probably linking to wikipedia is not a good option, it could be shaving 55 minutes off the journey within 2 seconds of me visiting it... then add 20 minutes when the next person visits.

Why not link to the HS2 website instead? High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd
(which, in fairness is ****)

Or High Speed Rail
which at least has a detailed report which was conducted into the alternatives to High Speed 2...

And 1 hour 50 minutes off a journey to Scotland, putting it at 2 Hours 40 minutes, makes it a competitor for flying
 
fooking NIMBY's make ya wanna vomit. That german pope shagger was right when it comes to transportation we are a 3rd world country. the worst service, lowest investment & highest fares per mile. Than most other countries.


Bout time they built summat decent.
 
fooking NIMBY's make ya wanna vomit. That german pope shagger was right when it comes to transportation we are a 3rd world country. the worst service, lowest investment & highest fares per mile. Than most other countries.


Bout time they built summat decent.


Bollox.

Once again I am at pains to agree !. ( first the the England footballers, now this ).

Surely a rail link has less impact on the counrtyside than 6/8 lanes of motorway ?.

I,m not saying that a new road is an option, but if we had really a good, affordable, rail system, then, perhaps, the huge roads that have been built over the years would not have been nescessary.

Del.
 
.... Hundreds of miles of countryside will be destroyed if this crock of **** is built. That is not worth the loss of more of our beautiful countryside.
we've been destroying countryside for thousands of years so why we going to stop now.
 

Similar threads