimby - I would be as disgusted if it were anywhere at all - yes including Marlow!
Sorry but this is wrong!
[quote][p][bold]OllieNewbury[/bold] wrote: Well I support it. The Chilterns form a natural arc north-west of London so any route has to go through them somewhere. They should however provide a station in the area. Looking at the map the line will pass close by to Aylesbury. How about there?[/p][/quote]I am sure the trees, birds, badgers, foxes, the environment at large will be soooo happy that you support it Ollie.Not to mention the insects and the ecosystem Personally I am devastated - man's inhumanity and lack of respect to his fellow creatures saddens me beyond belief. And I am not being a nimby - I would be as disgusted if it were anywhere at all - yes including Marlow! Sorry but this is wrong! demoness
  • Score: 0

3:49pm Thu 11 Mar 10

JP80 says...

The line when *not* in a tunnel will pass within half a mile of Denham, Old Amersham, South Heath, Great Missenden, Wendover, Stoke Mandeville, most of Fairford Leys.. about 25 houses, farms and offices will be demolished in Bucks alone
.
I'd rather have aircraft noise!
The line when *not* in a tunnel will pass within half a mile of Denham, Old Amersham, South Heath, Great Missenden, Wendover, Stoke Mandeville, most of Fairford Leys.. about 25 houses, farms and offices will be demolished in Bucks alone . I'd rather have aircraft noise! JP80
  • Score: 0

3:49pm Thu 11 Mar 10

demoness says...

Farmer Pickles wrote:
This is great news. It will reduce the use of inefficient internal flights from Heathrow and London City airport and therefore have environmental benefits as well as reducing the problem of aircraft noise in the Chilterns. It will also give people a viable alternative to using the M40, reducing the congestion and constant noise suffered by many Wycombe residents. These highspeed trains are so efficient they are virtually silent compared to the old boneshaker trains we get through High Wycombe. Not only that it will also allow people to see our beautiful Buckinghamshire countryside. It was the Nimby brigade that used to claim that trains would turn cows milk sour. They didn't stop the building of the railways then and hopefully they won't stop our country having the efficient and reliable rail service it deserves now.
When was the last time you were on a train?
I can assure you that chiltern trains are anything but old bone shakers!
[quote][p][bold]Farmer Pickles[/bold] wrote: This is great news. It will reduce the use of inefficient internal flights from Heathrow and London City airport and therefore have environmental benefits as well as reducing the problem of aircraft noise in the Chilterns. It will also give people a viable alternative to using the M40, reducing the congestion and constant noise suffered by many Wycombe residents. These highspeed trains are so efficient they are virtually silent compared to the old boneshaker trains we get through High Wycombe. Not only that it will also allow people to see our beautiful Buckinghamshire countryside. It was the Nimby brigade that used to claim that trains would turn cows milk sour. They didn't stop the building of the railways then and hopefully they won't stop our country having the efficient and reliable rail service it deserves now.[/p][/quote]When was the last time you were on a train? I can assure you that chiltern trains are anything but old bone shakers! demoness
  • Score: 0

3:51pm Thu 11 Mar 10

demoness says...

JP80 wrote:
The line when *not* in a tunnel will pass within half a mile of Denham, Old Amersham, South Heath, Great Missenden, Wendover, Stoke Mandeville, most of Fairford Leys.. about 25 houses, farms and offices will be demolished in Bucks alone . I'd rather have aircraft noise!
Same here - and what about all the trees that will be cut down. :(((
[quote][p][bold]JP80[/bold] wrote: The line when *not* in a tunnel will pass within half a mile of Denham, Old Amersham, South Heath, Great Missenden, Wendover, Stoke Mandeville, most of Fairford Leys.. about 25 houses, farms and offices will be demolished in Bucks alone . I'd rather have aircraft noise![/p][/quote]Same here - and what about all the trees that will be cut down. :((( demoness
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Thu 11 Mar 10

Hans Schmit says...

It's going to go through someone's back yard, why not ours? I think I'll just move if it gets too close to my house. Whatever.
It's going to go through someone's back yard, why not ours? I think I'll just move if it gets too close to my house. Whatever. Hans Schmit
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Thu 11 Mar 10

OllieNewbury says...

There were a lot of protests when they built the M40, the M1, the Chiltern main line, the Metropolitan Line, the M4, the Great Western main line... in fact all transport routes in the area. And where would be without them?
There were a lot of protests when they built the M40, the M1, the Chiltern main line, the Metropolitan Line, the M4, the Great Western main line... in fact all transport routes in the area. And where would be without them? OllieNewbury
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Thu 11 Mar 10

motco says...

OllieNewbury wrote:
There were a lot of protests when they built the M40, the M1, the Chiltern main line, the Metropolitan Line, the M4, the Great Western main line... in fact all transport routes in the area. And where would be without them?
Without the M40? In a quieter place by far!

Don't forget we're not talking about a mere 'main line' here, it's apparently a 250mph line and that simply must be noisy.
[quote][p][bold]OllieNewbury[/bold] wrote: There were a lot of protests when they built the M40, the M1, the Chiltern main line, the Metropolitan Line, the M4, the Great Western main line... in fact all transport routes in the area. And where would be without them?[/p][/quote]Without the M40? In a quieter place by far! Don't forget we're not talking about a mere 'main line' here, it's apparently a 250mph line and that simply must be noisy. motco
  • Score: 0

3:59pm Thu 11 Mar 10

beaconite says...

how on earth can we afford such a project in these straightened times?today it was also announced that the west coast upgrade is finally complete so why are we duplicating it even before the paint is dry? who needs to get to scotland 30 minutes quicker at such huge cost? of course there wont be many stations as they will increase the much-vaunted time-saving. can you imagine the disbelief of travellers being told they have to change trains on a 15 mile trip to heathrow. the whole idea is potty, better to spend a lot less improving the existing systemas well as filling in the potholes.
how on earth can we afford such a project in these straightened times?today it was also announced that the west coast upgrade is finally complete so why are we duplicating it even before the paint is dry? who needs to get to scotland 30 minutes quicker at such huge cost? of course there wont be many stations as they will increase the much-vaunted time-saving. can you imagine the disbelief of travellers being told they have to change trains on a 15 mile trip to heathrow. the whole idea is potty, better to spend a lot less improving the existing systemas well as filling in the potholes. beaconite
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Thu 11 Mar 10

demoness says...

Well lib dems, tories - I will vote for any party that stops this.
Yes Yog - I will sell my soul to save the planet!
Well lib dems, tories - I will vote for any party that stops this. Yes Yog - I will sell my soul to save the planet! demoness
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Thu 11 Mar 10

OllieNewbury says...

motco wrote:
OllieNewbury wrote:
There were a lot of protests when they built the M40, the M1, the Chiltern main line, the Metropolitan Line, the M4, the Great Western main line... in fact all transport routes in the area. And where would be without them?
Without the M40? In a quieter place by far!

Don't forget we're not talking about a mere 'main line' here, it's apparently a 250mph line and that simply must be noisy.
Well not really. The traffic to Oxford would have to use the A40 instead and go right through Wycombe.
-
Nothing is silent. The high speed trains are modern and incorporate modern sound proofing methods, and would not 'thunder' along the track as some suggest.
[quote][p][bold]motco[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OllieNewbury[/bold] wrote: There were a lot of protests when they built the M40, the M1, the Chiltern main line, the Metropolitan Line, the M4, the Great Western main line... in fact all transport routes in the area. And where would be without them?[/p][/quote]Without the M40? In a quieter place by far! Don't forget we're not talking about a mere 'main line' here, it's apparently a 250mph line and that simply must be noisy.[/p][/quote]Well not really. The traffic to Oxford would have to use the A40 instead and go right through Wycombe. - Nothing is silent. The high speed trains are modern and incorporate modern sound proofing methods, and would not 'thunder' along the track as some suggest. OllieNewbury
  • Score: 0

4:04pm Thu 11 Mar 10

demoness says...

So Ollie, how will this affect your daily life?
Will you be using the trains a lot?
So Ollie, how will this affect your daily life? Will you be using the trains a lot? demoness
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Thu 11 Mar 10

demoness says...

OllieNewbury wrote:
motco wrote:
OllieNewbury wrote: There were a lot of protests when they built the M40, the M1, the Chiltern main line, the Metropolitan Line, the M4, the Great Western main line... in fact all transport routes in the area. And where would be without them?
Without the M40? In a quieter place by far! Don't forget we're not talking about a mere 'main line' here, it's apparently a 250mph line and that simply must be noisy.
Well not really. The traffic to Oxford would have to use the A40 instead and go right through Wycombe. - Nothing is silent. The high speed trains are modern and incorporate modern sound proofing methods, and would not 'thunder' along the track as some suggest.
LOL.
Well thats okay then.
[quote][p][bold]OllieNewbury[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]motco[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OllieNewbury[/bold] wrote: There were a lot of protests when they built the M40, the M1, the Chiltern main line, the Metropolitan Line, the M4, the Great Western main line... in fact all transport routes in the area. And where would be without them?[/p][/quote]Without the M40? In a quieter place by far! Don't forget we're not talking about a mere 'main line' here, it's apparently a 250mph line and that simply must be noisy.[/p][/quote]Well not really. The traffic to Oxford would have to use the A40 instead and go right through Wycombe. - Nothing is silent. The high speed trains are modern and incorporate modern sound proofing methods, and would not 'thunder' along the track as some suggest.[/p][/quote]LOL. Well thats okay then. demoness
  • Score: 0

4:26pm Thu 11 Mar 10

weyfarer says...

Stand in Kent anywhere near the high-speed line and the noise from the passing trains is horrendous.
RIP to peaceful life in the towns and villages close to it, I wouldn't want to live near it.
There are no benefits for this area whatsoever from having this scar on the landscape.
Stand in Kent anywhere near the high-speed line and the noise from the passing trains is horrendous. RIP to peaceful life in the towns and villages close to it, I wouldn't want to live near it. There are no benefits for this area whatsoever from having this scar on the landscape. weyfarer
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Thu 11 Mar 10

walking_the_dog says...

People complain about aircraft noise but still fly, they complain about traffic congestion but still use their cars, so they are bound to complain about the new rail link. Maybe we should all just stay where we are and walk everywhere!
People complain about aircraft noise but still fly, they complain about traffic congestion but still use their cars, so they are bound to complain about the new rail link. Maybe we should all just stay where we are and walk everywhere! walking_the_dog
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Thu 11 Mar 10

Malc London says...

or take the existing trains that go to the same place. Yes, it takes an hour more but it's a small price to pay.

And if it will reduce aircraft and motorway traffic, why hasn't the Chiltern line already had this effect?
or take the existing trains that go to the same place. Yes, it takes an hour more but it's a small price to pay. And if it will reduce aircraft and motorway traffic, why hasn't the Chiltern line already had this effect? Malc London
  • Score: 0

5:11pm Thu 11 Mar 10

J B Blackett says...

OllieNewbury wrote:
Well I support it. The Chilterns form a natural arc north-west of London so any route has to go through them somewhere. They should however provide a station in the area. Looking at the map the line will pass close by to Aylesbury. How about there?
Well , Ollie N , IMHO, your support is misplaced.
.
This a purely puny pathetic political ploy by the party in power to divert peoples attention away from all the growing financial , economic , social and infrastructural problems now extant in this country of ours.
.
The other parties would not be any better - all claiming to have a vision of the Future (like Blair, Major, etc)
If it is a vision at all , it is a blurred and perverse one , distorted by their own self-regard , hidden agendas and possible graft and corruption.
.
I tell myself there is no such thing as an honest politician (with a few exceptions who are independent from the party machines). They cannot be trusted about anything and to lie , lie , lie - that's most of their backgrounds.
.
The same applies in this case - if it happens at all , it will not be as trumpeted today. But it couldn't much worse.
.
Without ignoring the long-term environmental damage (once the the area is ruined it is scarred forever) to drive the equivalent of a low-speed aircraft ( 20 times per hour) at ground level through this beautiful countryside and to say it will have no effect is Barmy and Deceitful at the same time. France and Germany have a lot more space for rail links but ask average close-by residents in those countries if a 300km/hr train has no visual or audible impact. Especially in an enclosed valley surrounded by hills !
.
All the existing methods of travel need to be brought up-to-date before this type of project is even contemplated. All the plane , motor vehicle, train services and their associated infrastructures need to made to work properly and efficiently before this rail link.
.
I console myself with the fact we are governed by idiots and the chances of it actually happening are in the region of 20%.
.
Regards
[quote][p][bold]OllieNewbury[/bold] wrote: Well I support it. The Chilterns form a natural arc north-west of London so any route has to go through them somewhere. They should however provide a station in the area. Looking at the map the line will pass close by to Aylesbury. How about there?[/p][/quote]Well , Ollie N , IMHO, your support is misplaced. . This a purely puny pathetic political ploy by the party in power to divert peoples attention away from all the growing financial , economic , social and infrastructural problems now extant in this country of ours. . The other parties would not be any better - all claiming to have a vision of the Future (like Blair, Major, etc) If it is a vision at all , it is a blurred and perverse one , distorted by their own self-regard , hidden agendas and possible graft and corruption. . I tell myself there is no such thing as an honest politician (with a few exceptions who are independent from the party machines). They cannot be trusted about anything and to lie , lie , lie - that's most of their backgrounds. . The same applies in this case - if it happens at all , it will not be as trumpeted today. But it couldn't much worse. . Without ignoring the long-term environmental damage (once the the area is ruined it is scarred forever) to drive the equivalent of a low-speed aircraft ( 20 times per hour) at ground level through this beautiful countryside and to say it will have no effect is Barmy and Deceitful at the same time. France and Germany have a lot more space for rail links but ask average close-by residents in those countries if a 300km/hr train has no visual or audible impact. Especially in an enclosed valley surrounded by hills ! . All the existing methods of travel need to be brought up-to-date before this type of project is even contemplated. All the plane , motor vehicle, train services and their associated infrastructures need to made to work properly and efficiently before this rail link. . I console myself with the fact we are governed by idiots and the chances of it actually happening are in the region of 20%. . Regards J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Thu 11 Mar 10

Slimster says...

Pity they couldn't find a way to use the existing routes. I guess they would need new bridges and infrastructure anyway, with housing etc. built up to the line this leaves little room for lateral expansion
+
I'm in two minds here 1. I'm glad its missing Wycombe because if it came here I'd have to put up with years of crap/gossip and general moaning. 2. I'm sorry its missing Wycombe as the town will potentially be sidelined in the long term. Luckily the Chiltern Line is a great service with fast, clean trains that mostly run on time.
Pity they couldn't find a way to use the existing routes. I guess they would need new bridges and infrastructure anyway, with housing etc. built up to the line this leaves little room for lateral expansion + I'm in two minds here 1. I'm glad its missing Wycombe because if it came here I'd have to put up with years of crap/gossip and general moaning. 2. I'm sorry its missing Wycombe as the town will potentially be sidelined in the long term. Luckily the Chiltern Line is a great service with fast, clean trains that mostly run on time. Slimster
  • Score: 0

6:26pm Thu 11 Mar 10

J B Blackett says...

Slimster wrote:
Pity they couldn't find a way to use the existing routes. I guess they would need new bridges and infrastructure anyway, with housing etc. built up to the line this leaves little room for lateral expansion
+
I'm in two minds here 1. I'm glad its missing Wycombe because if it came here I'd have to put up with years of crap/gossip and general moaning. 2. I'm sorry its missing Wycombe as the town will potentially be sidelined in the long term. Luckily the Chiltern Line is a great service with fast, clean trains that mostly run on time.
Please explain, Mr Slimster , how the proposed horrendously noisy trains that plying between London and B'ham would sideline Wycombe.
.
It wouldn't have come here , because it wouldn't stop - according to Lord Adonis and Mr Brown. And it would be the end of the Chiltern Line's plan for a route from Wycombe to Oxford.
.
I don't understand the logic, being a simple person.
.
Rgds
[quote][p][bold]Slimster[/bold] wrote: Pity they couldn't find a way to use the existing routes. I guess they would need new bridges and infrastructure anyway, with housing etc. built up to the line this leaves little room for lateral expansion + I'm in two minds here 1. I'm glad its missing Wycombe because if it came here I'd have to put up with years of crap/gossip and general moaning. 2. I'm sorry its missing Wycombe as the town will potentially be sidelined in the long term. Luckily the Chiltern Line is a great service with fast, clean trains that mostly run on time.[/p][/quote]Please explain, Mr Slimster , how the proposed horrendously noisy trains that plying between London and B'ham would sideline Wycombe. . It wouldn't have come here , because it wouldn't stop - according to Lord Adonis and Mr Brown. And it would be the end of the Chiltern Line's plan for a route from Wycombe to Oxford. . I don't understand the logic, being a simple person. . Rgds J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

7:09pm Thu 11 Mar 10

maharaja47 says...

Why are we obsessed with high speed transport? Whatever form of transport we use will consume fuel of one sort or another, and energy resources are diminishing. Therefore the cost will inevitably rise. I think we should try to reduce the amount we travel and question our need to do so. The WW2 poster "Is your journey really necessary" posed that question and rationing etc. enforced that thinking. Just think of the bad weather at the start of the year and the trouble it caused. We have become so used to working farther than walking distance from home that we feel aggrieved when Mother Nature flexes her muscles. My view is we should abandon the plans for a high speed rail link and concentrate on improving the existing rail and road services. To that end, a coach station at Handy Cross seems eminently sensible. Also much more effort should be put into high speed broadband technology, helping people to work from home.
The "powers that be" referred to by another correspondent should encourage local industries by reducing the stranglehold of high business rates and moderating the powers of the Health and Safety executive.
We are bumping along the bottom in this recession and highfaluting claptrap as we approach the General election is a cynical denial of reality.
For heavens sake abandon this brainless plan and leave our lovely county alone.
Why are we obsessed with high speed transport? Whatever form of transport we use will consume fuel of one sort or another, and energy resources are diminishing. Therefore the cost will inevitably rise. I think we should try to reduce the amount we travel and question our need to do so. The WW2 poster "Is your journey really necessary" posed that question and rationing etc. enforced that thinking. Just think of the bad weather at the start of the year and the trouble it caused. We have become so used to working farther than walking distance from home that we feel aggrieved when Mother Nature flexes her muscles. My view is we should abandon the plans for a high speed rail link and concentrate on improving the existing rail and road services. To that end, a coach station at Handy Cross seems eminently sensible. Also much more effort should be put into high speed broadband technology, helping people to work from home. The "powers that be" referred to by another correspondent should encourage local industries by reducing the stranglehold of high business rates and moderating the powers of the Health and Safety executive. We are bumping along the bottom in this recession and highfaluting claptrap as we approach the General election is a cynical denial of reality. For heavens sake abandon this brainless plan and leave our lovely county alone. maharaja47
  • Score: 0

8:02pm Thu 11 Mar 10

Doom says...

demoness wrote:
Great - so nature is once again disrupted because of man's need for so called progress. I am normally supportive of train type initiatives but when it disrupts areas of outstanding beauty for profit then no. And this will benfit no one in Bucks as if they want to go to Birmingham quickly they will still have to get to London to do it. Go figure cos I can't.
well well well! Demoness shows her true colours! a NIMBY!! Hah! Wouldnt be complaining if it were to run through Marlow would ya! ;o)
[quote][p][bold]demoness[/bold] wrote: Great - so nature is once again disrupted because of man's need for so called progress. I am normally supportive of train type initiatives but when it disrupts areas of outstanding beauty for profit then no. And this will benfit no one in Bucks as if they want to go to Birmingham quickly they will still have to get to London to do it. Go figure cos I can't.[/p][/quote]well well well! Demoness shows her true colours! a NIMBY!! Hah! Wouldnt be complaining if it were to run through Marlow would ya! ;o) Doom
  • Score: 0

8:14pm Thu 11 Mar 10

boney2728 says...

I am so angry about this and believe that Labour politics are at play with it.
What i do not understand is why if they really have do have these trains running through our countryside is why they cannot just upgrade the existing line.
The disruption to wildlife , countryside and the communities i feel will be unrepairable .
All the local MP's must act on getting this pathetic proposal stopped.I for one will do everything in my capability to do so.
I am so angry about this and believe that Labour politics are at play with it. What i do not understand is why if they really have do have these trains running through our countryside is why they cannot just upgrade the existing line. The disruption to wildlife , countryside and the communities i feel will be unrepairable . All the local MP's must act on getting this pathetic proposal stopped.I for one will do everything in my capability to do so. boney2728
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Thu 11 Mar 10

Si-concerned says...

Gutted! Having just agreed to a purchase a property overlooking Old Amersham, I guess I have to pull out to avoid the risk of my property halving in value!
Gutted! Having just agreed to a purchase a property overlooking Old Amersham, I guess I have to pull out to avoid the risk of my property halving in value! Si-concerned
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Thu 11 Mar 10

wrigl011 says...

i live very near to where the planned line would be and all i can say is that it is disgusting that and area of outstanding natural beauty will be destroyed forever in return for a 45 minute journey!
It's not as if the train is even necessary other than for mere convenience.
Who cares if Japan has perfect trains!? I know that i wouldn't go to Japan for a "convenient train service" but i would go there to see an area of outstanding natural beauty!
What is wrong with our government? Sort out your priorities!
i live very near to where the planned line would be and all i can say is that it is disgusting that and area of outstanding natural beauty will be destroyed forever in return for a 45 minute journey! It's not as if the train is even necessary other than for mere convenience. Who cares if Japan has perfect trains!? I know that i wouldn't go to Japan for a "convenient train service" but i would go there to see an area of outstanding natural beauty! What is wrong with our government? Sort out your priorities! wrigl011
  • Score: 0

8:36pm Thu 11 Mar 10

jhough says...

I think it's absolutely revolting. do you know that old amersham is over 200 years old? what on earth do you think you're doing? the train will run less than 2 miles near my house and in summer, i will hear it when i want to lie in the sun, ALL YEAR I WILL HEAR IT. all the houses will lose value, and might have to sell our beautiful family home. i hope this doesn't get allowed because it will ACTUALLY ruin buckinghamshire. USE THE TRAIN LINE THATS ALREADY BEEN BUILT! for god's sake. the fields, the houses,, the views that will be destroyed! you can't get them back! why industrialise the small portion of land we've already got. NO, its not essential, NO you dont HAVE to build it somewhere, but YES, every single person in these towns will sell up.
I think it's absolutely revolting. do you know that old amersham is over 200 years old? what on earth do you think you're doing? the train will run less than 2 miles near my house and in summer, i will hear it when i want to lie in the sun, ALL YEAR I WILL HEAR IT. all the houses will lose value, and might have to sell our beautiful family home. i hope this doesn't get allowed because it will ACTUALLY ruin buckinghamshire. USE THE TRAIN LINE THATS ALREADY BEEN BUILT! for god's sake. the fields, the houses,, the views that will be destroyed! you can't get them back! why industrialise the small portion of land we've already got. NO, its not essential, NO you dont HAVE to build it somewhere, but YES, every single person in these towns will sell up. jhough
  • Score: 0

8:38pm Thu 11 Mar 10

Doom says...

Si-concerned wrote:
Gutted! Having just agreed to a purchase a property overlooking Old Amersham, I guess I have to pull out to avoid the risk of my property halving in value!
serves you right. You ' Property ' owners make me puke. Never see it as a home, always a way to make money. Its people like you that have made it impossible for kids of today to have any chance to make themselves a home for their families. But as long as you parasites can make a fast buck, thats ok then, isnt it.?
[quote][p][bold]Si-concerned[/bold] wrote: Gutted! Having just agreed to a purchase a property overlooking Old Amersham, I guess I have to pull out to avoid the risk of my property halving in value![/p][/quote]serves you right. You ' Property ' owners make me puke. Never see it as a home, always a way to make money. Its people like you that have made it impossible for kids of today to have any chance to make themselves a home for their families. But as long as you parasites can make a fast buck, thats ok then, isnt it.? Doom
  • Score: 0

8:39pm Thu 11 Mar 10

J B Blackett says...

maharaja47 wrote:
Why are we obsessed with high speed transport? Whatever form of transport we use will consume fuel of one sort or another, and energy resources are diminishing. Therefore the cost will inevitably rise. I think we should try to reduce the amount we travel and question our need to do so. The WW2 poster "Is your journey really necessary" posed that question and rationing etc. enforced that thinking. Just think of the bad weather at the start of the year and the trouble it caused. We have become so used to working farther than walking distance from home that we feel aggrieved when Mother Nature flexes her muscles. My view is we should abandon the plans for a high speed rail link and concentrate on improving the existing rail and road services. To that end, a coach station at Handy Cross seems eminently sensible. Also much more effort should be put into high speed broadband technology, helping people to work from home.
The "powers that be" referred to by another correspondent should encourage local industries by reducing the stranglehold of high business rates and moderating the powers of the Health and Safety executive.
We are bumping along the bottom in this recession and highfaluting claptrap as we approach the General election is a cynical denial of reality.
For heavens sake abandon this brainless plan and leave our lovely county alone.
I endorse what you are saying M47 , as you also have added to and complemented more descriptively my case/argument expressed above.
.
The probability of it actually happening is still IMO of the order 20%.
.
But who can say when the whole project could be regarded as a substitute penile extension for the politicians "in charge". You know how passionate and aroused they can get (occasionally).
.
Regards
[quote][p][bold]maharaja47[/bold] wrote: Why are we obsessed with high speed transport? Whatever form of transport we use will consume fuel of one sort or another, and energy resources are diminishing. Therefore the cost will inevitably rise. I think we should try to reduce the amount we travel and question our need to do so. The WW2 poster "Is your journey really necessary" posed that question and rationing etc. enforced that thinking. Just think of the bad weather at the start of the year and the trouble it caused. We have become so used to working farther than walking distance from home that we feel aggrieved when Mother Nature flexes her muscles. My view is we should abandon the plans for a high speed rail link and concentrate on improving the existing rail and road services. To that end, a coach station at Handy Cross seems eminently sensible. Also much more effort should be put into high speed broadband technology, helping people to work from home. The "powers that be" referred to by another correspondent should encourage local industries by reducing the stranglehold of high business rates and moderating the powers of the Health and Safety executive. We are bumping along the bottom in this recession and highfaluting claptrap as we approach the General election is a cynical denial of reality. For heavens sake abandon this brainless plan and leave our lovely county alone.[/p][/quote]I endorse what you are saying M47 , as you also have added to and complemented more descriptively my case/argument expressed above. . The probability of it actually happening is still IMO of the order 20%. . But who can say when the whole project could be regarded as a substitute penile extension for the politicians "in charge". You know how passionate and aroused they can get (occasionally). . Regards J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

8:44pm Thu 11 Mar 10

Chepping says...

The Conservatives have said today that should they be elected they would pursue this project two years earlier than currently planned but that they won't accept blindly the route proposed.

Given that the most favoured alternative route involves a 700 metre viaduct across the Hughenden Valley we should be asking some searching questions of the Conservatives too! If not the route proposed, then where?
The Conservatives have said today that should they be elected they would pursue this project two years earlier than currently planned but that they won't accept blindly the route proposed. Given that the most favoured alternative route involves a 700 metre viaduct across the Hughenden Valley we should be asking some searching questions of the Conservatives too! If not the route proposed, then where? Chepping
  • Score: 0

8:45pm Thu 11 Mar 10

J B Blackett says...

Still too many people on this small island - and growing .
.
Never mind the rail link - time for the Soylent Green Project to restart.
.
You heard it here first !
Still too many people on this small island - and growing . . Never mind the rail link - time for the Soylent Green Project to restart. . You heard it here first ! J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

8:45pm Thu 11 Mar 10

demoness says...

Doom wrote:
demoness wrote: Great - so nature is once again disrupted because of man's need for so called progress. I am normally supportive of train type initiatives but when it disrupts areas of outstanding beauty for profit then no. And this will benfit no one in Bucks as if they want to go to Birmingham quickly they will still have to get to London to do it. Go figure cos I can't.
well well well! Demoness shows her true colours! a NIMBY!! Hah! Wouldnt be complaining if it were to run through Marlow would ya! ;o)
Errr I hate to say this Doom but I have already commented that I would be the same if it were to run through Marlow. Please see the beginning of the thread where I state quite catergorically that I am furious about the effect it will have on the wildlife and the environment. :)
[quote][p][bold]Doom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]demoness[/bold] wrote: Great - so nature is once again disrupted because of man's need for so called progress. I am normally supportive of train type initiatives but when it disrupts areas of outstanding beauty for profit then no. And this will benfit no one in Bucks as if they want to go to Birmingham quickly they will still have to get to London to do it. Go figure cos I can't.[/p][/quote]well well well! Demoness shows her true colours! a NIMBY!! Hah! Wouldnt be complaining if it were to run through Marlow would ya! ;o)[/p][/quote]Errr I hate to say this Doom but I have already commented that I would be the same if it were to run through Marlow. Please see the beginning of the thread where I state quite catergorically that I am furious about the effect it will have on the wildlife and the environment. :) demoness
  • Score: 0

8:53pm Thu 11 Mar 10

Doom says...

demoness wrote:
Doom wrote:
demoness wrote: Great - so nature is once again disrupted because of man's need for so called progress. I am normally supportive of train type initiatives but when it disrupts areas of outstanding beauty for profit then no. And this will benfit no one in Bucks as if they want to go to Birmingham quickly they will still have to get to London to do it. Go figure cos I can't.
well well well! Demoness shows her true colours! a NIMBY!! Hah! Wouldnt be complaining if it were to run through Marlow would ya! ;o)
Errr I hate to say this Doom but I have already commented that I would be the same if it were to run through Marlow. Please see the beginning of the thread where I state quite catergorically that I am furious about the effect it will have on the wildlife and the environment. :)
yup. only kidding, couldnt resist. I love Bucks and the Chilterns, and especially walking round your area, beautiful! Ending up in the swan of course. Not impressed with this plan either. Some of the commentators here are missing the point, only worried about property prices. If they were adequately compensated, would they then care about the beautiful chilterns being destroyed bit by bit? I wonder.
[quote][p][bold]demoness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Doom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]demoness[/bold] wrote: Great - so nature is once again disrupted because of man's need for so called progress. I am normally supportive of train type initiatives but when it disrupts areas of outstanding beauty for profit then no. And this will benfit no one in Bucks as if they want to go to Birmingham quickly they will still have to get to London to do it. Go figure cos I can't.[/p][/quote]well well well! Demoness shows her true colours! a NIMBY!! Hah! Wouldnt be complaining if it were to run through Marlow would ya! ;o)[/p][/quote]Errr I hate to say this Doom but I have already commented that I would be the same if it were to run through Marlow. Please see the beginning of the thread where I state quite catergorically that I am furious about the effect it will have on the wildlife and the environment. :)[/p][/quote]yup. only kidding, couldnt resist. I love Bucks and the Chilterns, and especially walking round your area, beautiful! Ending up in the swan of course. Not impressed with this plan either. Some of the commentators here are missing the point, only worried about property prices. If they were adequately compensated, would they then care about the beautiful chilterns being destroyed bit by bit? I wonder. Doom
  • Score: 0

8:54pm Thu 11 Mar 10

Doom says...

demoness wrote:
Doom wrote:
demoness wrote: Great - so nature is once again disrupted because of man's need for so called progress. I am normally supportive of train type initiatives but when it disrupts areas of outstanding beauty for profit then no. And this will benfit no one in Bucks as if they want to go to Birmingham quickly they will still have to get to London to do it. Go figure cos I can't.
well well well! Demoness shows her true colours! a NIMBY!! Hah! Wouldnt be complaining if it were to run through Marlow would ya! ;o)
Errr I hate to say this Doom but I have already commented that I would be the same if it were to run through Marlow. Please see the beginning of the thread where I state quite catergorically that I am furious about the effect it will have on the wildlife and the environment. :)
yup. only kidding, couldnt resist. I love Bucks and the Chilterns, and especially walking round your area, beautiful! Ending up in the swan of course. Not impressed with this plan either. Some of the commentators here are missing the point, only worried about property prices. If they were adequately compensated, would they then care about the beautiful chilterns being destroyed bit by bit? I wonder.
[quote][p][bold]demoness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Doom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]demoness[/bold] wrote: Great - so nature is once again disrupted because of man's need for so called progress. I am normally supportive of train type initiatives but when it disrupts areas of outstanding beauty for profit then no. And this will benfit no one in Bucks as if they want to go to Birmingham quickly they will still have to get to London to do it. Go figure cos I can't.[/p][/quote]well well well! Demoness shows her true colours! a NIMBY!! Hah! Wouldnt be complaining if it were to run through Marlow would ya! ;o)[/p][/quote]Errr I hate to say this Doom but I have already commented that I would be the same if it were to run through Marlow. Please see the beginning of the thread where I state quite catergorically that I am furious about the effect it will have on the wildlife and the environment. :)[/p][/quote]yup. only kidding, couldnt resist. I love Bucks and the Chilterns, and especially walking round your area, beautiful! Ending up in the swan of course. Not impressed with this plan either. Some of the commentators here are missing the point, only worried about property prices. If they were adequately compensated, would they then care about the beautiful chilterns being destroyed bit by bit? I wonder. Doom
  • Score: 0

9:00pm Thu 11 Mar 10

S from CSG says...

Rather funny that Labour have known about this route since December and release it just before an election. Don't see the route going through many Labour constituencies.

Given how long they have had to think about the presentation of this, the detail is poor:

- the Heathrow question is put in the 'too difficult box';
- there is very little factual evidence on the justification of the route choice vs the existing M40 scar;
- the Amersham tunnel is outlined with no detail on the implications for properties it passes under
- emergency shafts every 2.5km is simply excessive with no data to justify - wonder how they managed to tunnel all the way under the English Channel?
- the exit by Old Amersham shows an utter disregard for the historic value of the area and landscape

I could go on. I support High Speed Rail in principle but not at any cost. Hats off to Cheryl Gillan - I phoned her office today to understand her position and she took the phone off her office staffer to speak with me. Never spoken with her before, but I was impressed by her commitment to get the very best outcome for the area.
Rather funny that Labour have known about this route since December and release it just before an election. Don't see the route going through many Labour constituencies. Given how long they have had to think about the presentation of this, the detail is poor: - the Heathrow question is put in the 'too difficult box'; - there is very little factual evidence on the justification of the route choice vs the existing M40 scar; - the Amersham tunnel is outlined with no detail on the implications for properties it passes under - emergency shafts every 2.5km is simply excessive with no data to justify - wonder how they managed to tunnel all the way under the English Channel? - the exit by Old Amersham shows an utter disregard for the historic value of the area and landscape I could go on. I support High Speed Rail in principle but not at any cost. Hats off to Cheryl Gillan - I phoned her office today to understand her position and she took the phone off her office staffer to speak with me. Never spoken with her before, but I was impressed by her commitment to get the very best outcome for the area. S from CSG
  • Score: 0

9:34pm Thu 11 Mar 10

Farmer Pickles says...

Get real people. It may be an area of outstanding natural beauty but we live on the edge of the biggest city in Europe, more than twice as big as any other European city.

This is not the middle of nowhere.

I grew up 40 miles from the nearest motorway and 10 miles from the nearest railway.

If you want peace and solitude move to the Outer Hebrides.

You can't have it both ways.
Get real people. It may be an area of outstanding natural beauty but we live on the edge of the biggest city in Europe, more than twice as big as any other European city. This is not the middle of nowhere. I grew up 40 miles from the nearest motorway and 10 miles from the nearest railway. If you want peace and solitude move to the Outer Hebrides. You can't have it both ways. Farmer Pickles
  • Score: 0

10:11pm Thu 11 Mar 10

J B Blackett says...

Farmer Pickles wrote:
Get real people. It may be an area of outstanding natural beauty but we live on the edge of the biggest city in Europe, more than twice as big as any other European city.

This is not the middle of nowhere.

I grew up 40 miles from the nearest motorway and 10 miles from the nearest railway.

If you want peace and solitude move to the Outer Hebrides.

You can't have it both ways.
I lived in the Outer Hebrides - a place called Uig near Timsgarry. That was very beautiful too in spite of the lack of trees.
.
But the Noise , the Noise ! (except on Sundays)
.
Animal , vegetable , mineral you name it - Land , Sea and Air.
.
There are not many truly quiet places left on this crowded planet. We should cherish them, not ruin them for next generations. Especially at the behest or whim of stupid or crooked and ephemeral politicians
.
RGDS
[quote][p][bold]Farmer Pickles[/bold] wrote: Get real people. It may be an area of outstanding natural beauty but we live on the edge of the biggest city in Europe, more than twice as big as any other European city. This is not the middle of nowhere. I grew up 40 miles from the nearest motorway and 10 miles from the nearest railway. If you want peace and solitude move to the Outer Hebrides. You can't have it both ways.[/p][/quote]I lived in the Outer Hebrides - a place called Uig near Timsgarry. That was very beautiful too in spite of the lack of trees. . But the Noise , the Noise ! (except on Sundays) . Animal , vegetable , mineral you name it - Land , Sea and Air. . There are not many truly quiet places left on this crowded planet. We should cherish them, not ruin them for next generations. Especially at the behest or whim of stupid or crooked and ephemeral politicians . RGDS J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

10:52pm Thu 11 Mar 10

demoness says...

Farmer Pickles wrote:
Get real people. It may be an area of outstanding natural beauty but we live on the edge of the biggest city in Europe, more than twice as big as any other European city. This is not the middle of nowhere. I grew up 40 miles from the nearest motorway and 10 miles from the nearest railway. If you want peace and solitude move to the Outer Hebrides. You can't have it both ways.
The fact remains we do not need this wretched rail link.
There is no justification for it. We are a small island. It doesn't take that long to get anywhere in reality.
NOTHING will replace the flora, fauna and insect life that will be destroyed should this be allowed to happen.
[quote][p][bold]Farmer Pickles[/bold] wrote: Get real people. It may be an area of outstanding natural beauty but we live on the edge of the biggest city in Europe, more than twice as big as any other European city. This is not the middle of nowhere. I grew up 40 miles from the nearest motorway and 10 miles from the nearest railway. If you want peace and solitude move to the Outer Hebrides. You can't have it both ways.[/p][/quote]The fact remains we do not need this wretched rail link. There is no justification for it. We are a small island. It doesn't take that long to get anywhere in reality. NOTHING will replace the flora, fauna and insect life that will be destroyed should this be allowed to happen. demoness
  • Score: 0

10:55pm Thu 11 Mar 10

ForestCarer says...

I love the English countryside, and I am well versed in the arguments surrounding the conservation of habitats vs economic and technological development. I practice what I preach, being an active volunteer conservationist and member of the CPRE.

I agree that some of the areas that the proposed HSR route runs through are historic and scenic, and would undoubtedly be spoiled and blighted relative to their current standards of beauty. Life for many of those living in these areas will be worse as a result, and for some lives and livelihoods will be ruined.

In an ideal world, the route would be run entirely through brown field sites, along existing transport corridors, or even be driven through tunnels along its whole length. Unfortunately, none of these are options. There may be alternatives, but whichever route this line takes, there will be winners and losers.

I lived until recently in Lenham, Kent, an area just as picturesque as any in Bucks and just half a mile from HS1. The construction phase was well handled and the end result was nowhere near as bad as you might think reading the stories of doom above. With the appropriate measures in place, the line has no appreciable negative effect on wildlife, and even the humans living alongside learn to live with it.

Undoubtedly, this line will not generate any benefit for Buckinghamshire. But it is not being built for the residents of Buckinghamshire.

It is being built primarily for the residents of London and Birmingham, and then ultimately Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow - the main centres of habitation in the United Kingdom, the catchment areas of which combined make up a very large proportion of the UK population. These millions who willl benefit from improved transport links, economic advantages and the increased competiveness that would result far outnumber the privileged few that are sealed away from the real world in these areas.

Passionate believer as I am in the beauty and worth of our rural areas, this line is essential and at some point over the next 50 years we will have to build it or something very similar - perhaps something even faster, as we don't live in a museum. I can only hope that a Conservative or Labour Government hold their nerve and don't lose momentum to "influential" lobbies in Buckinghamshire who are interested in preserving their surroundings as if the world stopped developing about 200 years ago.
I love the English countryside, and I am well versed in the arguments surrounding the conservation of habitats vs economic and technological development. I practice what I preach, being an active volunteer conservationist and member of the CPRE. I agree that some of the areas that the proposed HSR route runs through are historic and scenic, and would undoubtedly be spoiled and blighted relative to their current standards of beauty. Life for many of those living in these areas will be worse as a result, and for some lives and livelihoods will be ruined. In an ideal world, the route would be run entirely through brown field sites, along existing transport corridors, or even be driven through tunnels along its whole length. Unfortunately, none of these are options. There may be alternatives, but whichever route this line takes, there will be winners and losers. I lived until recently in Lenham, Kent, an area just as picturesque as any in Bucks and just half a mile from HS1. The construction phase was well handled and the end result was nowhere near as bad as you might think reading the stories of doom above. With the appropriate measures in place, the line has no appreciable negative effect on wildlife, and even the humans living alongside learn to live with it. Undoubtedly, this line will not generate any benefit for Buckinghamshire. But it is not being built for the residents of Buckinghamshire. It is being built primarily for the residents of London and Birmingham, and then ultimately Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow - the main centres of habitation in the United Kingdom, the catchment areas of which combined make up a very large proportion of the UK population. These millions who willl benefit from improved transport links, economic advantages and the increased competiveness that would result far outnumber the privileged few that are sealed away from the real world in these areas. Passionate believer as I am in the beauty and worth of our rural areas, this line is essential and at some point over the next 50 years we will have to build it or something very similar - perhaps something even faster, as we don't live in a museum. I can only hope that a Conservative or Labour Government hold their nerve and don't lose momentum to "influential" lobbies in Buckinghamshire who are interested in preserving their surroundings as if the world stopped developing about 200 years ago. ForestCarer
  • Score: 0

11:20pm Thu 11 Mar 10

Farmer Pickles says...

ForestCarer wrote:
I love the English countryside, and I am well versed in the arguments surrounding the conservation of habitats vs economic and technological development. I practice what I preach, being an active volunteer conservationist and member of the CPRE.

I agree that some of the areas that the proposed HSR route runs through are historic and scenic, and would undoubtedly be spoiled and blighted relative to their current standards of beauty. Life for many of those living in these areas will be worse as a result, and for some lives and livelihoods will be ruined.

In an ideal world, the route would be run entirely through brown field sites, along existing transport corridors, or even be driven through tunnels along its whole length. Unfortunately, none of these are options. There may be alternatives, but whichever route this line takes, there will be winners and losers.

I lived until recently in Lenham, Kent, an area just as picturesque as any in Bucks and just half a mile from HS1. The construction phase was well handled and the end result was nowhere near as bad as you might think reading the stories of doom above. With the appropriate measures in place, the line has no appreciable negative effect on wildlife, and even the humans living alongside learn to live with it.

Undoubtedly, this line will not generate any benefit for Buckinghamshire. But it is not being built for the residents of Buckinghamshire.

It is being built primarily for the residents of London and Birmingham, and then ultimately Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow - the main centres of habitation in the United Kingdom, the catchment areas of which combined make up a very large proportion of the UK population. These millions who willl benefit from improved transport links, economic advantages and the increased competiveness that would result far outnumber the privileged few that are sealed away from the real world in these areas.

Passionate believer as I am in the beauty and worth of our rural areas, this line is essential and at some point over the next 50 years we will have to build it or something very similar - perhaps something even faster, as we don't live in a museum. I can only hope that a Conservative or Labour Government hold their nerve and don't lose momentum to "influential" lobbies in Buckinghamshire who are interested in preserving their surroundings as if the world stopped developing about 200 years ago.
At last a voice of reason!!
[quote][p][bold]ForestCarer[/bold] wrote: I love the English countryside, and I am well versed in the arguments surrounding the conservation of habitats vs economic and technological development. I practice what I preach, being an active volunteer conservationist and member of the CPRE. I agree that some of the areas that the proposed HSR route runs through are historic and scenic, and would undoubtedly be spoiled and blighted relative to their current standards of beauty. Life for many of those living in these areas will be worse as a result, and for some lives and livelihoods will be ruined. In an ideal world, the route would be run entirely through brown field sites, along existing transport corridors, or even be driven through tunnels along its whole length. Unfortunately, none of these are options. There may be alternatives, but whichever route this line takes, there will be winners and losers. I lived until recently in Lenham, Kent, an area just as picturesque as any in Bucks and just half a mile from HS1. The construction phase was well handled and the end result was nowhere near as bad as you might think reading the stories of doom above. With the appropriate measures in place, the line has no appreciable negative effect on wildlife, and even the humans living alongside learn to live with it. Undoubtedly, this line will not generate any benefit for Buckinghamshire. But it is not being built for the residents of Buckinghamshire. It is being built primarily for the residents of London and Birmingham, and then ultimately Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow - the main centres of habitation in the United Kingdom, the catchment areas of which combined make up a very large proportion of the UK population. These millions who willl benefit from improved transport links, economic advantages and the increased competiveness that would result far outnumber the privileged few that are sealed away from the real world in these areas. Passionate believer as I am in the beauty and worth of our rural areas, this line is essential and at some point over the next 50 years we will have to build it or something very similar - perhaps something even faster, as we don't live in a museum. I can only hope that a Conservative or Labour Government hold their nerve and don't lose momentum to "influential" lobbies in Buckinghamshire who are interested in preserving their surroundings as if the world stopped developing about 200 years ago.[/p][/quote]At last a voice of reason!! Farmer Pickles
  • Score: 0

11:46pm Thu 11 Mar 10

OllieNewbury says...

ForestCarer wrote:
I love the English countryside, and I am well versed in the arguments surrounding the conservation of habitats vs economic and technological development. I practice what I preach, being an active volunteer conservationist and member of the CPRE.

I agree that some of the areas that the proposed HSR route runs through are historic and scenic, and would undoubtedly be spoiled and blighted relative to their current standards of beauty. Life for many of those living in these areas will be worse as a result, and for some lives and livelihoods will be ruined.

In an ideal world, the route would be run entirely through brown field sites, along existing transport corridors, or even be driven through tunnels along its whole length. Unfortunately, none of these are options. There may be alternatives, but whichever route this line takes, there will be winners and losers.

I lived until recently in Lenham, Kent, an area just as picturesque as any in Bucks and just half a mile from HS1. The construction phase was well handled and the end result was nowhere near as bad as you might think reading the stories of doom above. With the appropriate measures in place, the line has no appreciable negative effect on wildlife, and even the humans living alongside learn to live with it.

Undoubtedly, this line will not generate any benefit for Buckinghamshire. But it is not being built for the residents of Buckinghamshire.

It is being built primarily for the residents of London and Birmingham, and then ultimately Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow - the main centres of habitation in the United Kingdom, the catchment areas of which combined make up a very large proportion of the UK population. These millions who willl benefit from improved transport links, economic advantages and the increased competiveness that would result far outnumber the privileged few that are sealed away from the real world in these areas.

Passionate believer as I am in the beauty and worth of our rural areas, this line is essential and at some point over the next 50 years we will have to build it or something very similar - perhaps something even faster, as we don't live in a museum. I can only hope that a Conservative or Labour Government hold their nerve and don't lose momentum to "influential" lobbies in Buckinghamshire who are interested in preserving their surroundings as if the world stopped developing about 200 years ago.
I agree. I've seen HS1 in Kent and it wasn't as bad as some make out.
[quote][p][bold]ForestCarer[/bold] wrote: I love the English countryside, and I am well versed in the arguments surrounding the conservation of habitats vs economic and technological development. I practice what I preach, being an active volunteer conservationist and member of the CPRE. I agree that some of the areas that the proposed HSR route runs through are historic and scenic, and would undoubtedly be spoiled and blighted relative to their current standards of beauty. Life for many of those living in these areas will be worse as a result, and for some lives and livelihoods will be ruined. In an ideal world, the route would be run entirely through brown field sites, along existing transport corridors, or even be driven through tunnels along its whole length. Unfortunately, none of these are options. There may be alternatives, but whichever route this line takes, there will be winners and losers. I lived until recently in Lenham, Kent, an area just as picturesque as any in Bucks and just half a mile from HS1. The construction phase was well handled and the end result was nowhere near as bad as you might think reading the stories of doom above. With the appropriate measures in place, the line has no appreciable negative effect on wildlife, and even the humans living alongside learn to live with it. Undoubtedly, this line will not generate any benefit for Buckinghamshire. But it is not being built for the residents of Buckinghamshire. It is being built primarily for the residents of London and Birmingham, and then ultimately Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow - the main centres of habitation in the United Kingdom, the catchment areas of which combined make up a very large proportion of the UK population. These millions who willl benefit from improved transport links, economic advantages and the increased competiveness that would result far outnumber the privileged few that are sealed away from the real world in these areas. Passionate believer as I am in the beauty and worth of our rural areas, this line is essential and at some point over the next 50 years we will have to build it or something very similar - perhaps something even faster, as we don't live in a museum. I can only hope that a Conservative or Labour Government hold their nerve and don't lose momentum to "influential" lobbies in Buckinghamshire who are interested in preserving their surroundings as if the world stopped developing about 200 years ago.[/p][/quote]I agree. I've seen HS1 in Kent and it wasn't as bad as some make out. OllieNewbury
  • Score: 0

11:46pm Thu 11 Mar 10

boney2728 says...

@ Forestcarer.
Undoubtedly, this line will not generate any benefit for Buckinghamshire. But it is not being built for the residents of Buckinghamshire.

Your quote, and exactly one of the reasons why we should not put up with it.
@ Forestcarer. Undoubtedly, this line will not generate any benefit for Buckinghamshire. But it is not being built for the residents of Buckinghamshire. Your quote, and exactly one of the reasons why we should not put up with it. boney2728
  • Score: 0

11:48pm Thu 11 Mar 10

OllieNewbury says...

boney2728 wrote:
@ Forestcarer.
Undoubtedly, this line will not generate any benefit for Buckinghamshire. But it is not being built for the residents of Buckinghamshire.

Your quote, and exactly one of the reasons why we should not put up with it.
But what if a station was provided for Bucks?
[quote][p][bold]boney2728[/bold] wrote: @ Forestcarer. Undoubtedly, this line will not generate any benefit for Buckinghamshire. But it is not being built for the residents of Buckinghamshire. Your quote, and exactly one of the reasons why we should not put up with it.[/p][/quote]But what if a station was provided for Bucks? OllieNewbury
  • Score: 0

11:54pm Thu 11 Mar 10

boney2728 says...

OllieNewbury wrote:
boney2728 wrote:
@ Forestcarer.
Undoubtedly, this line will not generate any benefit for Buckinghamshire. But it is not being built for the residents of Buckinghamshire.

Your quote, and exactly one of the reasons why we should not put up with it.
But what if a station was provided for Bucks?
But there will be no station for Bucks, As this will defeat the object of a high speed line.
All this project will do is ruin the countryside , disrupt wildlife as well as the communities that will have to live along side the proposed line.
[quote][p][bold]OllieNewbury[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boney2728[/bold] wrote: @ Forestcarer. Undoubtedly, this line will not generate any benefit for Buckinghamshire. But it is not being built for the residents of Buckinghamshire. Your quote, and exactly one of the reasons why we should not put up with it.[/p][/quote]But what if a station was provided for Bucks?[/p][/quote]But there will be no station for Bucks, As this will defeat the object of a high speed line. All this project will do is ruin the countryside , disrupt wildlife as well as the communities that will have to live along side the proposed line. boney2728
  • Score: 0

12:07am Fri 12 Mar 10

J B Blackett says...

Farmer Pickles wrote:
ForestCarer wrote:
I love the English countryside, and I am well versed in the arguments surrounding the conservation of habitats vs economic and technological development. I practice what I preach, being an active volunteer conservationist and member of the CPRE.

I agree that some of the areas that the proposed HSR route runs through are historic and scenic, and would undoubtedly be spoiled and blighted relative to their current standards of beauty. Life for many of those living in these areas will be worse as a result, and for some lives and livelihoods will be ruined.

In an ideal world, the route would be run entirely through brown field sites, along existing transport corridors, or even be driven through tunnels along its whole length. Unfortunately, none of these are options. There may be alternatives, but whichever route this line takes, there will be winners and losers.

I lived until recently in Lenham, Kent, an area just as picturesque as any in Bucks and just half a mile from HS1. The construction phase was well handled and the end result was nowhere near as bad as you might think reading the stories of doom above. With the appropriate measures in place, the line has no appreciable negative effect on wildlife, and even the humans living alongside learn to live with it.

Undoubtedly, this line will not generate any benefit for Buckinghamshire. But it is not being built for the residents of Buckinghamshire.

It is being built primarily for the residents of London and Birmingham, and then ultimately Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow - the main centres of habitation in the United Kingdom, the catchment areas of which combined make up a very large proportion of the UK population. These millions who willl benefit from improved transport links, economic advantages and the increased competiveness that would result far outnumber the privileged few that are sealed away from the real world in these areas.

Passionate believer as I am in the beauty and worth of our rural areas, this line is essential and at some point over the next 50 years we will have to build it or something very similar - perhaps something even faster, as we don't live in a museum. I can only hope that a Conservative or Labour Government hold their nerve and don't lose momentum to "influential" lobbies in Buckinghamshire who are interested in preserving their surroundings as if the world stopped developing about 200 years ago.
At last a voice of reason!!
Did you mean treason ?
[quote][p][bold]Farmer Pickles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ForestCarer[/bold] wrote: I love the English countryside, and I am well versed in the arguments surrounding the conservation of habitats vs economic and technological development. I practice what I preach, being an active volunteer conservationist and member of the CPRE. I agree that some of the areas that the proposed HSR route runs through are historic and scenic, and would undoubtedly be spoiled and blighted relative to their current standards of beauty. Life for many of those living in these areas will be worse as a result, and for some lives and livelihoods will be ruined. In an ideal world, the route would be run entirely through brown field sites, along existing transport corridors, or even be driven through tunnels along its whole length. Unfortunately, none of these are options. There may be alternatives, but whichever route this line takes, there will be winners and losers. I lived until recently in Lenham, Kent, an area just as picturesque as any in Bucks and just half a mile from HS1. The construction phase was well handled and the end result was nowhere near as bad as you might think reading the stories of doom above. With the appropriate measures in place, the line has no appreciable negative effect on wildlife, and even the humans living alongside learn to live with it. Undoubtedly, this line will not generate any benefit for Buckinghamshire. But it is not being built for the residents of Buckinghamshire. It is being built primarily for the residents of London and Birmingham, and then ultimately Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow - the main centres of habitation in the United Kingdom, the catchment areas of which combined make up a very large proportion of the UK population. These millions who willl benefit from improved transport links, economic advantages and the increased competiveness that would result far outnumber the privileged few that are sealed away from the real world in these areas. Passionate believer as I am in the beauty and worth of our rural areas, this line is essential and at some point over the next 50 years we will have to build it or something very similar - perhaps something even faster, as we don't live in a museum. I can only hope that a Conservative or Labour Government hold their nerve and don't lose momentum to "influential" lobbies in Buckinghamshire who are interested in preserving their surroundings as if the world stopped developing about 200 years ago.[/p][/quote]At last a voice of reason!![/p][/quote]Did you mean treason ? J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

12:21am Fri 12 Mar 10

ForestCarer says...

OllieNewbury wrote:
boney2728 wrote: @ Forestcarer. Undoubtedly, this line will not generate any benefit for Buckinghamshire. But it is not being built for the residents of Buckinghamshire. Your quote, and exactly one of the reasons why we should not put up with it.
But what if a station was provided for Bucks?
That's my point - it's an unfortunate reality that any form of high speed transport passes through - but doesn't necessarily stop at - a whole strip of countryside. Many a motorway has been built within yards of a housing estate which is miles from the nearest junction. That doesn't mean it shouldn't pass through though - unless there really is a global majority that doesn't want it rather than just local objection. The benefit of the many sometimes has to outweigh the preferences of a few. That said, a full national debate may reveal that the country as a whole would rather foresake their future transport prospects for those of your area, I don't know.

In any case, as OllieNewbury says, there could be a local station to benefit locals, although I guess that this would have to be served by a slower stopping train akin to the SouthEastern High Speed services interlaced in between the Eurostar trains?

If I lived in the Amersham area, I'd probably share some of the opposing views, but I'm trying to voice the national considerations not just the local ones. And who knows, maybe Milton Keynes is a better route? But it needs to go somewhere.
[quote][p][bold]OllieNewbury[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boney2728[/bold] wrote: @ Forestcarer. Undoubtedly, this line will not generate any benefit for Buckinghamshire. But it is not being built for the residents of Buckinghamshire. Your quote, and exactly one of the reasons why we should not put up with it.[/p][/quote]But what if a station was provided for Bucks?[/p][/quote]That's my point - it's an unfortunate reality that any form of high speed transport passes through - but doesn't necessarily stop at - a whole strip of countryside. Many a motorway has been built within yards of a housing estate which is miles from the nearest junction. That doesn't mean it shouldn't pass through though - unless there really is a global majority that doesn't want it rather than just local objection. The benefit of the many sometimes has to outweigh the preferences of a few. That said, a full national debate may reveal that the country as a whole would rather foresake their future transport prospects for those of your area, I don't know. In any case, as OllieNewbury says, there could be a local station to benefit locals, although I guess that this would have to be served by a slower stopping train akin to the SouthEastern High Speed services interlaced in between the Eurostar trains? If I lived in the Amersham area, I'd probably share some of the opposing views, but I'm trying to voice the national considerations not just the local ones. And who knows, maybe Milton Keynes is a better route? But it needs to go somewhere. ForestCarer
  • Score: 0

12:33am Fri 12 Mar 10

dippy d says...

Well obviously 'HS2' is going to cause a few problems.

I tell you one thing though, I've always wanted a rail line running from London to Birmingham, and then onto Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow & Edinburgh... oh wait! i can already, its called the 'West-Coast Mainline'!.

So that will be 3 main line routes running from London to Birmingham, ie: the Chilterns line, West-Coast main line and HS2. And Birmingham New Street is stretched to full capacity as it is (cause i assume the route will end there, unless they build a new station).

And considering the trains will be traveling at 225mph, you ain't really got much time to enjoy the scenery. And what if the cold weather comes?? They need to overcome the problems that Eurostar faced this winter.. if that happens, there will be a lot of unhappy customers!
Well obviously 'HS2' is going to cause a few problems. I tell you one thing though, I've always wanted a rail line running from London to Birmingham, and then onto Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow & Edinburgh... oh wait! i can already, its called the 'West-Coast Mainline'!. So that will be 3 main line routes running from London to Birmingham, ie: the Chilterns line, West-Coast main line and HS2. And Birmingham New Street is stretched to full capacity as it is (cause i assume the route will end there, unless they build a new station). And considering the trains will be traveling at 225mph, you ain't really got much time to enjoy the scenery. And what if the cold weather comes?? They need to overcome the problems that Eurostar faced this winter.. if that happens, there will be a lot of unhappy customers! dippy d
  • Score: 0

12:36am Fri 12 Mar 10

OllieNewbury says...

dippy d wrote:
Well obviously 'HS2' is going to cause a few problems.

I tell you one thing though, I've always wanted a rail line running from London to Birmingham, and then onto Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow & Edinburgh... oh wait! i can already, its called the 'West-Coast Mainline'!.

So that will be 3 main line routes running from London to Birmingham, ie: the Chilterns line, West-Coast main line and HS2. And Birmingham New Street is stretched to full capacity as it is (cause i assume the route will end there, unless they build a new station).

And considering the trains will be traveling at 225mph, you ain't really got much time to enjoy the scenery. And what if the cold weather comes?? They need to overcome the problems that Eurostar faced this winter.. if that happens, there will be a lot of unhappy customers!
HS2 services will use a re-opened station called Curzon Street in Birmingham city centre.
[quote][p][bold]dippy d[/bold] wrote: Well obviously 'HS2' is going to cause a few problems. I tell you one thing though, I've always wanted a rail line running from London to Birmingham, and then onto Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow & Edinburgh... oh wait! i can already, its called the 'West-Coast Mainline'!. So that will be 3 main line routes running from London to Birmingham, ie: the Chilterns line, West-Coast main line and HS2. And Birmingham New Street is stretched to full capacity as it is (cause i assume the route will end there, unless they build a new station). And considering the trains will be traveling at 225mph, you ain't really got much time to enjoy the scenery. And what if the cold weather comes?? They need to overcome the problems that Eurostar faced this winter.. if that happens, there will be a lot of unhappy customers![/p][/quote]HS2 services will use a re-opened station called Curzon Street in Birmingham city centre. OllieNewbury
  • Score: 0

12:43am Fri 12 Mar 10

boney2728 says...

Forestcarer , I would go a bit further than saying that you would probably share some of the opposing views if you lived in the Amersham area.
I would also include Great Missenden , Wendover, Stoke Mandeville, Aylesbury , Waddesdon and Quainton.
I honestly do not see why it is needed. It is an awful lot of money to knock just 20 minutes off of a journey time to Birmingham.
And at the end of the day, the commuter who will use the service if it goes ahead . Will still suffer from striking staff, leaves on the line and the wrong sort of snow...
Forestcarer , I would go a bit further than saying that you would probably share some of the opposing views if you lived in the Amersham area. I would also include Great Missenden , Wendover, Stoke Mandeville, Aylesbury , Waddesdon and Quainton. I honestly do not see why it is needed. It is an awful lot of money to knock just 20 minutes off of a journey time to Birmingham. And at the end of the day, the commuter who will use the service if it goes ahead . Will still suffer from striking staff, leaves on the line and the wrong sort of snow... boney2728
  • Score: 0

1:00am Fri 12 Mar 10

dippy d says...

Thanks ollie for correcting me there :).

But to be honest i think its still a big waste of money. And if there is no direct rail link from here to Birmingham on HS2 then i am still going to catch a Chiltern train to Birmingham.. you know why? because it will be quicker.

If you went to London, you would have to catch the train to London, get on the Underground, get to your station, wait for your train to pop up on the board. By which time you would already be in Birmingham on this line.

And im sure in 25 years time, when the proposed route opens, that Chiltern Railways will have some new and better trains.. well i certainly hope so.
Thanks ollie for correcting me there :). But to be honest i think its still a big waste of money. And if there is no direct rail link from here to Birmingham on HS2 then i am still going to catch a Chiltern train to Birmingham.. you know why? because it will be quicker. If you went to London, you would have to catch the train to London, get on the Underground, get to your station, wait for your train to pop up on the board. By which time you would already be in Birmingham on this line. And im sure in 25 years time, when the proposed route opens, that Chiltern Railways will have some new and better trains.. well i certainly hope so. dippy d
  • Score: 0

1:07am Fri 12 Mar 10

OllieNewbury says...

dippy d wrote:
Thanks ollie for correcting me there :).

But to be honest i think its still a big waste of money. And if there is no direct rail link from here to Birmingham on HS2 then i am still going to catch a Chiltern train to Birmingham.. you know why? because it will be quicker.

If you went to London, you would have to catch the train to London, get on the Underground, get to your station, wait for your train to pop up on the board. By which time you would already be in Birmingham on this line.

And im sure in 25 years time, when the proposed route opens, that Chiltern Railways will have some new and better trains.. well i certainly hope so.
I hope that if this scheme does go ahead, they'll do more to attract people along the line by including a couple of intermediate stations. That's not to say every train would stop at every station; there could be varying service patterns like there are on the existing HS1. I think a good place for a station would be near Aylesbury, as it is about a third of the way up, and is the hub of Buckinghamshire's roads (and hopefully rail if the East-West link goes ahead).
[quote][p][bold]dippy d[/bold] wrote: Thanks ollie for correcting me there :). But to be honest i think its still a big waste of money. And if there is no direct rail link from here to Birmingham on HS2 then i am still going to catch a Chiltern train to Birmingham.. you know why? because it will be quicker. If you went to London, you would have to catch the train to London, get on the Underground, get to your station, wait for your train to pop up on the board. By which time you would already be in Birmingham on this line. And im sure in 25 years time, when the proposed route opens, that Chiltern Railways will have some new and better trains.. well i certainly hope so.[/p][/quote]I hope that if this scheme does go ahead, they'll do more to attract people along the line by including a couple of intermediate stations. That's not to say every train would stop at every station; there could be varying service patterns like there are on the existing HS1. I think a good place for a station would be near Aylesbury, as it is about a third of the way up, and is the hub of Buckinghamshire's roads (and hopefully rail if the East-West link goes ahead). OllieNewbury
  • Score: 0

1:39am Fri 12 Mar 10

J B Blackett says...

It would defeat the stated purpose of the high-speed train to have a few stops along its route. It takes 2 to 3 km to stop and then to get up to speed again anyway
.
That would cut across all the quoted and much vaunted energy usage figures. Speak to the politicians ; I'm sure they will listen to you and take action on your behalf whatever the cost to their credibility
.
Pardon my cynicism
It would defeat the stated purpose of the high-speed train to have a few stops along its route. It takes 2 to 3 km to stop and then to get up to speed again anyway . That would cut across all the quoted and much vaunted energy usage figures. Speak to the politicians ; I'm sure they will listen to you and take action on your behalf whatever the cost to their credibility . Pardon my cynicism J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

4:06am Fri 12 Mar 10

Salopia says...

Now I can see the snobbish people on here hiding behind the what about the trees argument, but if the route was to go somewhere else it would take longer and there for destroy more trees.

High speed trains are quieter than normal ones, they can cut down on cars and planes going through bucks and most importantly the money spent will help companies and jobs
Now I can see the snobbish people on here hiding behind the what about the trees argument, but if the route was to go somewhere else it would take longer and there for destroy more trees. High speed trains are quieter than normal ones, they can cut down on cars and planes going through bucks and most importantly the money spent will help companies and jobs Salopia
  • Score: 0

7:57am Fri 12 Mar 10

demoness says...

Salopia wrote:
Now I can see the snobbish people on here hiding behind the what about the trees argument, but if the route was to go somewhere else it would take longer and there for destroy more trees. High speed trains are quieter than normal ones, they can cut down on cars and planes going through bucks and most importantly the money spent will help companies and jobs
I can assure you I am not a snobbish person hiding behind the trees argument. I would be the same if it were anywhere so cut with the ridiculous name calling.

The fact is this line is not needed for the many reasons cited above.
[quote][p][bold]Salopia[/bold] wrote: Now I can see the snobbish people on here hiding behind the what about the trees argument, but if the route was to go somewhere else it would take longer and there for destroy more trees. High speed trains are quieter than normal ones, they can cut down on cars and planes going through bucks and most importantly the money spent will help companies and jobs[/p][/quote]I can assure you I am not a snobbish person hiding behind the trees argument. I would be the same if it were anywhere so cut with the ridiculous name calling. The fact is this line is not needed for the many reasons cited above. demoness
  • Score: 0

9:18am Fri 12 Mar 10

pllb says...

I don't understand why this rail line isn't starting at Heathrow, if the aim is really to cut down on internal flights then why not link it to the airport and combine with Heathrow Express line?
I don't understand why this rail line isn't starting at Heathrow, if the aim is really to cut down on internal flights then why not link it to the airport and combine with Heathrow Express line? pllb
  • Score: 0

9:30am Fri 12 Mar 10

Maypole says...

As an ex resident of Hazlemere now living in Somerset I was sorry and sad to hear that yet more of the countryside in the Chilterns is to be detroyed with no clear reasons expect for the 45 minute journey to Birmingham. Where we live now is under threat from the Governement dictating that thousands of houses have to be built, I think it is time that we all take a step back and debate like adults the actual benefits (if any) to this "progress" and save this small overcrowded island before we pave over everything and leave nothing for the future generations.

I am sure I will be howled at and shouted down but back biting and commenting like children to peoples concerns is hardly constructive.
As an ex resident of Hazlemere now living in Somerset I was sorry and sad to hear that yet more of the countryside in the Chilterns is to be detroyed with no clear reasons expect for the 45 minute journey to Birmingham. Where we live now is under threat from the Governement dictating that thousands of houses have to be built, I think it is time that we all take a step back and debate like adults the actual benefits (if any) to this "progress" and save this small overcrowded island before we pave over everything and leave nothing for the future generations. I am sure I will be howled at and shouted down but back biting and commenting like children to peoples concerns is hardly constructive. Maypole
  • Score: 0

10:02am Fri 12 Mar 10

boney2728 says...

And if the commuter wants to get to Birmingham 20-30 minutes earlier then maybe they should get up earlier.
Problem solved.
And if the commuter wants to get to Birmingham 20-30 minutes earlier then maybe they should get up earlier. Problem solved. boney2728
  • Score: 0

11:26am Fri 12 Mar 10

dippy d says...

pllb wrote:
I don't understand why this rail line isn't starting at Heathrow, if the aim is really to cut down on internal flights then why not link it to the airport and combine with Heathrow Express line?
Because maybe Heathrow is congested as it is, you got the London Underground, the Heathrow Express and in 7 years time the London Crosslink Line. I think the space at Heathrow is very limited as it is, especially building a whole new hub.. where would they put it??
[quote][p][bold]pllb[/bold] wrote: I don't understand why this rail line isn't starting at Heathrow, if the aim is really to cut down on internal flights then why not link it to the airport and combine with Heathrow Express line?[/p][/quote]Because maybe Heathrow is congested as it is, you got the London Underground, the Heathrow Express and in 7 years time the London Crosslink Line. I think the space at Heathrow is very limited as it is, especially building a whole new hub.. where would they put it?? dippy d
  • Score: 0

11:58am Fri 12 Mar 10

Steve Totteridge Hill says...

Shame they missed out linking High Wycombe!
Shame they missed out linking High Wycombe! Steve Totteridge Hill
  • Score: 0

12:58pm Fri 12 Mar 10

J B Blackett says...

Too many people in the SE
Too many people in the SE J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Fri 12 Mar 10

Wharfrat says...

So...we need this line why?
Wanna go from London - Birmingham? Perfectly good line out of Euston to Brum running up by Hemel etc.
Wanna fly into the UK and be in Birmingham? Well, fly to f*cking Birmingham then, why go to Heathrow & take the train?

Oh and there aren't due to be any stations in the Chilterns, so it's of no use to anyone living here unlike the existing railways, M40 &c.
So...we need this line why? Wanna go from London - Birmingham? Perfectly good line out of Euston to Brum running up by Hemel etc. Wanna fly into the UK and be in Birmingham? Well, fly to f*cking Birmingham then, why go to Heathrow & take the train? Oh and there aren't due to be any stations in the Chilterns, so it's of no use to anyone living here unlike the existing railways, M40 &c. Wharfrat
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Fri 12 Mar 10

pllb says...

dippy d wrote:
pllb wrote: I don't understand why this rail line isn't starting at Heathrow, if the aim is really to cut down on internal flights then why not link it to the airport and combine with Heathrow Express line?
Because maybe Heathrow is congested as it is, you got the London Underground, the Heathrow Express and in 7 years time the London Crosslink Line. I think the space at Heathrow is very limited as it is, especially building a whole new hub.. where would they put it??
Well why not link it with Crosslink then and take advantage of the infrastructure being created around that - as stated in other comemnts there is already a perfectly good line to B'ham out of Euston, why build a new one? I think the Labour government are building through the "Conservative" Chilterns as they have nothing to lose vote wise by doing so.
[quote][p][bold]dippy d[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pllb[/bold] wrote: I don't understand why this rail line isn't starting at Heathrow, if the aim is really to cut down on internal flights then why not link it to the airport and combine with Heathrow Express line?[/p][/quote]Because maybe Heathrow is congested as it is, you got the London Underground, the Heathrow Express and in 7 years time the London Crosslink Line. I think the space at Heathrow is very limited as it is, especially building a whole new hub.. where would they put it??[/p][/quote]Well why not link it with Crosslink then and take advantage of the infrastructure being created around that - as stated in other comemnts there is already a perfectly good line to B'ham out of Euston, why build a new one? I think the Labour government are building through the "Conservative" Chilterns as they have nothing to lose vote wise by doing so. pllb
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Fri 12 Mar 10

J B Blackett says...

No really - you really think that our politicians are actually that undemocratic, underhand , devious and manipulative in their processes and procedures ?
.
Surely not ! How cynical can one get ?
I would have a word with the MP from Aylesbury if I were you. If what you say is true it's a Bad Show and some people (Lord Adonis ? - a god among mortals) are not playing the game.
.
Good luck
No really - you really think that our politicians are actually that undemocratic, underhand , devious and manipulative in their processes and procedures ? . Surely not ! How cynical can one get ? I would have a word with the MP from Aylesbury if I were you. If what you say is true it's a Bad Show and some people (Lord Adonis ? - a god among mortals) are not playing the game. . Good luck J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Fri 12 Mar 10

J B Blackett says...

No really - you really think that our politicians are actually that undemocratic, underhand , devious and manipulative in their processes and procedures ?
.
Surely not ! How cynical can one get ?
I would have a word with the MP from Aylesbury if I were you. If what you say is true it's a Bad Show and some people (Lord Adonis ? - a god among mortals) are not playing the game.
.
Good luck
No really - you really think that our politicians are actually that undemocratic, underhand , devious and manipulative in their processes and procedures ? . Surely not ! How cynical can one get ? I would have a word with the MP from Aylesbury if I were you. If what you say is true it's a Bad Show and some people (Lord Adonis ? - a god among mortals) are not playing the game. . Good luck J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

3:19pm Sat 13 Mar 10

cweather says...

As someone who was brought up in the area, but now lives in the North, I can see the need for a new high speed rail link; the West Coast Main Line upgrade did nothing to improve journey times, which are now little better that the express timings that were being achieved back in 1990.
The existing main line also runs through the Chilterns, but would be far more costly to upgrade to the proposed level of the new line; not to mention more rail traffic delays whilst the work is being done.

I can see that there will be disurption whilst the line is being built, but the overall impact would be little, and the countryside along the route is hardly pristine.
The road network around the area of the route has been vastly upgraded in the past 30 years, ripping up the same countryside that the proposed line will go through. Look at what a scar the Amersham
Bypass, - and anyone who has tried to cross it on foot, will realise that it cuts the valley in half for wildlife. But does anybody even notice the present line running through up Misbourne valley, in contrast to the noisy dual carrige way , that you can hear on any walk in the area.
As someone who was brought up in the area, but now lives in the North, I can see the need for a new high speed rail link; the West Coast Main Line upgrade did nothing to improve journey times, which are now little better that the express timings that were being achieved back in 1990. The existing main line also runs through the Chilterns, but would be far more costly to upgrade to the proposed level of the new line; not to mention more rail traffic delays whilst the work is being done. I can see that there will be disurption whilst the line is being built, but the overall impact would be little, and the countryside along the route is hardly pristine. The road network around the area of the route has been vastly upgraded in the past 30 years, ripping up the same countryside that the proposed line will go through. Look at what a scar the Amersham Bypass, - and anyone who has tried to cross it on foot, will realise that it cuts the valley in half for wildlife. But does anybody even notice the present line running through up Misbourne valley, in contrast to the noisy dual carrige way , that you can hear on any walk in the area. cweather
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Sat 13 Mar 10

boney2728 says...

@cweather, Mmmmnn , I think there is some difference between a 20 metre wide By-pass and a 100 metre High speed line.Also the road system in the area serves the community where as this rail line will not.
I moved to where i live for the views and peace and quiet it provides . Now that may be destroyed because a poxy rail line may be going through my back garden.Just so that it can get some commuter up to Birmingham a few minutes earlier . Well they should do what i do and get up a bit earlier . Problem solved .
Rant over before i lose it.
@cweather, Mmmmnn , I think there is some difference between a 20 metre wide By-pass and a 100 metre High speed line.Also the road system in the area serves the community where as this rail line will not. I moved to where i live for the views and peace and quiet it provides . Now that may be destroyed because a poxy rail line may be going through my back garden.Just so that it can get some commuter up to Birmingham a few minutes earlier . Well they should do what i do and get up a bit earlier . Problem solved . Rant over before i lose it. boney2728
  • Score: 0

6:05pm Sat 13 Mar 10

Why am I paying for your third home? says...

Interesting comments from the two local Conservative MPs and County Council leader. They can't oppose it outright because their own party nationally also supports this scheme. Gillans commitment to do all she can to make sure no homes are damaged (assuming the Cons win the election) is utterly hopeless. Its not just the direct damage that will be done to homes (some of them destroyed altogether), but the damage to the AONB. There's no use just fiddling about with the route to avoid a couple more homes here or a wood there - it needs kicking out altogether. If our sitting MPs can't oppose this properly then we have a chance to do something about that in a few weeks time.
Interesting comments from the two local Conservative MPs and County Council leader. They can't oppose it outright because their own party nationally also supports this scheme. Gillans commitment to do all she can to make sure no homes are damaged (assuming the Cons win the election) is utterly hopeless. Its not just the direct damage that will be done to homes (some of them destroyed altogether), but the damage to the AONB. There's no use just fiddling about with the route to avoid a couple more homes here or a wood there - it needs kicking out altogether. If our sitting MPs can't oppose this properly then we have a chance to do something about that in a few weeks time. Why am I paying for your third home?
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Sat 13 Mar 10

Why am I paying for your third home? says...

Forestcarer,
It's a pity you dismiss the objections as just Bucks nimbyism. We are a small overcrowded densely populated country with very few remaining unspoilt tranquil areas (in England and none other this close to London). Do you think that people living in London, Birmingham and the rest don't also want to enjoy these areas? We are not France or Spain where these high speed rail connections are a really essential alternative to flying very long distances between major cities. I see no reason at all why £XX billion (who believes the official estimate?) needs to be spent so that people commuting from Birmingham can arrive in London 30 minutes earlier than they do currently. The reason so many people fly between London and Manchester/Liverpool
/Newcastle is nothing to do with the marginal time saving once you've allowed for airport hassle/check in- its the sheer cost of the train alternative as I know from a recent train trip from London to Manchester. If we spent this colossal HS2 sum on improving existing transport networks that would be a sensible way forward.
Forestcarer, It's a pity you dismiss the objections as just Bucks nimbyism. We are a small overcrowded densely populated country with very few remaining unspoilt tranquil areas (in England and none other this close to London). Do you think that people living in London, Birmingham and the rest don't also want to enjoy these areas? We are not France or Spain where these high speed rail connections are a really essential alternative to flying very long distances between major cities. I see no reason at all why £XX billion (who believes the official estimate?) needs to be spent so that people commuting from Birmingham can arrive in London 30 minutes earlier than they do currently. The reason so many people fly between London and Manchester/Liverpool /Newcastle is nothing to do with the marginal time saving once you've allowed for airport hassle/check in- its the sheer cost of the train alternative as I know from a recent train trip from London to Manchester. If we spent this colossal HS2 sum on improving existing transport networks that would be a sensible way forward. Why am I paying for your third home?
  • Score: 0

7:26pm Sat 13 Mar 10

J B Blackett says...

There's too many people in the way of the proposed railway - they have to go. There is no alternative according to most of our politicians.
.
And it's mostly us ( y'know the ordinary folk) that cause our poor politicians all the trouble , expense and heart-ache they keep telling us about in their difficult complicated hither-and-thither expensive lives.
.
We must not interfere with what they are trying to do. Please behave yourselves - let them do their 'jobs'. That's why you voted for them , isn't it ?
There's too many people in the way of the proposed railway - they have to go. There is no alternative according to most of our politicians. . And it's mostly us ( y'know the ordinary folk) that cause our poor politicians all the trouble , expense and heart-ache they keep telling us about in their difficult complicated hither-and-thither expensive lives. . We must not interfere with what they are trying to do. Please behave yourselves - let them do their 'jobs'. That's why you voted for them , isn't it ? J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

11:05pm Sat 13 Mar 10

Ewartwhatyoubulldoze says...

J B Blackett wrote:
There's too many people in the way of the proposed railway - they have to go. There is no alternative according to most of our politicians. . And it's mostly us ( y'know the ordinary folk) that cause our poor politicians all the trouble , expense and heart-ache they keep telling us about in their difficult complicated hither-and-thither expensive lives. . We must not interfere with what they are trying to do. Please behave yourselves - let them do their 'jobs'. That's why you voted for them , isn't it ?
Look, now we've stopped them having (and flipping) third and fourth homes in the capital, these representatives of the common man will have to commute from their distant home constituencies on a daily basis. And you can't expect them to do that on normal trains can you? No, what we need is a £30bn investment to get our beloved MPs to Westminster (the once or twice per month they bother turning up), in comfort. They can sit in first class filling out their expense forms and watch the lovely countryside flash past the window, faster than they can p*** our taxes into the wind.
[quote][p][bold]J B Blackett[/bold] wrote: There's too many people in the way of the proposed railway - they have to go. There is no alternative according to most of our politicians. . And it's mostly us ( y'know the ordinary folk) that cause our poor politicians all the trouble , expense and heart-ache they keep telling us about in their difficult complicated hither-and-thither expensive lives. . We must not interfere with what they are trying to do. Please behave yourselves - let them do their 'jobs'. That's why you voted for them , isn't it ?[/p][/quote]Look, now we've stopped them having (and flipping) third and fourth homes in the capital, these representatives of the common man will have to commute from their distant home constituencies on a daily basis. And you can't expect them to do that on normal trains can you? No, what we need is a £30bn investment to get our beloved MPs to Westminster (the once or twice per month they bother turning up), in comfort. They can sit in first class filling out their expense forms and watch the lovely countryside flash past the window, faster than they can p*** our taxes into the wind. Ewartwhatyoubulldoze
  • Score: 0

11:44pm Sat 13 Mar 10

Timbers says...

The initial Tory response, as detailed in the BFP, has been fairly predictable - and (true to form for the Tories) less than honest and honourable!

Several MPs (most notably those for Aylesbury and Chesham & Amersham) have said "vote for us and we will protect you from this new railway"

Given that the Conservative Party have also said that they are IN FAVOUR of the principle of HS2 and, indeed that they would start to build it 2 years quicker than Labour, then it quite reasonable to believe that they must have some idea of the route THEY wouuld take. They have said that their route would serve Heathrow more directly than Labour's, but otherwise would be the same basic London to Midlands link. Given also that it makes no commercial or economic sense for a high speed route to take a circuitous journey, it seems pretty reasonable to suppose that the Tory HS2 would take much the same route as Labour's.

So when David Liddington and Cheryl Gillan say "vote Conservative and we'll save you from the railway" they actually mean one of three things:

1) We actually don't know what route our proposals would take, so when we say "we will protect you" we actually have no idea whether this is true or not, and we are going to try and hoodwink you into believing that voting Tory promises a different outcome, whereas in fact we can have no certainty of this.

2) We actually DO know what route our proposals would take, and they are to all intents and purposes the same as those announced by Labour. When we say "vote Tory and we will save you from the railway" we are therefore being utter hypocrites. We refuse to be honest be you. You will find out what shameless and unprincipled liars we are only AFTER the election when we expect to take office and are then forced to announce our own proposals. Hey presto, they will prove that nothing will be different, but by then the election will be over and we won't have to worry about your vote for another 4 or 5 years.

3) Our proposals would take a different route and whilst voting Tory will have saved YOU from the railway, there will be voters in a neighbouring constituency (perhaps more marginal than ours) who we don't want to give any reason NOT to vote Conservative until after the election is over. Naturally, this means that we are still shameless hypocrites and fundamentally dishonest, but, hey, this is the Conservative Party and you're surely used to this by now!

It seems to me that one of these three alternatives MUST be true, and we ought perhaps to try to flush them out as to which it is, and not let them shamelessly paint themselves as the ones to vote for if you feel worrried by the route of the railway.
The initial Tory response, as detailed in the BFP, has been fairly predictable - and (true to form for the Tories) less than honest and honourable! Several MPs (most notably those for Aylesbury and Chesham & Amersham) have said "vote for us and we will protect you from this new railway" Given that the Conservative Party have also said that they are IN FAVOUR of the principle of HS2 and, indeed that they would start to build it 2 years quicker than Labour, then it quite reasonable to believe that they must have some idea of the route THEY wouuld take. They have said that their route would serve Heathrow more directly than Labour's, but otherwise would be the same basic London to Midlands link. Given also that it makes no commercial or economic sense for a high speed route to take a circuitous journey, it seems pretty reasonable to suppose that the Tory HS2 would take much the same route as Labour's. So when David Liddington and Cheryl Gillan say "vote Conservative and we'll save you from the railway" they actually mean one of three things: 1) We actually don't know what route our proposals would take, so when we say "we will protect you" we actually have no idea whether this is true or not, and we are going to try and hoodwink you into believing that voting Tory promises a different outcome, whereas in fact we can have no certainty of this. 2) We actually DO know what route our proposals would take, and they are to all intents and purposes the same as those announced by Labour. When we say "vote Tory and we will save you from the railway" we are therefore being utter hypocrites. We refuse to be honest be you. You will find out what shameless and unprincipled liars we are only AFTER the election when we expect to take office and are then forced to announce our own proposals. Hey presto, they will prove that nothing will be different, but by then the election will be over and we won't have to worry about your vote for another 4 or 5 years. 3) Our proposals would take a different route and whilst voting Tory will have saved YOU from the railway, there will be voters in a neighbouring constituency (perhaps more marginal than ours) who we don't want to give any reason NOT to vote Conservative until after the election is over. Naturally, this means that we are still shameless hypocrites and fundamentally dishonest, but, hey, this is the Conservative Party and you're surely used to this by now! It seems to me that one of these three alternatives MUST be true, and we ought perhaps to try to flush them out as to which it is, and not let them shamelessly paint themselves as the ones to vote for if you feel worrried by the route of the railway. Timbers
  • Score: 0

9:48am Sun 14 Mar 10

Ewartwhatyoubulldoze says...

Timbers wrote:
The initial Tory response, as detailed in the BFP, has been fairly predictable - and (true to form for the Tories) less than honest and honourable! Several MPs (most notably those for Aylesbury and Chesham & Amersham) have said "vote for us and we will protect you from this new railway" Given that the Conservative Party have also said that they are IN FAVOUR of the principle of HS2 and, indeed that they would start to build it 2 years quicker than Labour, then it quite reasonable to believe that they must have some idea of the route THEY wouuld take. They have said that their route would serve Heathrow more directly than Labour's, but otherwise would be the same basic London to Midlands link. Given also that it makes no commercial or economic sense for a high speed route to take a circuitous journey, it seems pretty reasonable to suppose that the Tory HS2 would take much the same route as Labour's. So when David Liddington and Cheryl Gillan say "vote Conservative and we'll save you from the railway" they actually mean one of three things: 1) We actually don't know what route our proposals would take, so when we say "we will protect you" we actually have no idea whether this is true or not, and we are going to try and hoodwink you into believing that voting Tory promises a different outcome, whereas in fact we can have no certainty of this. 2) We actually DO know what route our proposals would take, and they are to all intents and purposes the same as those announced by Labour. When we say "vote Tory and we will save you from the railway" we are therefore being utter hypocrites. We refuse to be honest be you. You will find out what shameless and unprincipled liars we are only AFTER the election when we expect to take office and are then forced to announce our own proposals. Hey presto, they will prove that nothing will be different, but by then the election will be over and we won't have to worry about your vote for another 4 or 5 years. 3) Our proposals would take a different route and whilst voting Tory will have saved YOU from the railway, there will be voters in a neighbouring constituency (perhaps more marginal than ours) who we don't want to give any reason NOT to vote Conservative until after the election is over. Naturally, this means that we are still shameless hypocrites and fundamentally dishonest, but, hey, this is the Conservative Party and you're surely used to this by now! It seems to me that one of these three alternatives MUST be true, and we ought perhaps to try to flush them out as to which it is, and not let them shamelessly paint themselves as the ones to vote for if you feel worrried by the route of the railway.
They are all politicians. So they say what they think will win them votes, then change their minds later. My expectation is that the whole think is just election bluster and will fall by the wayside after the election - when somebody admits that £30bn will actually be more like £60bn and we simply can't afford it.
[quote][p][bold]Timbers[/bold] wrote: The initial Tory response, as detailed in the BFP, has been fairly predictable - and (true to form for the Tories) less than honest and honourable! Several MPs (most notably those for Aylesbury and Chesham & Amersham) have said "vote for us and we will protect you from this new railway" Given that the Conservative Party have also said that they are IN FAVOUR of the principle of HS2 and, indeed that they would start to build it 2 years quicker than Labour, then it quite reasonable to believe that they must have some idea of the route THEY wouuld take. They have said that their route would serve Heathrow more directly than Labour's, but otherwise would be the same basic London to Midlands link. Given also that it makes no commercial or economic sense for a high speed route to take a circuitous journey, it seems pretty reasonable to suppose that the Tory HS2 would take much the same route as Labour's. So when David Liddington and Cheryl Gillan say "vote Conservative and we'll save you from the railway" they actually mean one of three things: 1) We actually don't know what route our proposals would take, so when we say "we will protect you" we actually have no idea whether this is true or not, and we are going to try and hoodwink you into believing that voting Tory promises a different outcome, whereas in fact we can have no certainty of this. 2) We actually DO know what route our proposals would take, and they are to all intents and purposes the same as those announced by Labour. When we say "vote Tory and we will save you from the railway" we are therefore being utter hypocrites. We refuse to be honest be you. You will find out what shameless and unprincipled liars we are only AFTER the election when we expect to take office and are then forced to announce our own proposals. Hey presto, they will prove that nothing will be different, but by then the election will be over and we won't have to worry about your vote for another 4 or 5 years. 3) Our proposals would take a different route and whilst voting Tory will have saved YOU from the railway, there will be voters in a neighbouring constituency (perhaps more marginal than ours) who we don't want to give any reason NOT to vote Conservative until after the election is over. Naturally, this means that we are still shameless hypocrites and fundamentally dishonest, but, hey, this is the Conservative Party and you're surely used to this by now! It seems to me that one of these three alternatives MUST be true, and we ought perhaps to try to flush them out as to which it is, and not let them shamelessly paint themselves as the ones to vote for if you feel worrried by the route of the railway.[/p][/quote]They are all politicians. So they say what they think will win them votes, then change their minds later. My expectation is that the whole think is just election bluster and will fall by the wayside after the election - when somebody admits that £30bn will actually be more like £60bn and we simply can't afford it. Ewartwhatyoubulldoze
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Sun 14 Mar 10

J B Blackett says...

Ewartwhatyoubulldoze wrote:
Timbers wrote:
The initial Tory response, as detailed in the BFP, has been fairly predictable - and (true to form for the Tories) less than honest and honourable! Several MPs (most notably those for Aylesbury and Chesham & Amersham) have said "vote for us and we will protect you from this new railway" Given that the Conservative Party have also said that they are IN FAVOUR of the principle of HS2 and, indeed that they would start to build it 2 years quicker than Labour, then it quite reasonable to believe that they must have some idea of the route THEY wouuld take. They have said that their route would serve Heathrow more directly than Labour's, but otherwise would be the same basic London to Midlands link. Given also that it makes no commercial or economic sense for a high speed route to take a circuitous journey, it seems pretty reasonable to suppose that the Tory HS2 would take much the same route as Labour's. So when David Liddington and Cheryl Gillan say "vote Conservative and we'll save you from the railway" they actually mean one of three things: 1) We actually don't know what route our proposals would take, so when we say "we will protect you" we actually have no idea whether this is true or not, and we are going to try and hoodwink you into believing that voting Tory promises a different outcome, whereas in fact we can have no certainty of this. 2) We actually DO know what route our proposals would take, and they are to all intents and purposes the same as those announced by Labour. When we say "vote Tory and we will save you from the railway" we are therefore being utter hypocrites. We refuse to be honest be you. You will find out what shameless and unprincipled liars we are only AFTER the election when we expect to take office and are then forced to announce our own proposals. Hey presto, they will prove that nothing will be different, but by then the election will be over and we won't have to worry about your vote for another 4 or 5 years. 3) Our proposals would take a different route and whilst voting Tory will have saved YOU from the railway, there will be voters in a neighbouring constituency (perhaps more marginal than ours) who we don't want to give any reason NOT to vote Conservative until after the election is over. Naturally, this means that we are still shameless hypocrites and fundamentally dishonest, but, hey, this is the Conservative Party and you're surely used to this by now! It seems to me that one of these three alternatives MUST be true, and we ought perhaps to try to flush them out as to which it is, and not let them shamelessly paint themselves as the ones to vote for if you feel worrried by the route of the railway.
They are all politicians. So they say what they think will win them votes, then change their minds later. My expectation is that the whole think is just election bluster and will fall by the wayside after the election - when somebody admits that £30bn will actually be more like £60bn and we simply can't afford it.
Agree wholeheartedly. Regards
[quote][p][bold]Ewartwhatyoubulldoze[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Timbers[/bold] wrote: The initial Tory response, as detailed in the BFP, has been fairly predictable - and (true to form for the Tories) less than honest and honourable! Several MPs (most notably those for Aylesbury and Chesham & Amersham) have said "vote for us and we will protect you from this new railway" Given that the Conservative Party have also said that they are IN FAVOUR of the principle of HS2 and, indeed that they would start to build it 2 years quicker than Labour, then it quite reasonable to believe that they must have some idea of the route THEY wouuld take. They have said that their route would serve Heathrow more directly than Labour's, but otherwise would be the same basic London to Midlands link. Given also that it makes no commercial or economic sense for a high speed route to take a circuitous journey, it seems pretty reasonable to suppose that the Tory HS2 would take much the same route as Labour's. So when David Liddington and Cheryl Gillan say "vote Conservative and we'll save you from the railway" they actually mean one of three things: 1) We actually don't know what route our proposals would take, so when we say "we will protect you" we actually have no idea whether this is true or not, and we are going to try and hoodwink you into believing that voting Tory promises a different outcome, whereas in fact we can have no certainty of this. 2) We actually DO know what route our proposals would take, and they are to all intents and purposes the same as those announced by Labour. When we say "vote Tory and we will save you from the railway" we are therefore being utter hypocrites. We refuse to be honest be you. You will find out what shameless and unprincipled liars we are only AFTER the election when we expect to take office and are then forced to announce our own proposals. Hey presto, they will prove that nothing will be different, but by then the election will be over and we won't have to worry about your vote for another 4 or 5 years. 3) Our proposals would take a different route and whilst voting Tory will have saved YOU from the railway, there will be voters in a neighbouring constituency (perhaps more marginal than ours) who we don't want to give any reason NOT to vote Conservative until after the election is over. Naturally, this means that we are still shameless hypocrites and fundamentally dishonest, but, hey, this is the Conservative Party and you're surely used to this by now! It seems to me that one of these three alternatives MUST be true, and we ought perhaps to try to flush them out as to which it is, and not let them shamelessly paint themselves as the ones to vote for if you feel worrried by the route of the railway.[/p][/quote]They are all politicians. So they say what they think will win them votes, then change their minds later. My expectation is that the whole think is just election bluster and will fall by the wayside after the election - when somebody admits that £30bn will actually be more like £60bn and we simply can't afford it.[/p][/quote]Agree wholeheartedly. Regards J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Mon 15 Mar 10

user1234567 says...

In my opinion anything that makes us closer to Birmingham is unwanted thank you very much in fact why would anyone want to be closer to Birmingham???

Wasting billions for 25 minutes... disgusting...
In my opinion anything that makes us closer to Birmingham is unwanted thank you very much in fact why would anyone want to be closer to Birmingham??? Wasting billions for 25 minutes... disgusting... user1234567
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Mon 15 Mar 10

user1234567 says...

OllieNewbury wrote:
Well I support it. The Chilterns form a natural arc north-west of London so any route has to go through them somewhere. They should however provide a station in the area. Looking at the map the line will pass close by to Aylesbury. How about there?
Idiot
[quote][p][bold]OllieNewbury[/bold] wrote: Well I support it. The Chilterns form a natural arc north-west of London so any route has to go through them somewhere. They should however provide a station in the area. Looking at the map the line will pass close by to Aylesbury. How about there?[/p][/quote]Idiot user1234567
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Mon 15 Mar 10

user1234567 says...

Wharfrat wrote:
One has to assume this is chosen because not one single Labour voter will be affected. Destroying green belt and AONBs seems to be all they stand for.
of course...
[quote][p][bold]Wharfrat[/bold] wrote: One has to assume this is chosen because not one single Labour voter will be affected. Destroying green belt and AONBs seems to be all they stand for.[/p][/quote]of course... user1234567
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree