Discussion:
Private funding for East-West line?
(too old to reply)
Recliner
2016-11-28 10:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
project:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
MikeS
2016-11-28 11:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
It goes behind a pay wall after a few seconds.
Recliner
2016-11-28 11:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by MikeS
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
It goes behind a pay wall after a few seconds.
Yes, I provided a link with access through the pay wall.
Roland Perry
2016-11-28 11:41:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by MikeS
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
It goes behind a pay wall after a few seconds.
Not here it doesn't.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2016-11-28 11:45:03 UTC
Permalink
In message
<349193447.502020859.128645.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 10:33:50 on Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
A bit muddled; the "Eastern" section of E-W is the part from Cambridge
to Norwich/Ipswich, the Bedford-Cambridge section is the "Central" one
and judging by the vagueness expressed in the article doesn't look any
closer than it was a year ago.

The "Western" section, as far as Bedford, is already in the pipeline, so
this is just the umpteenth re-announcement of something we knew already.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2016-11-28 12:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 10:33:50 on Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
A bit muddled; the "Eastern" section of E-W is the part from Cambridge
to Norwich/Ipswich, the Bedford-Cambridge section is the "Central" one
and judging by the vagueness expressed in the article doesn't look any
closer than it was a year ago.
The "Western" section, as far as Bedford, is already in the pipeline, so
this is just the umpteenth re-announcement of something we knew already.
The 'news' is that they've put in some modest government funding in
the hope of triggering a larger amount of private sector investment.
In other words, in the absence of the latter, further progress east of
Bicester is unlikely.
Roland Perry
2016-11-28 12:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
A bit muddled; the "Eastern" section of E-W is the part from Cambridge
to Norwich/Ipswich, the Bedford-Cambridge section is the "Central" one
and judging by the vagueness expressed in the article doesn't look any
closer than it was a year ago.
The "Western" section, as far as Bedford, is already in the pipeline, so
this is just the umpteenth re-announcement of something we knew already.
The 'news' is that they've put in some modest government funding in
the hope of triggering a larger amount of private sector investment.
In other words, in the absence of the latter, further progress east of
Bicester is unlikely.
You make it sound like the Western Section Phase 2 has been kicked into
the long grass. That is (fsvo) bad news rather than good news. And makes
the infamous Central section even more of a pipedream.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2016-11-28 13:36:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
A bit muddled; the "Eastern" section of E-W is the part from Cambridge
to Norwich/Ipswich, the Bedford-Cambridge section is the "Central" one
and judging by the vagueness expressed in the article doesn't look any
closer than it was a year ago.
The "Western" section, as far as Bedford, is already in the pipeline, so
this is just the umpteenth re-announcement of something we knew already.
The 'news' is that they've put in some modest government funding in
the hope of triggering a larger amount of private sector investment.
In other words, in the absence of the latter, further progress east of
Bicester is unlikely.
You make it sound like the Western Section Phase 2 has been kicked into
the long grass. That is (fsvo) bad news rather than good news. And makes
the infamous Central section even more of a pipedream.
It could be that I'm being too cynical, but when reports emerge about
the government encouraging private sector investment in projects that
were previously regarded as public sector, I generally assume it's
because the public sector funding has dried up.
Roland Perry
2016-11-28 14:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
A bit muddled; the "Eastern" section of E-W is the part from Cambridge
to Norwich/Ipswich, the Bedford-Cambridge section is the "Central" one
and judging by the vagueness expressed in the article doesn't look any
closer than it was a year ago.
The "Western" section, as far as Bedford, is already in the pipeline, so
this is just the umpteenth re-announcement of something we knew already.
The 'news' is that they've put in some modest government funding in
the hope of triggering a larger amount of private sector investment.
In other words, in the absence of the latter, further progress east of
Bicester is unlikely.
You make it sound like the Western Section Phase 2 has been kicked into
the long grass. That is (fsvo) bad news rather than good news. And makes
the infamous Central section even more of a pipedream.
It could be that I'm being too cynical, but when reports emerge about
the government encouraging private sector investment in projects that
were previously regarded as public sector, I generally assume it's
because the public sector funding has dried up.
There's definitely an aura of "s106 mk2" about this.

But I've never been that convinced that the project isn't a vanity one
based on reviving a non-existent "Golden Age".
--
Roland Perry
e27002 aurora
2016-11-29 08:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
A bit muddled; the "Eastern" section of E-W is the part from Cambridge
to Norwich/Ipswich, the Bedford-Cambridge section is the "Central" one
and judging by the vagueness expressed in the article doesn't look any
closer than it was a year ago.
The "Western" section, as far as Bedford, is already in the pipeline, so
this is just the umpteenth re-announcement of something we knew already.
The 'news' is that they've put in some modest government funding in
the hope of triggering a larger amount of private sector investment.
In other words, in the absence of the latter, further progress east of
Bicester is unlikely.
You make it sound like the Western Section Phase 2 has been kicked into
the long grass. That is (fsvo) bad news rather than good news. And makes
the infamous Central section even more of a pipedream.
It could be that I'm being too cynical, but when reports emerge about
the government encouraging private sector investment in projects that
were previously regarded as public sector, I generally assume it's
because the public sector funding has dried up.
There's definitely an aura of "s106 mk2" about this.
But I've never been that convinced that the project isn't a vanity one
based on reviving a non-existent "Golden Age".
IMHO this route will have useful roles as:
1. A freight route for avoiding London.

2. A passenger link between the town along its route. These should be
supplement with new London overspill towns where East West crosses
other routes.
tim...
2016-11-29 11:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
A bit muddled; the "Eastern" section of E-W is the part from Cambridge
to Norwich/Ipswich, the Bedford-Cambridge section is the "Central" one
and judging by the vagueness expressed in the article doesn't look any
closer than it was a year ago.
The "Western" section, as far as Bedford, is already in the pipeline, so
this is just the umpteenth re-announcement of something we knew already.
The 'news' is that they've put in some modest government funding in
the hope of triggering a larger amount of private sector investment.
In other words, in the absence of the latter, further progress east of
Bicester is unlikely.
You make it sound like the Western Section Phase 2 has been kicked into
the long grass. That is (fsvo) bad news rather than good news. And makes
the infamous Central section even more of a pipedream.
It could be that I'm being too cynical, but when reports emerge about
the government encouraging private sector investment in projects that
were previously regarded as public sector, I generally assume it's
because the public sector funding has dried up.
There's definitely an aura of "s106 mk2" about this.
But I've never been that convinced that the project isn't a vanity one
based on reviving a non-existent "Golden Age".
1. A freight route for avoiding London.
there is already a perfectly adequate alternative route from Felixstowe to
Peterborough/Birmingham

what other flows are you considering that might need a second alternative
Post by e27002 aurora
2. A passenger link between the town along its route.
flows which see next to no traffic demand
Post by e27002 aurora
These should be
supplement with new London overspill towns where East West crosses
other routes.
cart before horse

perhaps we should decide if we are going to have such new towns before
building the railway to serve them

tim
Theo
2016-11-29 11:41:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
1. A freight route for avoiding London.
there is already a perfectly adequate alternative route from Felixstowe to
Peterborough/Birmingham
what other flows are you considering that might need a second alternative
The Electric Spine is
Southampton docks-Basingstoke-Reading-Didcot-Oxford-WCML/MML/ECML
(though I'm unclear on what is planned for the ECML junction).
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
2. A passenger link between the town along its route.
flows which see next to no traffic demand
...largely because the transport is so awful. Oxford to Cambridge is 84
miles and takes 3h40 by bus. Peterborough to London is 82
miles and takes 46 minutes by train.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
These should be
supplement with new London overspill towns where East West crosses
other routes.
Such towns to be called Bicester, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Sandy, perhaps?

(though there are a few MOD/etc sites that could be redeveloped along the
route)
Post by tim...
cart before horse
perhaps we should decide if we are going to have such new towns before
building the railway to serve them
Perhaps we might begin by asking the residents of London whether they want
to 'overspill' to deepest Bedfordshire?

Theo
e27002
2016-11-29 13:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Theo
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
1. A freight route for avoiding London.
there is already a perfectly adequate alternative route from Felixstowe to
Peterborough/Birmingham
what other flows are you considering that might need a second alternative
The Electric Spine is
Southampton docks-Basingstoke-Reading-Didcot-Oxford-WCML/MML/ECML
(though I'm unclear on what is planned for the ECML junction).
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
2. A passenger link between the town along its route.
flows which see next to no traffic demand
...largely because the transport is so awful. Oxford to Cambridge is 84
miles and takes 3h40 by bus. Peterborough to London is 82
miles and takes 46 minutes by train.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
These should be
supplement with new London overspill towns where East West crosses
other routes.
Such towns to be called Bicester, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Sandy, perhaps?
(though there are a few MOD/etc sites that could be redeveloped along the
route)
Post by tim...
cart before horse
perhaps we should decide if we are going to have such new towns before
building the railway to serve them
Perhaps we might begin by asking the residents of London whether they want
to 'overspill' to deepest Bedfordshire?
The policy worked for many years after WWII.
d***@yahoo.co.uk
2016-11-29 17:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by e27002
Post by Theo
Post by tim...
perhaps we should decide if we are going to have such new towns before
building the railway to serve them
Perhaps we might begin by asking the residents of London whether they want
to 'overspill' to deepest Bedfordshire?
The policy worked for many years after WWII.
A lot of that was because the accommodation in the overspill towns was
council housing built at the cost of London County Council, later
ownership was transferred to the councils of the places it had built
in then a lot sold off as a policy of government led by Thatcher.

An equivalent now would have to see private buy to let landlords many
of whom live abroad paying to build accommodation outside of London
and encouraging their tenants to move to it by fair means.
In reality that is not going to happen especially when many of those
landlords have turned a house suitable for a family into as many slum
bedsits as they can get away with. A Russian absentee property owner
charging rent from a dozen or so people in one building is not going
to build new houses for families at his expense. He would rather
somebody else paid for the housing so he can evict his existing
tenants or persuade them to leave by charging impossibly high rent and
then fill his property with another batch of people who are desperate
to at least sleep of the street.

G.Harman
tim...
2016-11-29 19:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Theo
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
1. A freight route for avoiding London.
there is already a perfectly adequate alternative route from Felixstowe to
Peterborough/Birmingham
what other flows are you considering that might need a second alternative
The Electric Spine is
Southampton docks-Basingstoke-Reading-Didcot-Oxford-WCML/MML/ECML
(though I'm unclear on what is planned for the ECML junction).
how does a Bedford-Cambridge link help here?
Post by Theo
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
2. A passenger link between the town along its route.
flows which see next to no traffic demand
...largely because the transport is so awful. Oxford to Cambridge is 84
miles and takes 3h40 by bus. Peterborough to London is 82
miles and takes 46 minutes by train.
You said intermediate flows, Oxford to Cambridge is end to end
Post by Theo
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
These should be
supplement with new London overspill towns where East West crosses
other routes.
Such towns to be called Bicester, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Sandy, perhaps?
These towns already have a rail connection

tim
e27002
2016-11-29 13:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
A bit muddled; the "Eastern" section of E-W is the part from Cambridge
to Norwich/Ipswich, the Bedford-Cambridge section is the "Central" one
and judging by the vagueness expressed in the article doesn't look any
closer than it was a year ago.
The "Western" section, as far as Bedford, is already in the pipeline, so
this is just the umpteenth re-announcement of something we knew already.
The 'news' is that they've put in some modest government funding in
the hope of triggering a larger amount of private sector investment.
In other words, in the absence of the latter, further progress east of
Bicester is unlikely.
You make it sound like the Western Section Phase 2 has been kicked into
the long grass. That is (fsvo) bad news rather than good news. And makes
the infamous Central section even more of a pipedream.
It could be that I'm being too cynical, but when reports emerge about
the government encouraging private sector investment in projects that
were previously regarded as public sector, I generally assume it's
because the public sector funding has dried up.
There's definitely an aura of "s106 mk2" about this.
But I've never been that convinced that the project isn't a vanity one
based on reviving a non-existent "Golden Age".
1. A freight route for avoiding London.
there is already a perfectly adequate alternative route from Felixstowe to
Peterborough/Birmingham
what other flows are you considering that might need a second alternative
Google "freight spine".
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
2. A passenger link between the town along its route.
flows which see next to no traffic demand
A bit like the Waverley route, prior to re-opening, then.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
These should be
supplement with new London overspill towns where East West crosses
other routes.
cart before horse
perhaps we should decide if we are going to have such new towns before
building the railway to serve them
This has been mentioned by a Mr Clegg of the Liberal Democrat Party. The alternative is to relax London's Green Belt. That would be folly.

Or, feel free to present your solution to London's housing need.
tim...
2016-11-29 19:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
A bit muddled; the "Eastern" section of E-W is the part from Cambridge
to Norwich/Ipswich, the Bedford-Cambridge section is the "Central" one
and judging by the vagueness expressed in the article doesn't look any
closer than it was a year ago.
The "Western" section, as far as Bedford, is already in the
pipeline,
so
this is just the umpteenth re-announcement of something we knew already.
The 'news' is that they've put in some modest government funding in
the hope of triggering a larger amount of private sector investment.
In other words, in the absence of the latter, further progress east of
Bicester is unlikely.
You make it sound like the Western Section Phase 2 has been kicked into
the long grass. That is (fsvo) bad news rather than good news. And makes
the infamous Central section even more of a pipedream.
It could be that I'm being too cynical, but when reports emerge about
the government encouraging private sector investment in projects that
were previously regarded as public sector, I generally assume it's
because the public sector funding has dried up.
There's definitely an aura of "s106 mk2" about this.
But I've never been that convinced that the project isn't a vanity one
based on reviving a non-existent "Golden Age".
1. A freight route for avoiding London.
there is already a perfectly adequate alternative route from Felixstowe to
Peterborough/Birmingham
what other flows are you considering that might need a second alternative
Google "freight spine".
what's that got to do with anything?
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
2. A passenger link between the town along its route.
flows which see next to no traffic demand
A bit like the Waverley route, prior to re-opening, then.
Not at all

The Waverly route joined some places with no railway to the most desirable
destination possible

E-W rail joins places with no railway to other places with no railway.
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
These should be
supplement with new London overspill towns where East West crosses
other routes.
cart before horse
perhaps we should decide if we are going to have such new towns before
building the railway to serve them
This has been mentioned by a Mr Clegg of the Liberal Democrat Party. The
alternative is to relax London's Green Belt. That would be folly.
Perhaps it would, but there is currently no plan
Post by e27002
Or, feel free to present your solution to London's housing need.
I didn't say that I was against any specific plan..

I am saying that you can't make a plan for a new overspill town by building
the railway first.

There are proposals for new builds round my way, which total approaching
100,000 new houses as extensions to current centres of population. No new
railway would be needed to serve them

I think that they are all eminently sensible and should be given the go
ahead ASAP, but all the local Nimbys are against them

I suspect that the situation is the same in the Northern Home Counties (both
points)

tim
e27002 aurora
2016-11-30 18:17:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
A bit muddled; the "Eastern" section of E-W is the part from Cambridge
to Norwich/Ipswich, the Bedford-Cambridge section is the "Central" one
and judging by the vagueness expressed in the article doesn't look any
closer than it was a year ago.
The "Western" section, as far as Bedford, is already in the
pipeline,
so
this is just the umpteenth re-announcement of something we knew already.
The 'news' is that they've put in some modest government funding in
the hope of triggering a larger amount of private sector investment.
In other words, in the absence of the latter, further progress east of
Bicester is unlikely.
You make it sound like the Western Section Phase 2 has been kicked into
the long grass. That is (fsvo) bad news rather than good news. And makes
the infamous Central section even more of a pipedream.
It could be that I'm being too cynical, but when reports emerge about
the government encouraging private sector investment in projects that
were previously regarded as public sector, I generally assume it's
because the public sector funding has dried up.
There's definitely an aura of "s106 mk2" about this.
But I've never been that convinced that the project isn't a vanity one
based on reviving a non-existent "Golden Age".
1. A freight route for avoiding London.
there is already a perfectly adequate alternative route from Felixstowe to
Peterborough/Birmingham
what other flows are you considering that might need a second alternative
Google "freight spine".
what's that got to do with anything?
Duh, it uses the western part of East-East. Do keep up.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
2. A passenger link between the town along its route.
flows which see next to no traffic demand
A bit like the Waverley route, prior to re-opening, then.
Not at all
The Waverly route joined some places with no railway to the most desirable
destination possible
E-W rail joins places with no railway to other places with no railway.
East-West rail joins towns with railways, that otherwise can only
reach each other, by a long detour by way of London. This adds to the
load on London's railways already overwhelmed railways.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
These should be
supplement with new London overspill towns where East West crosses
other routes.
cart before horse
perhaps we should decide if we are going to have such new towns before
building the railway to serve them
This has been mentioned by a Mr Clegg of the Liberal Democrat Party. The
alternative is to relax London's Green Belt. That would be folly.
Perhaps it would, but there is currently no plan
Post by e27002
Or, feel free to present your solution to London's housing need.
I didn't say that I was against any specific plan..
I am saying that you can't make a plan for a new overspill town by building
the railway first.
Only government can do this sort of strategic planning. The UK's
population had stabilized at about 60 million. The European adventure
has caused a significant rise. This spigot will soon be turned off.
Meanwhile there needs to be a plan for the southeast that includes
roads and railways. Developers will build when land is available.
Local planners need to ensure schools, medical facilities, parks etc.
are scaled to the likely expansion.

IMHO East West rail can play a significant role. Perhaps we should
agree to differ.
Post by tim...
There are proposals for new builds round my way, which total approaching
100,000 new houses as extensions to current centres of population. No new
railway would be needed to serve them
I think that they are all eminently sensible and should be given the go
ahead ASAP, but all the local Nimbys are against them
I suspect that the situation is the same in the Northern Home Counties (both
points)
tim
Nobody
2016-12-01 01:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
A bit muddled; the "Eastern" section of E-W is the part from Cambridge
to Norwich/Ipswich, the Bedford-Cambridge section is the "Central" one
and judging by the vagueness expressed in the article doesn't look any
closer than it was a year ago.
The "Western" section, as far as Bedford, is already in the
pipeline,
so
this is just the umpteenth re-announcement of something we knew already.
The 'news' is that they've put in some modest government funding in
the hope of triggering a larger amount of private sector investment.
In other words, in the absence of the latter, further progress east of
Bicester is unlikely.
You make it sound like the Western Section Phase 2 has been kicked into
the long grass. That is (fsvo) bad news rather than good news. And makes
the infamous Central section even more of a pipedream.
It could be that I'm being too cynical, but when reports emerge about
the government encouraging private sector investment in projects that
were previously regarded as public sector, I generally assume it's
because the public sector funding has dried up.
There's definitely an aura of "s106 mk2" about this.
But I've never been that convinced that the project isn't a vanity one
based on reviving a non-existent "Golden Age".
1. A freight route for avoiding London.
there is already a perfectly adequate alternative route from Felixstowe to
Peterborough/Birmingham
what other flows are you considering that might need a second alternative
Google "freight spine".
what's that got to do with anything?
Duh, it uses the western part of East-East. Do keep up.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
2. A passenger link between the town along its route.
flows which see next to no traffic demand
A bit like the Waverley route, prior to re-opening, then.
Not at all
The Waverly route joined some places with no railway to the most desirable
destination possible
E-W rail joins places with no railway to other places with no railway.
East-West rail joins towns with railways, that otherwise can only
reach each other, by a long detour by way of London. This adds to the
load on London's railways already overwhelmed railways.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
These should be
supplement with new London overspill towns where East West crosses
other routes.
cart before horse
perhaps we should decide if we are going to have such new towns before
building the railway to serve them
This has been mentioned by a Mr Clegg of the Liberal Democrat Party. The
alternative is to relax London's Green Belt. That would be folly.
Perhaps it would, but there is currently no plan
Post by e27002
Or, feel free to present your solution to London's housing need.
I didn't say that I was against any specific plan..
I am saying that you can't make a plan for a new overspill town by building
the railway first.
Only government can do this sort of strategic planning. The UK's
population had stabilized at about 60 million. The European adventure
has caused a significant rise. This spigot will soon be turned off.
Um, don't population demographics in the Ewe Kay reflect much the same
as other 'First World' countries... i.e. we're not 'naturally'
replacing ourselves?

So, the bulge of Baby Boomer oldies you lot have stored up are going
to be marching through the Money Pile/withdrawing from the workforce
and you'll need all these unfortunates to pay the bills?
Recliner
2016-12-01 02:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nobody
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in
the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
A bit muddled; the "Eastern" section of E-W is the part from Cambridge
to Norwich/Ipswich, the Bedford-Cambridge section is the "Central" one
and judging by the vagueness expressed in the article doesn't look any
closer than it was a year ago.
The "Western" section, as far as Bedford, is already in the
pipeline,
so
this is just the umpteenth re-announcement of something we knew
already.
The 'news' is that they've put in some modest government funding in
the hope of triggering a larger amount of private sector investment.
In other words, in the absence of the latter, further progress east of
Bicester is unlikely.
You make it sound like the Western Section Phase 2 has been kicked into
the long grass. That is (fsvo) bad news rather than good news. And makes
the infamous Central section even more of a pipedream.
It could be that I'm being too cynical, but when reports emerge about
the government encouraging private sector investment in projects that
were previously regarded as public sector, I generally assume it's
because the public sector funding has dried up.
There's definitely an aura of "s106 mk2" about this.
But I've never been that convinced that the project isn't a vanity one
based on reviving a non-existent "Golden Age".
1. A freight route for avoiding London.
there is already a perfectly adequate alternative route from Felixstowe to
Peterborough/Birmingham
what other flows are you considering that might need a second alternative
Google "freight spine".
what's that got to do with anything?
Duh, it uses the western part of East-East. Do keep up.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
2. A passenger link between the town along its route.
flows which see next to no traffic demand
A bit like the Waverley route, prior to re-opening, then.
Not at all
The Waverly route joined some places with no railway to the most desirable
destination possible
E-W rail joins places with no railway to other places with no railway.
East-West rail joins towns with railways, that otherwise can only
reach each other, by a long detour by way of London. This adds to the
load on London's railways already overwhelmed railways.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
These should be
supplement with new London overspill towns where East West crosses
other routes.
cart before horse
perhaps we should decide if we are going to have such new towns before
building the railway to serve them
This has been mentioned by a Mr Clegg of the Liberal Democrat Party. The
alternative is to relax London's Green Belt. That would be folly.
Perhaps it would, but there is currently no plan
Post by e27002
Or, feel free to present your solution to London's housing need.
I didn't say that I was against any specific plan..
I am saying that you can't make a plan for a new overspill town by building
the railway first.
Only government can do this sort of strategic planning. The UK's
population had stabilized at about 60 million. The European adventure
has caused a significant rise. This spigot will soon be turned off.
Um, don't population demographics in the Ewe Kay reflect much the same
as other 'First World' countries... i.e. we're not 'naturally'
replacing ourselves?
So, the bulge of Baby Boomer oldies you lot have stored up are going
to be marching through the Money Pile/withdrawing from the workforce
and you'll need all these unfortunates to pay the bills?
Perhaps thanks to young immigrant mothers, the UK birth rate is closer to
the natural replacement rate than most advanced countries:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?

But we'll certainly need minimum wage immigrants to staff the care homes
for us ageing baby boomers.
Basil Jet
2016-12-01 05:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
But we'll certainly need minimum wage immigrants to staff the care homes
for us ageing baby boomers.
No, we'll use robots.
e27002
2016-12-01 09:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
But we'll certainly need minimum wage immigrants to staff the care homes
for us ageing baby boomers.
No, we'll use robots.
Meds Mr Brush, meds.
Basil Jet
2016-12-01 14:11:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by e27002
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
But we'll certainly need minimum wage immigrants to staff the care homes
for us ageing baby boomers.
No, we'll use robots.
Meds Mr Brush, meds.
It's what they're doing in Japan!
e27002
2016-12-01 09:11:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:17:00 +0000, e27002 aurora
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in
the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
A bit muddled; the "Eastern" section of E-W is the part from
Cambridge
to Norwich/Ipswich, the Bedford-Cambridge section is the "Central"
one
and judging by the vagueness expressed in the article doesn't look
any
closer than it was a year ago.
The "Western" section, as far as Bedford, is already in the
pipeline,
so
this is just the umpteenth re-announcement of something we knew
already.
The 'news' is that they've put in some modest government funding in
the hope of triggering a larger amount of private sector investment.
In other words, in the absence of the latter, further progress east of
Bicester is unlikely.
You make it sound like the Western Section Phase 2 has been kicked into
the long grass. That is (fsvo) bad news rather than good news. And makes
the infamous Central section even more of a pipedream.
It could be that I'm being too cynical, but when reports emerge about
the government encouraging private sector investment in projects that
were previously regarded as public sector, I generally assume it's
because the public sector funding has dried up.
There's definitely an aura of "s106 mk2" about this.
But I've never been that convinced that the project isn't a vanity one
based on reviving a non-existent "Golden Age".
1. A freight route for avoiding London.
there is already a perfectly adequate alternative route from Felixstowe to
Peterborough/Birmingham
what other flows are you considering that might need a second alternative
Google "freight spine".
what's that got to do with anything?
Duh, it uses the western part of East-East. Do keep up.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
2. A passenger link between the town along its route.
flows which see next to no traffic demand
A bit like the Waverley route, prior to re-opening, then.
Not at all
The Waverly route joined some places with no railway to the most desirable
destination possible
E-W rail joins places with no railway to other places with no railway.
East-West rail joins towns with railways, that otherwise can only
reach each other, by a long detour by way of London. This adds to the
load on London's railways already overwhelmed railways.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
These should be
supplement with new London overspill towns where East West crosses
other routes.
cart before horse
perhaps we should decide if we are going to have such new towns before
building the railway to serve them
This has been mentioned by a Mr Clegg of the Liberal Democrat Party. The
alternative is to relax London's Green Belt. That would be folly.
Perhaps it would, but there is currently no plan
Post by e27002
Or, feel free to present your solution to London's housing need.
I didn't say that I was against any specific plan..
I am saying that you can't make a plan for a new overspill town by building
the railway first.
Only government can do this sort of strategic planning. The UK's
population had stabilized at about 60 million. The European adventure
has caused a significant rise. This spigot will soon be turned off.
Um, don't population demographics in the Ewe Kay reflect much the same
as other 'First World' countries... i.e. we're not 'naturally'
replacing ourselves?
It takes 2.2 children per married couple to maintain a stable population, so not hard to achieve.
So, the bulge of Baby Boomer oldies you lot have stored up are going
to be marching through the Money Pile/withdrawing from the workforce
and you'll need all these unfortunates to pay the bills?
Post Brexit the UK will be able to recruit nurses, doctors, etc., on an as needed basis, from the commonwealth. The unending stream of bottom feeders from Eastern Europe will end. They are something by Russia not Britain.
Nobody
2016-12-01 23:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by e27002
Post by Nobody
Um, don't population demographics in the Ewe Kay reflect much the same
as other 'First World' countries... i.e. we're not 'naturally'
replacing ourselves?
It takes 2.2 children per married couple to maintain a stable population, so not hard to achieve.
Oops, time for yet another keyboard...
e27002
2016-12-01 09:21:14 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:17:00 +0000, e27002 aurora
Corrected.
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in
the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
A bit muddled; the "Eastern" section of E-W is the part from
Cambridge
to Norwich/Ipswich, the Bedford-Cambridge section is the "Central"
one
and judging by the vagueness expressed in the article doesn't look
any
closer than it was a year ago.
The "Western" section, as far as Bedford, is already in the
pipeline,
so
this is just the umpteenth re-announcement of something we knew
already.
The 'news' is that they've put in some modest government funding in
the hope of triggering a larger amount of private sector investment.
In other words, in the absence of the latter, further progress east of
Bicester is unlikely.
You make it sound like the Western Section Phase 2 has been kicked into
the long grass. That is (fsvo) bad news rather than good news. And makes
the infamous Central section even more of a pipedream.
It could be that I'm being too cynical, but when reports emerge about
the government encouraging private sector investment in projects that
were previously regarded as public sector, I generally assume it's
because the public sector funding has dried up.
There's definitely an aura of "s106 mk2" about this.
But I've never been that convinced that the project isn't a vanity one
based on reviving a non-existent "Golden Age".
1. A freight route for avoiding London.
there is already a perfectly adequate alternative route from Felixstowe to
Peterborough/Birmingham
what other flows are you considering that might need a second alternative
Google "freight spine".
what's that got to do with anything?
Duh, it uses the western part of East-East. Do keep up.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
2. A passenger link between the town along its route.
flows which see next to no traffic demand
A bit like the Waverley route, prior to re-opening, then.
Not at all
The Waverly route joined some places with no railway to the most desirable
destination possible
E-W rail joins places with no railway to other places with no railway.
East-West rail joins towns with railways, that otherwise can only
reach each other, by a long detour by way of London. This adds to the
load on London's railways already overwhelmed railways.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
These should be
supplement with new London overspill towns where East West crosses
other routes.
cart before horse
perhaps we should decide if we are going to have such new towns before
building the railway to serve them
This has been mentioned by a Mr Clegg of the Liberal Democrat Party. The
alternative is to relax London's Green Belt. That would be folly.
Perhaps it would, but there is currently no plan
Post by e27002
Or, feel free to present your solution to London's housing need.
I didn't say that I was against any specific plan..
I am saying that you can't make a plan for a new overspill town by building
the railway first.
Only government can do this sort of strategic planning. The UK's
population had stabilized at about 60 million. The European adventure
has caused a significant rise. This spigot will soon be turned off.
Um, don't population demographics in the Ewe Kay reflect much the same
as other 'First World' countries... i.e. we're not 'naturally'
replacing ourselves?
It takes 2.2 children per married couple to maintain a stable population, so not hard to achieve.
So, the bulge of Baby Boomer oldies you lot have stored up are going
to be marching through the Money Pile/withdrawing from the workforce
and you'll need all these unfortunates to pay the bills?
Post Brexit the UK will be able to recruit nurses, doctors, etc., on an as needed basis, from the commonwealth.  The unending stream of bottom feeders from Eastern Europe will end.  They are owed something by Russia not Britain.
r***@gmail.com
2016-12-01 09:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by e27002
Post Brexit the UK will be able to recruit nurses, doctors, etc., on an
as needed basis, from the commonwealth.  The unending stream of bottom
feeders from Eastern Europe will end.  They are owed something by Russia
not Britain.
I'm not entirely clear why minimum wage workers from west Africa, Bangladesh and the Caribbean are any more desirable than minimum wage workers from Romania and Bulgaria. The NHS has been recruiting quite heavily from non-EU countries in recent years already, regardless of the EU, and this is unlikely to change.

Robin
e27002
2016-12-01 10:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by e27002
Post Brexit the UK will be able to recruit nurses, doctors, etc., on an
as needed basis, from the commonwealth.  The unending stream of bottom
feeders from Eastern Europe will end.  They are owed something by Russia
not Britain.
I'm not entirely clear why minimum wage workers from west Africa, Bangladesh and the Caribbean are any more desirable than minimum wage workers from Romania and Bulgaria. The NHS has been recruiting quite heavily from non-EU countries in recent years already, regardless of the EU, and this is unlikely to change.
Doctors from India and nurses from Malaysia was what one envisaged. The difference is that they come here when we need them, not because of an EU "right".

The point is that post EU stabilising the population will be doable.
tim...
2016-12-01 10:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by e27002
Post Brexit the UK will be able to recruit nurses, doctors, etc., on an
as needed basis, from the commonwealth. The unending stream of bottom
feeders from Eastern Europe will end. They are owed something by Russia
not Britain.
I'm not entirely clear why minimum wage workers from west Africa,
Bangladesh and the Caribbean are any more desirable than minimum wage
workers from Romania and Bulgaria. The NHS has been recruiting quite
heavily from non-EU countries in recent years already, regardless of the
EU, and this is unlikely to change.
Once we are back in "control" we can give out visas to workers restricted to
specific job categories, as we once did (and certainly will have to do
again) for seasonal agricultural workers.

If we decide (as an example) that we need more of the lower skilled [1]
health care staff, we can give out visas for that on the basis that the
recipient only has a right to remain if they are working in health care.

And people on such visas can bring their family with them, only if they
support them out of their wages. Once they are no longer working they have
no entitlement to benefits (obviously with reasonable safeguards for people
who are genuinely sick.)

Whether such a restriction would be more or less attractive to groups from
East Europe than the Commonwealth, we can only guess at

tim

[1] Higher skills health workers can almost certainly already come under
the Tier 1 Skilled Migration program
e27002
2016-12-01 12:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by e27002
Post Brexit the UK will be able to recruit nurses, doctors, etc., on an
as needed basis, from the commonwealth. The unending stream of bottom
feeders from Eastern Europe will end. They are owed something by Russia
not Britain.
I'm not entirely clear why minimum wage workers from west Africa,
Bangladesh and the Caribbean are any more desirable than minimum wage
workers from Romania and Bulgaria. The NHS has been recruiting quite
heavily from non-EU countries in recent years already, regardless of the
EU, and this is unlikely to change.
Once we are back in "control" we can give out visas to workers restricted to
specific job categories, as we once did (and certainly will have to do
again) for seasonal agricultural workers.
Agreed.
Post by tim...
If we decide (as an example) that we need more of the lower skilled [1]
health care staff, we can give out visas for that on the basis that the
recipient only has a right to remain if they are working in health care.
Agreed.
Post by tim...
And people on such visas can bring their family with them, only if they
support them out of their wages. Once they are no longer working they have
no entitlement to benefits (obviously with reasonable safeguards for people
who are genuinely sick.)
Whether such a restriction would be more or less attractive to groups from
East Europe than the Commonwealth, we can only guess at
The UK would decide the source of such workers. There are plenty of folks in Commonwealth countries now living as second class citizens under the post independence regimes.

Of course before anyone is recruited from outwith the UK, the dole queue should be emptied.
Recliner
2016-12-01 12:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by e27002
Post Brexit the UK will be able to recruit nurses, doctors, etc., on an
as needed basis, from the commonwealth. The unending stream of bottom
feeders from Eastern Europe will end. They are owed something by Russia
not Britain.
I'm not entirely clear why minimum wage workers from west Africa,
Bangladesh and the Caribbean are any more desirable than minimum wage
workers from Romania and Bulgaria. The NHS has been recruiting quite
heavily from non-EU countries in recent years already, regardless of the
EU, and this is unlikely to change.
Once we are back in "control" we can give out visas to workers restricted to
specific job categories, as we once did (and certainly will have to do
again) for seasonal agricultural workers.
Agreed.
Post by tim...
If we decide (as an example) that we need more of the lower skilled [1]
health care staff, we can give out visas for that on the basis that the
recipient only has a right to remain if they are working in health care.
Agreed.
Post by tim...
And people on such visas can bring their family with them, only if they
support them out of their wages. Once they are no longer working they have
no entitlement to benefits (obviously with reasonable safeguards for people
who are genuinely sick.)
Whether such a restriction would be more or less attractive to groups from
East Europe than the Commonwealth, we can only guess at
The UK would decide the source of such workers. There are plenty of folks in Commonwealth countries now living as second class citizens under the post independence regimes.
I don't think we'd be offering them citizenship, whether first or
second class.
Post by e27002
Of course before anyone is recruited from outwith the UK, the dole queue should be emptied.
Not many people who are qualified for a job are in the dole queue.
tim...
2016-12-01 18:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by e27002
The UK would decide the source of such workers. There are plenty of folks
in Commonwealth countries now living as second class citizens under the
post independence regimes.
I don't think we'd be offering them citizenship, whether first or
second class.
Post by e27002
Of course before anyone is recruited from outwith the UK, the dole queue should be emptied.
Not many people who are qualified for a job are in the dole queue.
what qualifications do you need to do warehouse work?

this is where thousands of the unskilled Europeans have disappeared to

tim
Neil Williams
2016-12-01 23:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
what qualifications do you need to do warehouse work?
The willingness to get up at sparrow-fart-o-clock (or work overnight)
and work very physically hard indeed for almost no money?

Not a formal qualification, but there are certainly people without work
who would not do that.
Post by tim...
this is where thousands of the unskilled Europeans have disappeared to
Because they have a better work ethic than many British people.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
tim...
2016-12-02 11:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
what qualifications do you need to do warehouse work?
The willingness to get up at sparrow-fart-o-clock (or work overnight) and
work very physically hard indeed for almost no money?
Not a formal qualification, but there are certainly people without work
who would not do that.
Then we should come up with a way to force them to do so

and if that way is to make the employers realise that, in a restricted
labour market, they cannot set such "tough" conditions then so be it.
Conditions didn't use to be that way, they only became that way when
rapacious capitalists came in.

It is the rest of us (taxpayers) who have to pick up the bill for their
business practices which they use solely to increase the dividends in their
pockets (on which the try as hard as possible to avoid paying their "fair
share" of tax) in subsidising the benefits of the unnecessary large dole
queue that we have.
Post by tim...
this is where thousands of the unskilled Europeans have disappeared to
Because they have a better work ethic than many British people.
Perhaps, but some of the conditions that they impose are just unworkable.
(Do you think that it is possible to deliver one parcel every 3 minutes,
including time driving between random locations? Because that is what 200
in an 8 hour shift requires. Hell, when you ring my buzzer it takes me 60
seconds to walk down the stairs from my flat to actually receive the parcel
from you.)

tim
Graeme Wall
2016-12-02 14:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Neil Williams
Post by tim...
what qualifications do you need to do warehouse work?
The willingness to get up at sparrow-fart-o-clock (or work overnight)
and work very physically hard indeed for almost no money?
Not a formal qualification, but there are certainly people without
work who would not do that.
Then we should come up with a way to force them to do so
and if that way is to make the employers realise that, in a restricted
labour market, they cannot set such "tough" conditions then so be it.
Conditions didn't use to be that way, they only became that way when
rapacious capitalists came in.
That'll be the 18th century then, before that it was straight feudalism.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
e27002
2016-12-02 08:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 04:28:51 -0800 (PST), e27002
Post by e27002
The UK would decide the source of such workers. There are plenty of folks
in Commonwealth countries now living as second class citizens under the
post independence regimes.
I don't think we'd be offering them citizenship, whether first or
second class.
Comprehension again. These are Malaysian Chinese and Indians, therefore Malaysian Citizens. The UK would be offering visas for nursing contracts. That said, back when this commonplace, pre EU, these ladies were very much a source of eligible wives. So, many are today British Citizens with Anglo Chinese children.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Of course before anyone is recruited from outwith the UK, the dole queue
should be emptied.
Not many people who are qualified for a job are in the dole queue.
what qualifications do you need to do warehouse work?
this is where thousands of the unskilled Europeans have disappeared to
Precisely tim. Why should we have people on the dole who can do this work.
Roland Perry
2016-12-02 09:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by e27002
Why should we have people on the dole who can do this work.
Are we prepared to bus the unemployed 200 miles to where the work is,
and house them eight to a portacabin when they get there?

Norman Tebbit's calling.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2016-12-02 11:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by e27002
Why should we have people on the dole who can do this work.
Are we prepared to bus the unemployed 200 miles to where the work is, and
house them eight to a portacabin when they get there?
Where's your proof that "minimum wage work taken by EU immigrants" is
disproportionately scattered when compared to "people signing on as
unemployed"

tim
tim...
2016-12-01 18:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by e27002
Post Brexit the UK will be able to recruit nurses, doctors, etc., on an
as needed basis, from the commonwealth. The unending stream of bottom
feeders from Eastern Europe will end. They are owed something by Russia
not Britain.
I'm not entirely clear why minimum wage workers from west Africa,
Bangladesh and the Caribbean are any more desirable than minimum wage
workers from Romania and Bulgaria. The NHS has been recruiting quite
heavily from non-EU countries in recent years already, regardless of the
EU, and this is unlikely to change.
Once we are back in "control" we can give out visas to workers restricted to
specific job categories, as we once did (and certainly will have to do
again) for seasonal agricultural workers.
Agreed.
Post by tim...
If we decide (as an example) that we need more of the lower skilled [1]
health care staff, we can give out visas for that on the basis that the
recipient only has a right to remain if they are working in health care.
Agreed.
Post by tim...
And people on such visas can bring their family with them, only if they
support them out of their wages. Once they are no longer working they have
no entitlement to benefits (obviously with reasonable safeguards for people
who are genuinely sick.)
Whether such a restriction would be more or less attractive to groups from
East Europe than the Commonwealth, we can only guess at
The UK would decide the source of such workers.
but IMHO it would be better if we didn't discriminate, though an agreement
to discriminate in favour of rEU may get us a better deal.

tim
Clank
2016-12-01 17:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by e27002
Post Brexit the UK will be able to recruit nurses, doctors, etc., on an
as needed basis, from the commonwealth. The unending stream of bottom
feeders from Eastern Europe will end. They are owed something by Russia
not Britain.
I'm not entirely clear why minimum wage workers from west Africa,
Bangladesh and the Caribbean are any more desirable than minimum wage
workers from Romania and Bulgaria. The NHS has been recruiting quite
heavily from non-EU countries in recent years already, regardless of the
EU, and this is unlikely to change.
Once we are back in "control" we can give out visas to workers restricted to
specific job categories, as we once did (and certainly will have to do
again) for seasonal agricultural workers.
If we decide (as an example) that we need more of the lower skilled [1]
health care staff, we can give out visas for that on the basis that the
recipient only has a right to remain if they are working in health care.
And people on such visas can bring their family with them, only if they
support them out of their wages. Once they are no longer working they have
no entitlement to benefits (obviously with reasonable safeguards for people
who are genuinely sick.)
The ridiculous thing is the UK could ALREADY have done that from within the
EU. It just chooses not to.

My residence in Romania as an EU citizen is contingent on me proving I have
a job and can support myself. Without it I lose my right to residence and
entitlement to any benefits.

That the UK chooses not to implement such is its own stupid fault. (But,
when you realise for most Brexiteers economic arguments are just a thin
veneer for racism, it makes more sense - they don't actually care about
benefits claims or the like (particularly given EU immigrants are much less
likely to be benefit scroungers than native Brits.))
tim...
2016-12-01 18:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clank
Post by tim...
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by e27002
Post Brexit the UK will be able to recruit nurses, doctors, etc., on an
as needed basis, from the commonwealth. The unending stream of bottom
feeders from Eastern Europe will end. They are owed something by Russia
not Britain.
I'm not entirely clear why minimum wage workers from west Africa,
Bangladesh and the Caribbean are any more desirable than minimum wage
workers from Romania and Bulgaria. The NHS has been recruiting quite
heavily from non-EU countries in recent years already, regardless of the
EU, and this is unlikely to change.
Once we are back in "control" we can give out visas to workers restricted
to specific job categories, as we once did (and certainly will have to do
again) for seasonal agricultural workers.
If we decide (as an example) that we need more of the lower skilled [1]
health care staff, we can give out visas for that on the basis that the
recipient only has a right to remain if they are working in health care.
And people on such visas can bring their family with them, only if they
support them out of their wages. Once they are no longer working they
have no entitlement to benefits (obviously with reasonable safeguards for
people who are genuinely sick.)
The ridiculous thing is the UK could ALREADY have done that from within the
EU. It just chooses not to.
No it can't
Post by Clank
My residence in Romania as an EU citizen is contingent on me proving I have
a job and can support myself. Without it I lose my right to residence
no you don't (they may try but if you challenged it to the European Court
they would lose),
Post by Clank
and
entitlement to any benefits.
That is because they have as contributory system

Agreed the UK could move (back) to that system but what would all the
current recipients of benefits do for cash if we did that

Just look at the furore when we tried to reduce payments by 5%
Post by Clank
That the UK chooses not to implement such is its own stupid fault.
The main problem in the UK is the stupid way that the government let house
prices get out of control.

low waged workers couldn't affords somewhere to live if we stopped their
benefits
Post by Clank
(But,
when you realise for most Brexiteers economic arguments are just a thin
veneer for racism, it makes more sense - they don't actually care about
benefits claims or the like
Absolute bollocks
Post by Clank
(particularly given EU immigrants are much less
likely to be benefit scroungers than native Brits.))
That was the result of a biased report misrepresenting some statistics.

tim
Clank
2016-12-01 19:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Clank
Post by tim...
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by e27002
Post Brexit the UK will be able to recruit nurses, doctors, etc., on an
as needed basis, from the commonwealth. The unending stream of bottom
feeders from Eastern Europe will end. They are owed something by Russia
not Britain.
I'm not entirely clear why minimum wage workers from west Africa,
Bangladesh and the Caribbean are any more desirable than minimum wage
workers from Romania and Bulgaria. The NHS has been recruiting quite
heavily from non-EU countries in recent years already, regardless of the
EU, and this is unlikely to change.
Once we are back in "control" we can give out visas to workers restricted
to specific job categories, as we once did (and certainly will have to do
again) for seasonal agricultural workers.
If we decide (as an example) that we need more of the lower skilled [1]
health care staff, we can give out visas for that on the basis that the
recipient only has a right to remain if they are working in health care.
And people on such visas can bring their family with them, only if they
support them out of their wages. Once they are no longer working they
have no entitlement to benefits (obviously with reasonable safeguards for
people who are genuinely sick.)
The ridiculous thing is the UK could ALREADY have done that from within the
EU. It just chooses not to.
No it can't
Post by Clank
My residence in Romania as an EU citizen is contingent on me proving I have
a job and can support myself. Without it I lose my right to residence
no you don't (they may try but if you challenged it to the European Court
they would lose),
Wrong. EU citizenship only grants 90 days residence. States can impose
conditions (such as having a job) on permanent residence, and can tie
things like benefit entitlement to permanent residence (so border hopping
every 90 days won't get you entitlement.)
Post by tim...
Post by Clank
and
entitlement to any benefits.
That is because they have as contributory system
Agreed the UK could move (back) to that system but what would all the
current recipients of benefits do for cash if we did that
Christ, are you suggesting British natives should have to work for a living?
You're right, blame immigrants, it's easier ...
Recliner
2016-12-01 12:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by e27002
On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:17:00 +0000, e27002 aurora
Corrected.
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in
the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
A bit muddled; the "Eastern" section of E-W is the part from
Cambridge
to Norwich/Ipswich, the Bedford-Cambridge section is the "Central"
one
and judging by the vagueness expressed in the article doesn't look
any
closer than it was a year ago.
The "Western" section, as far as Bedford, is already in the
pipeline,
so
this is just the umpteenth re-announcement of something we knew
already.
The 'news' is that they've put in some modest government funding in
the hope of triggering a larger amount of private sector investment.
In other words, in the absence of the latter, further progress east
of
Bicester is unlikely.
You make it sound like the Western Section Phase 2 has been kicked into
the long grass. That is (fsvo) bad news rather than good news. And
makes
the infamous Central section even more of a pipedream.
It could be that I'm being too cynical, but when reports emerge about
the government encouraging private sector investment in projects that
were previously regarded as public sector, I generally assume it's
because the public sector funding has dried up.
There's definitely an aura of "s106 mk2" about this.
But I've never been that convinced that the project isn't a vanity one
based on reviving a non-existent "Golden Age".
1. A freight route for avoiding London.
there is already a perfectly adequate alternative route from Felixstowe to
Peterborough/Birmingham
what other flows are you considering that might need a second alternative
Google "freight spine".
what's that got to do with anything?
Duh, it uses the western part of East-East. Do keep up.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
2. A passenger link between the town along its route.
flows which see next to no traffic demand
A bit like the Waverley route, prior to re-opening, then.
Not at all
The Waverly route joined some places with no railway to the most desirable
destination possible
E-W rail joins places with no railway to other places with no railway.
East-West rail joins towns with railways, that otherwise can only
reach each other, by a long detour by way of London. This adds to the
load on London's railways already overwhelmed railways.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
These should be
supplement with new London overspill towns where East West crosses
other routes.
cart before horse
perhaps we should decide if we are going to have such new towns before
building the railway to serve them
This has been mentioned by a Mr Clegg of the Liberal Democrat Party. The
alternative is to relax London's Green Belt. That would be folly.
Perhaps it would, but there is currently no plan
Post by e27002
Or, feel free to present your solution to London's housing need.
I didn't say that I was against any specific plan..
I am saying that you can't make a plan for a new overspill town by building
the railway first.
Only government can do this sort of strategic planning. The UK's
population had stabilized at about 60 million. The European adventure
has caused a significant rise. This spigot will soon be turned off.
Um, don't population demographics in the Ewe Kay reflect much the same
as other 'First World' countries... i.e. we're not 'naturally'
replacing ourselves?
It takes 2.2 children per married couple to maintain a stable population, so not hard to achieve.
What about the larger number of unmarried couples? About half the
births in the UK are to unmarried mothers. Not everyone shares your
addiction to marriage.
Post by e27002
So, the bulge of Baby Boomer oldies you lot have stored up are going
to be marching through the Money Pile/withdrawing from the workforce
and you'll need all these unfortunates to pay the bills?
Post Brexit the UK will be able to recruit nurses, doctors, etc., on an as needed basis, from the commonwealth.  The unending stream of bottom feeders from Eastern Europe will end.  They are owed something by Russia not Britain.
I wouldn't regard doctors and nurses as bottom feeders, wherever they
come from. More to the point, they should be properly qualified, with
an adequate command of both spoken and written English. We have always
recruited many from the Commonwealth, as well as many Filipina nurses.
Being an EU member has never stopped us from doing that.
tim...
2016-12-01 18:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by e27002
On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:17:00 +0000, e27002 aurora
Corrected.
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 14:04:22 +0000, Roland Perry
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private
investment in
the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
A bit muddled; the "Eastern" section of E-W is the part from
Cambridge
to Norwich/Ipswich, the Bedford-Cambridge section is the
"Central"
one
and judging by the vagueness expressed in the article doesn't
look
any
closer than it was a year ago.
The "Western" section, as far as Bedford, is already in the
pipeline,
so
this is just the umpteenth re-announcement of something we knew
already.
The 'news' is that they've put in some modest government funding in
the hope of triggering a larger amount of private sector
investment.
In other words, in the absence of the latter, further progress east
of
Bicester is unlikely.
You make it sound like the Western Section Phase 2 has been
kicked
into
the long grass. That is (fsvo) bad news rather than good news. And
makes
the infamous Central section even more of a pipedream.
It could be that I'm being too cynical, but when reports emerge about
the government encouraging private sector investment in projects that
were previously regarded as public sector, I generally assume it's
because the public sector funding has dried up.
There's definitely an aura of "s106 mk2" about this.
But I've never been that convinced that the project isn't a vanity one
based on reviving a non-existent "Golden Age".
1. A freight route for avoiding London.
there is already a perfectly adequate alternative route from
Felixstowe
to
Peterborough/Birmingham
what other flows are you considering that might need a second alternative
Google "freight spine".
what's that got to do with anything?
Duh, it uses the western part of East-East. Do keep up.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
2. A passenger link between the town along its route.
flows which see next to no traffic demand
A bit like the Waverley route, prior to re-opening, then.
Not at all
The Waverly route joined some places with no railway to the most desirable
destination possible
E-W rail joins places with no railway to other places with no railway.
East-West rail joins towns with railways, that otherwise can only
reach each other, by a long detour by way of London. This adds to the
load on London's railways already overwhelmed railways.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
These should be
supplement with new London overspill towns where East West crosses
other routes.
cart before horse
perhaps we should decide if we are going to have such new towns before
building the railway to serve them
This has been mentioned by a Mr Clegg of the Liberal Democrat Party.
The
alternative is to relax London's Green Belt. That would be folly.
Perhaps it would, but there is currently no plan
Post by e27002
Or, feel free to present your solution to London's housing need.
I didn't say that I was against any specific plan..
I am saying that you can't make a plan for a new overspill town by building
the railway first.
Only government can do this sort of strategic planning. The UK's
population had stabilized at about 60 million. The European adventure
has caused a significant rise. This spigot will soon be turned off.
Um, don't population demographics in the Ewe Kay reflect much the same
as other 'First World' countries... i.e. we're not 'naturally'
replacing ourselves?
It takes 2.2 children per married couple to maintain a stable population,
so not hard to achieve.
What about the larger number of unmarried couples? About half the
births in the UK are to unmarried mothers. Not everyone shares your
addiction to marriage.
Post by e27002
So, the bulge of Baby Boomer oldies you lot have stored up are going
to be marching through the Money Pile/withdrawing from the workforce
and you'll need all these unfortunates to pay the bills?
Post Brexit the UK will be able to recruit nurses, doctors, etc., on an as
needed basis, from the commonwealth. The unending stream of bottom
feeders from Eastern Europe will end. They are owed something by Russia
not Britain.
I wouldn't regard doctors and nurses as bottom feeders, wherever they
come from. More to the point, they should be properly qualified, with
an adequate command of both spoken and written English. We have always
recruited many from the Commonwealth, as well as many Filipina nurses.
Being an EU member has never stopped us from doing that.
My last n trips to the Hospital that have involved me seeing a junior doctor
has invariably been with someone foreign.

Usually I can't understand a damned word that they are saying to me and I
have to get them to repeat it, twice! before I give up.

Mostly the problem is with Africans

The Polish guy was OK as was the Filipino nurse
e27002
2016-12-02 08:36:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 01:21:14 -0800 (PST), e27002
Snip.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
It takes 2.2 children per married couple to maintain a stable population,
so not hard to achieve.
What about the larger number of unmarried couples? About half the
births in the UK are to unmarried mothers. Not everyone shares your
addiction to marriage.
Nigel's lack of a spouse is noted. Narcisism is not an attractive trait.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by Nobody
So, the bulge of Baby Boomer oldies you lot have stored up are going
to be marching through the Money Pile/withdrawing from the workforce
and you'll need all these unfortunates to pay the bills?
Post Brexit the UK will be able to recruit nurses, doctors, etc., on an as
needed basis, from the commonwealth. The unending stream of bottom
feeders from Eastern Europe will end. They are owed something by Russia
not Britain.
I wouldn't regard doctors and nurses as bottom feeders, wherever they
come from. More to the point, they should be properly qualified, with
an adequate command of both spoken and written English. We have always
recruited many from the Commonwealth, as well as many Filipina nurses.
Being an EU member has never stopped us from doing that.
Said poster needs to revisit 4th grade comprehension. The UK may need skilled help. Her bottom feeders are spending my tax pounds at the pub while (the seemingly unending pool of) East Europeans harvest vegetables, deliver packages and work in warehouses.
Post by tim...
My last n trips to the Hospital that have involved me seeing a junior doctor
has invariably been with someone foreign.
Usually I can't understand a damned word that they are saying to me and I
have to get them to repeat it, twice! before I give up.
Mostly the problem is with Africans
The Polish guy was OK as was the Filipino nurse
Generally Malaysian Chinese & Indians, and Hong Kong Chinese have a good grasp of English.
tim...
2016-12-01 10:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
what other flows are you considering that might need a second alternative
Google "freight spine".
what's that got to do with anything?
Duh, it uses the western part of East-East. Do keep up.
What is East-East?

And surely the western part of the line is already funded and this attempt
at private funding is only for the eastern part.

So I repeat what's the freight spin got to do with it?
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
2. A passenger link between the town along its route.
flows which see next to no traffic demand
A bit like the Waverley route, prior to re-opening, then.
Not at all
The Waverly route joined some places with no railway to the most desirable
destination possible
E-W rail joins places with no railway to other places with no railway.
East-West rail joins towns with railways, that otherwise can only
reach each other, by a long detour by way of London.
which no-one does

they all go by car

and, because they already have a car, will continue to do so once this line
is built
Post by e27002 aurora
This adds to the
load on London's railways already overwhelmed railways.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
These should be
supplement with new London overspill towns where East West crosses
other routes.
cart before horse
perhaps we should decide if we are going to have such new towns before
building the railway to serve them
This has been mentioned by a Mr Clegg of the Liberal Democrat Party.
The
alternative is to relax London's Green Belt. That would be folly.
Perhaps it would, but there is currently no plan
Post by e27002
Or, feel free to present your solution to London's housing need.
I didn't say that I was against any specific plan..
I am saying that you can't make a plan for a new overspill town by building
the railway first.
Only government can do this sort of strategic planning. The UK's
population had stabilized at about 60 million. The European adventure
has caused a significant rise. This spigot will soon be turned off.
Meanwhile there needs to be a plan for the southeast that includes
roads and railways. Developers will build when land is available.
Local planners need to ensure schools, medical facilities, parks etc.
are scaled to the likely expansion.
IMHO East West rail can play a significant role. Perhaps we should
agree to differ.
We will

The link from Oxford to MK (that AIUI is already funded) works fine as a
strategic and local route.

The bit onwards to Cambridge, for which they are kite flying for funds, is a
huge white elephant that will never see any significant traffic, even if it
were built. Which it wont be under this idea, because the amount of private
money they will collect will be zero.

tim
e27002
2016-12-01 12:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
what other flows are you considering that might need a second alternative
Google "freight spine".
what's that got to do with anything?
Duh, it uses the western part of East-East. Do keep up.
What is East-East?
Err, a typo.
Post by tim...
And surely the western part of the line is already funded and this attempt
at private funding is only for the eastern part.
So I repeat what's the freight spin got to do with it?
"freight spin" couldn't be a typo could it.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
2. A passenger link between the town along its route.
flows which see next to no traffic demand
A bit like the Waverley route, prior to re-opening, then.
Not at all
The Waverly route joined some places with no railway to the most desirable
destination possible
E-W rail joins places with no railway to other places with no railway.
East-West rail joins towns with railways, that otherwise can only
reach each other, by a long detour by way of London.
which no-one does
they all go by car
and, because they already have a car, will continue to do so once this line
is built
Post by e27002 aurora
This adds to the
load on London's railways already overwhelmed railways.
Post by tim...
Post by e27002
Post by tim...
Post by e27002 aurora
These should be
supplement with new London overspill towns where East West crosses
other routes.
cart before horse
perhaps we should decide if we are going to have such new towns before
building the railway to serve them
This has been mentioned by a Mr Clegg of the Liberal Democrat Party.
The
alternative is to relax London's Green Belt. That would be folly.
Perhaps it would, but there is currently no plan
Post by e27002
Or, feel free to present your solution to London's housing need.
I didn't say that I was against any specific plan..
I am saying that you can't make a plan for a new overspill town by building
the railway first.
Only government can do this sort of strategic planning. The UK's
population had stabilized at about 60 million. The European adventure
has caused a significant rise. This spigot will soon be turned off.
Meanwhile there needs to be a plan for the southeast that includes
roads and railways. Developers will build when land is available.
Local planners need to ensure schools, medical facilities, parks etc.
are scaled to the likely expansion.
IMHO East West rail can play a significant role. Perhaps we should
agree to differ.
We will
The link from Oxford to MK (that AIUI is already funded) works fine as a
strategic and local route.
The bit onwards to Cambridge, for which they are kite flying for funds, is a
huge white elephant that will never see any significant traffic, even if it
were built. Which it wont be under this idea, because the amount of private
money they will collect will be zero.
Opinions differ,
Jim Chisholm
2016-11-28 16:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
A bit muddled; the "Eastern" section of E-W is the part from Cambridge
to Norwich/Ipswich, the Bedford-Cambridge section is the "Central" one
and judging by the vagueness expressed in the article doesn't look any
closer than it was a year ago.
The "Western" section, as far as Bedford, is already in the pipeline, so
this is just the umpteenth re-announcement of something we knew already.
The 'news' is that they've put in some modest government funding in
the hope of triggering a larger amount of private sector investment.
In other words, in the absence of the latter, further progress east of
Bicester is unlikely.
You make it sound like the Western Section Phase 2 has been kicked into
the long grass. That is (fsvo) bad news rather than good news. And makes
the infamous Central section even more of a pipedream.
I'm not so cynical... The National Infrastucture Plan suggest you
wouldn't want to finish the western section at same time as HS2 (and E-W
would be advantageous doing it first)

There are rumors that private funding may be used to accelerate the
proposed Addenbrooke's station. I expect pressure will also be applied
to complete E-W rail BEFORE the Oxford Cambridge Expressway.
Neil Williams
2016-11-28 21:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Chisholm
There are rumors that private funding may be used to accelerate the
proposed Addenbrooke's station. I expect pressure will also be applied
to complete E-W rail BEFORE the Oxford Cambridge Expressway.
Is the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway one thing? I'd rather envisaged it
as filling in the gaps on the A421/422 etc where it isn't dualled, and
perhaps finally building the much-needed Bletchley southern bypass.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Graeme Wall
2016-11-28 14:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
Somewhat of an exaggerated claim, it is what the government wants to
happen but is anybody actually putting up any money?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
tim...
2016-11-28 19:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
Somewhat of an exaggerated claim, it is what the government wants to
happen but is anybody actually putting up any money?
There is no chance of it happening

schemes with better potential than this have previously been floated for
public/private partnership and received zero interest from the private
sector

This one has even less chance IMHO

tim
j***@btinternet.com
2016-11-28 22:39:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Looks like the government is hoping for some private investment in the
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-investors-hop-on-board-the-varsity-line-nnkslfckw?shareToken=d71e16504ea9be5e6fa784c256c354e6
Is the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway one thing?  I'd rather envisaged it
as filling in the gaps on the A421/422 etc where it isn't dualled, and
perhaps finally building the much-needed Bletchley southern bypass.

Neil
--
Neil Williams

Several undecided options but no.1 is new dual carriageway eastwards from approx. Wheatley/n.of Thame/Aylesbury North Parkway/create Wing northern bypass/share A4146 to A5 and new road to J13 of M1 (or utilise A4146/A421 within Milton Keynes) and utilise A421& A428 beyond Bedford with dualling infill where necessary. Part of the rationale is to allow "significant" development opportunities en-route!!! Only chance of Bletchley Southern Bypass is if the A421 were to be upgraded instead from Bicester/Buckingham/Bletchley.
JohnG
Neil Williams
2016-11-29 10:37:13 UTC
Permalink
On 2016-11-28 22:39:32 +0000, ***@btinternet.com said:

Can't quote your post as it's hidden in the sig, but that's a shame -
the 421 through MK is developing a serious traffic problem, so the
Bletchley Southern Bypass is probably the most needed bit of the whole
thing.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Roland Perry
2016-11-29 11:03:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Williams
Can't quote your post as it's hidden in the sig,
Several undecided options but no.1 is new dual carriageway eastwards
from approx. Wheatley/n.of Thame/Aylesbury North Parkway/create Wing
northern bypass/share A4146 to A5 and new road to J13 of M1 (or utilise
A4146/A421 within Milton Keynes) and utilise A421& A428 beyond Bedford
with dualling infill where necessary.
Part of the rationale is to allow "significant" development
opportunities en-route!!! Only chance of Bletchley Southern Bypass is
if the A421 were to be upgraded instead from
Bicester/Buckingham/Bletchley.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2016-11-29 11:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Williams
Can't quote your post as it's hidden in the sig,
no

people need to put their replies in the right place

I wasn't inconvenienced by "not being able to reply", but I certainly found
the PP's post hard to read

tim
Roland Perry
2016-11-29 13:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Neil Williams
Can't quote your post as it's hidden in the sig,
no
people need to put their replies in the right place
I wasn't inconvenienced by "not being able to reply", but I certainly
found the PP's post hard to read
Someone else who needs a better usenet client. Here, the PP's posting
was as easy to read (and potentially reply to) as any other.

Remember the first half of:

"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send"
--
Roland Perry
Loading...