Happy New Year To all Tamesiders, that is bar the Labour Mafia and their hangers on, I hope this one makes all their hair fall out and their food taste sour.
As the immigrant led population explosion continues to desroy what is already one of the most populous countries in the world it is interesting to contrast three areas. Borough of Copeland in North West England: 250 people per sq mile. Tameside: 5380 per sq mile (typical for a Greater Manchester Metropolitan Borough, apart from Manchester itself which has over double that already extremely high density, at 11300 per sq mile). Then there's Hackney in 'New London' at a staggering 34000 per sq mile. No comment necessary. The wind's blowing one way and it stinks of an alien foulness that is death to Britain and evertyhing it represents.
Picture a stereotypical 19th-century Plains Indian warrior accompanied with the slogan: "They were subjected to immigration – now they live on a reservation".
I wonder if the elite will give us our own reservation when the immigration invasion has reached its natural conclusion?
@ There is no such as an indigenous Briton, it's often worthwhile reading the comments of lefties on these type of Guardian articles. They reek of wilfully blind 'sophistication' and 'I know betterisms'. The truth is, none of these people want the truth and they've become experts at constructing specious reasoning to delude themselves. At the core of their collective essence are two things; self-loathing and pure cowardice. They're terrified of what's happening to their surroudings and consequently shout their treachery and nation hating bile ever louder, with their hands clasped firmly over their ears, with eyes tight shut in case they catch a snippet of the increasingly hellish reality they have helped construct.
It's amazing the cry of : "It was better under the British" is heard so often, despite all the PC nonsense and rewriting of history to skew the British as a brutal regime of oppression and exploitation. The scene from the Monty Python film :The Life of Brian" comes to mind, where the Jewish rebels sit around and carp about the Romans (sewers, safe streets, the wine and roads etc.). The British did many sorry and shameful things, but as far as colonial powers went, they were by far and away the best in history, with honest government, fair laws, decent infrastructure and general education for the masses, as well as modern health and medical practices, democracy etc.being among the few parts of the legacy left behind when they left peacefully. Compare this with the colonies of our EU "partners" or the behaviour of the Japanese when they took up colonial conquests.
I see there's the usual 'uproar' (ZZZzzzz) about yet another increase in rail fares and the usual (ZZZzzzz) absurd calls for renationalisation. Why should the vast majority of people, who never use trains, subsidise those who do? The government rightly thinks they shouldn't and passengers should absorb the costs of the system they're using. The supposedly privatised rail system is already subsidised to the tune of billions of pounds a year of taxpayer's money poured down the bottomless pit of Network Rail. If it was WWII and the train network was regularly moving a significant proportion of the country about it would be OK, but it's not and never can, especially as people now demand better, infinitely more fleixble methods of transport, and of course there are tens of millions more people with an ongoing immigrant led population explosion meaning there will be many many more in another few years. Bearing this in mind it's the road network (that does 80% of all the work) that needs attention, upgrade, freeing up and its FAIR SHARE of available funds. The rail network has the same capacity problems and bottlenecks it had in Victorian days and much of the overpricing is done on purpose by the train companies who can't cope with any more passengers. Commuting into London, intercity services and other similar lines may be justified, but many of the massively subsidised, unnecessary other lines should be scrapped. Regarding renationalisation, those who point to the state supported 'wonderful' French system always neglect to mention its massive £37 billion pound debt. I believe Manchester's transport saviour, the totally unnecessary tram, is massively behind schedule and Thales, the company installing the latest extensions, have asked for an extra £42 million (on top of the initial £22million) from the taxpayer funded Transport for Greater Manchester, who are refusing to pay, blaming Thales. It has now gone to court. What a shambles and all for an outmoded, expensive, obstructive form of transport that, even at theoretical maximum capacity, can only ever carry a tiny proportion of Manchester's moving public.
Anon@13.56 clearly has no idea how efficient the modern rail network is. Here’s a challenge; you drive from the centre of Manchester to the centre of London by car and I will do the same by train. I will get there twice as quick as you and that’s a fact.
It is no coincidence that the worlds leading nations are investing in high speed rail networks in a big way. Rail is the ideal way of transporting people and goods over long distances in a quick and environmentally friendly way.
The railway has served us well for over 180 years and here’s to the next 180 years. Long live the iron road!
'Transporting people and goods over longer distances.' This is a small, extremely crowded country and something suiting another, much larger country has virtually no relevance to what is appropriate here. As for goods, businesses and haulage companies clearly disagree as they know moving goods thirty miles or so BY ROAD to a rail goods yard, transporting it a hundred miles and then taking it off the train at the other end to transport it the remaining thirty miles BY ROAD is economic b******s. The astronomical amount of investment needed could in no way be justified by the economic model in a country like ours. If a tiny fraction of the people or goods were moved to rail the entire network would be totally overwhelmed. The road network, whether private or commercial vehicles, does 80% minimum of the donkey work. Without it luxury, relatively low capacity forms of transport couldn't exist at all. As for high speed inter city rail I clearly stated there was a case for it in some limited circumstances. As for getting to London (what person in their right mind would want to go to that Third World, alien hellhole anyaway), supposing you needed to go right now. The train would be useless and can not possibly match the cars comfort, flexibility and immediacy.
Anon@22.45, without wishing to sound disrespectful, could I ask you when was the last time you travelled by train? You seem to think the railways have not moved with the times. If you actually try using the railways instead of complaining about them - you may be pleasantly surprised.
The railways have never been busier than they are today with record numbers of people choosing to travel by train. It is such a crying shame that our truly national network was destroyed by Butcher Beeching in the 1960’s. If it was not for his destructive activities we would have a national network which would be twice the size of what we’ve got now.
About twenty years ago. No doubt they've been updated but none of the points I raised are altered by that in any way. Mor people are using the train because there has been a significant population increase in the last few years. The train operators are raising prices to actively deter people at peak times as they can't cope with any more passengers and the money and room for expansion doesn't exist, nor does a credible economic case for such in Britain. Many of the lines Beeching sensibly axed were economically nonsensical.
1.16 billion rail journeys took place in Great Britain last year. This means 1.16 billion less journeys by road. The railways and roads can compliment each other, without the railways there would be complete gridlock on the roads. I do admit travelling far more by private car than on trains, but for comfort and speed there is no beating the train. It’s just a pity the railways were privatised which has resulted in massive price hikes which makes the cost of travelling by rail prohibitive in many situations.
A rail network would work perfectly well for a Britain with a healthy sized population, the problem is that we are overcrowded. The pseudo-privatisation does not help either, how can separate companies own the track, engines and rolling stock, stations and signals, most likely the refreshment trolleys too, all while subsidised and dictated to by the government.
The rail network's operation is an absolute shambles, we had a private railway service before the war and that worked fine, but what we have is not privatised, the taxpayer still subsidises it. It is more like an elaborate robbery.
TC, you make some good points then come out with the ludicrous: 'Without the railways there would be complete gridlock on the motorways.' The railways do a miniscule amount of public movements compared to the car and the billions given by the taxpayer every year are pitifully unreflected in rail's contribution. A calculation done a few years ago worked out that a theoretical (because it's an impossibility) 50% increase in rail travel would result in a miniscule 4% reduction in car journeys, such are the massive differences in overall workloads. We need mass, cheap, flexible transport solutions and feeeing up and investing in our road network is the REAL key to transport relatedeconomic prosperity. The M60 has made a massively beneficial difference to the economic and everyday lives of the people of the region because of its sheer scale and efficiency.
I stand by what I said. The 1.16 billion rail journeys each year translate into 1.16 billion less road journeys. How do you think transport in London would cope without the underground? It would grind to a halt! What about the M6/M1 if there was no West Coast Mainline linking Manchester and London? Total gridlock is the answer as the M6/M1 would be clogged with cars, coaches and lorries.
Detailed proposals, set to be announced shortly, for the so-called Y-route north of Birmingham will see one line run to Manchester and the other branch to the centre of Leeds.
Under the latest plans, the line will split at Water Orton east of Birmingham, with the eastern branch heading towards the major conurbations of Derby and Nottingham, which will be served by a parkway station at Toton Sidings, currently a goods yard close to the M1.
The western branch will run via Crewe and on to Manchester, taking in at least part of George Osborne’s Tatton constituency in Cheshire.
Already 18 local authorities have joined forces to form the 51M Alliance to oppose the first stage of the route as far as Birmingham, which is due due to open in 2026 - six years ahead of the completion of the lines to Manchester and Leeds.
Their ranks could be swelled as local authorities further north digest the plans for the Y-route. County council leaders are due to meet later this week.
However the strongest opposition is expected to come from district councils once they find that they are on the route.
“It depends how many communities are affected and how badly,” said Martin Tett, leader of the 51M Alliance.
It is understood the line will run to Manchester Piccadilly with a stop at Manchester Airport, which will see the route slicing through part of George Osborne’s Tatton constituency.
The Department for Transport will come under intense pressure minimise the impact of the line on the area which includes the “footballers’ belt” of Alderley Edge and Wilmslow .
Supporters of the scheme say journey times will be slashed by the £33 billion project, which will see 225 mph trains hurtling through the countryside.
It will take passengers one hour and 13 minutes to get from Manchester to London, rather than two hours and eight minutes.
Journey times to Leeds will also be slashed from the current two hours and 20 minutes to one hour and 24.
A Department for Transport spokesman said: “HS2 is a vital project that will create jobs, drive growth and transform connectivity between London, the Midlands and the North.
The Undeground is a change of subject and of course different from the rest of the rail network. It is a vital and indisputable part of London's transport network and of course it largely doesn't get in the way of road traffic because it's 'underground' the clue's in the name. An above ground light rail version WOULD cause complete gridlock. Every time the West Coast or any other mainline is blocked by floods or other problems the road network absorbs the problem, there is no gridlock or serious traffic increase due of course to the massive discrepancy in workloads done by the two forms of transport. Road could exist and prosper without rail, the opposite is manifestly not the case.
HS2 is along way from even getting off the ground, and all for what? £33 billion, in the middle of the current dire economic cicumstances, to speed up businessmen's journeys by 45 minutes, total lunacy, driven by 'agenda groups' within the establishment. That money should be spent proportionally: 85% on the road networks, particularly widening the current relevant motorways,and the remainder on the EXISTING intercity rail lines, even a lot of the rail lobby agree with that. That way it would significantly benefit the VAST MAJORITY instead of slightly speeding up the business elite. The potential damage to some of our most beautiful areas of our virgin countryside is appalling and literally criminal.
Crossrail, like the underground (which is also suited to London) is specifically being built because it is in extremely wealthy London, where the money, mega powerful and wealthy international businesses and moneymen are. The wealthy and better off want to be isolated when travelling, from the reality of what the capital city is becoming with its small number of the better off and masses of less well off and poor (often immigrant), populations. They also want to avoid the increasing traffic problems caused not by the car itself but by a combination of chronic immigrant led overpopulation in London and the deliberately obstructive and anti-car policies of the Greater London Authority, a situation of course unique to London. Significant sections of Crossrail will of course also be in tunnels underground. London is, in a vast and increasing number of ways, totally unlike the rest of the UK.
I used to work in Manchester city centre up to 1996. I used to catch the Hadfield train home from Piccadilly, a journey I made recently at weekday rush hour for the first time since then. Whilst I always remember the trains were crowded at that time of the day, back in the mid 90s it would have hardly compared to the bursting at the seams job I was confronted with in 2012. Stood up all the way you could barely step sideways. If that's the norm then either it's indicative of population growth or just more people working in Manchester or perhaps both.
The buses are largely the same. I remember the bus home from town being the only place I heard people speaking foreign languages as a child, now most of the people seem to be speaking in all kinds of weird languages.
There's no better way to round of a tiring, warm and fruitless shopping trip around Manchester centre (the model shop must be at least a full mile from the Arndale I swear) than by being stood up in a cramped box surrounded by unwashed students, babbling foreigners and scruffy people playing loud noises on their phones.
32 comments:
Happy New Year To all Tamesiders, that is bar the Labour Mafia and their hangers on, I hope this one makes all their hair fall out and their food taste sour.
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU ALL
Onward and upwards.
Don't stand by and allow INJUSTICE to rule on the 4th of Jan 2013.
It's just not right and you know it.
Happy new year. Love the bit about their food tasting sour. lol
Housing Associations and councils need as much space as possible for the ongoing and accelerating ethnic population explosion.
As the immigrant led population explosion continues to desroy what is already one of the most populous countries in the world it is interesting to contrast three areas.
Borough of Copeland in North West England: 250 people per sq mile.
Tameside: 5380 per sq mile (typical for a Greater Manchester Metropolitan Borough, apart from Manchester itself which has over double that already extremely high density, at 11300 per sq mile).
Then there's Hackney in 'New London' at a staggering 34000 per sq mile. No comment necessary.
The wind's blowing one way and it stinks of an alien foulness that is death to Britain and evertyhing it represents.
So there you have it!
Picture a stereotypical 19th-century Plains Indian warrior accompanied with the slogan: "They were subjected to immigration – now they live on a reservation".
I wonder if the elite will give us our own reservation when the immigration invasion has reached its natural conclusion?
@ There is no such as an indigenous Briton, it's often worthwhile reading the comments of lefties on these type of Guardian articles. They reek of wilfully blind 'sophistication' and 'I know betterisms'. The truth is, none of these people want the truth and they've become experts at constructing specious reasoning to delude themselves.
At the core of their collective essence are two things; self-loathing and pure cowardice. They're terrified of what's happening to their surroudings and consequently shout their treachery and nation hating bile ever louder, with their hands clasped firmly over their ears, with eyes tight shut in case they catch a snippet of the increasingly hellish reality they have helped construct.
A good description of your typical lefty hypocrite if ever there was one.
Registered charity number 292552
It's amazing the cry of : "It was better under the British" is heard so often, despite all the PC nonsense and rewriting of history to skew the British as a brutal regime of oppression and exploitation. The scene from the Monty Python film :The Life of Brian" comes to mind, where the Jewish rebels sit around and carp about the Romans (sewers, safe streets, the wine and roads etc.). The British did many sorry and shameful things, but as far as colonial powers went, they were by far and away the best in history, with honest government, fair laws, decent infrastructure and general education for the masses, as well as modern health and medical practices, democracy etc.being among the few parts of the legacy left behind when they left peacefully. Compare this with the colonies of our EU "partners" or the behaviour of the Japanese when they took up colonial conquests.
To thank us they want to come and live and share all the 'benefits' of their cultures with us.
We need a cull of the detritus, homegrown and imported.
I see there's the usual 'uproar' (ZZZzzzz) about yet another increase in rail fares and the usual (ZZZzzzz) absurd calls for renationalisation. Why should the vast majority of people, who never use trains, subsidise those who do? The government rightly thinks they shouldn't and passengers should absorb the costs of the system they're using. The supposedly privatised rail system is already subsidised to the tune of billions of pounds a year of taxpayer's money poured down the bottomless pit of Network Rail.
If it was WWII and the train network was regularly moving a significant proportion of the country about it would be OK, but it's not and never can, especially as people now demand better, infinitely more fleixble methods of transport, and of course there are tens of millions more people with an ongoing immigrant led population explosion meaning there will be many many more in another few years. Bearing this in mind it's the road network (that does 80% of all the work) that needs attention, upgrade, freeing up and its FAIR SHARE of available funds.
The rail network has the same capacity problems and bottlenecks it had in Victorian days and much of the overpricing is done on purpose by the train companies who can't cope with any more passengers. Commuting into London, intercity services and other similar lines may be justified, but many of the massively subsidised, unnecessary other lines should be scrapped.
Regarding renationalisation, those who point to the state supported 'wonderful' French system always neglect to mention its massive £37 billion pound debt.
I believe Manchester's transport saviour, the totally unnecessary tram, is massively behind schedule and Thales, the company installing the latest extensions, have asked for an extra £42 million (on top of the initial £22million) from the taxpayer funded Transport for Greater Manchester, who are refusing to pay, blaming Thales. It has now gone to court.
What a shambles and all for an outmoded, expensive, obstructive form of transport that, even at theoretical maximum capacity, can only ever carry a tiny proportion of Manchester's moving public.
Anon@13.56 clearly has no idea how efficient the modern rail network is. Here’s a challenge; you drive from the centre of Manchester to the centre of London by car and I will do the same by train. I will get there twice as quick as you and that’s a fact.
It is no coincidence that the worlds leading nations are investing in high speed rail networks in a big way. Rail is the ideal way of transporting people and goods over long distances in a quick and environmentally friendly way.
The railway has served us well for over 180 years and here’s to the next 180 years. Long live the iron road!
'Transporting people and goods over longer distances.' This is a small, extremely crowded country and something suiting another, much larger country has virtually no relevance to what is appropriate here.
As for goods, businesses and haulage companies clearly disagree as they know moving goods thirty miles or so BY ROAD to a rail goods yard, transporting it a hundred miles and then taking it off the train at the other end to transport it the remaining thirty miles BY ROAD is economic b******s. The astronomical amount of investment needed could in no way be justified by the economic model in a country like ours. If a tiny fraction of the people or goods were moved to rail the entire network would be totally overwhelmed. The road network, whether private or commercial vehicles, does 80% minimum of the donkey work. Without it luxury, relatively low capacity forms of transport couldn't exist at all.
As for high speed inter city rail I clearly stated there was a case for it in some limited circumstances.
As for getting to London (what person in their right mind would want to go to that Third World, alien hellhole anyaway), supposing you needed to go right now. The train would be useless and can not possibly match the cars comfort, flexibility and immediacy.
.....................................
Anon@22.45, without wishing to sound disrespectful, could I ask you when was the last time you travelled by train? You seem to think the railways have not moved with the times. If you actually try using the railways instead of complaining about them - you may be pleasantly surprised.
The railways have never been busier than they are today with record numbers of people choosing to travel by train. It is such a crying shame that our truly national network was destroyed by Butcher Beeching in the 1960’s. If it was not for his destructive activities we would have a national network which would be twice the size of what we’ve got now.
About twenty years ago. No doubt they've been updated but none of the points I raised are altered by that in any way.
Mor people are using the train because there has been a significant population increase in the last few years. The train operators are raising prices to actively deter people at peak times as they can't cope with any more passengers and the money and room for expansion doesn't exist, nor does a credible economic case for such in Britain. Many of the lines Beeching sensibly axed were economically nonsensical.
1.16 billion rail journeys took place in Great Britain last year. This means 1.16 billion less journeys by road. The railways and roads can compliment each other, without the railways there would be complete gridlock on the roads. I do admit travelling far more by private car than on trains, but for comfort and speed there is no beating the train. It’s just a pity the railways were privatised which has resulted in massive price hikes which makes the cost of travelling by rail prohibitive in many situations.
A rail network would work perfectly well for a Britain with a healthy sized population, the problem is that we are overcrowded. The pseudo-privatisation does not help either, how can separate companies own the track, engines and rolling stock, stations and signals, most likely the refreshment trolleys too, all while subsidised and dictated to by the government.
The rail network's operation is an absolute shambles, we had a private railway service before the war and that worked fine, but what we have is not privatised, the taxpayer still subsidises it. It is more like an elaborate robbery.
TC, you make some good points then come out with the ludicrous: 'Without the railways there would be complete gridlock on the motorways.' The railways do a miniscule amount of public movements compared to the car and the billions given by the taxpayer every year are pitifully unreflected in rail's contribution. A calculation done a few years ago worked out that a theoretical (because it's an impossibility) 50% increase in rail travel would result in a miniscule 4% reduction in car journeys, such are the massive differences in overall workloads. We need mass, cheap, flexible transport solutions and feeeing up and investing in our road network is the REAL key to transport relatedeconomic prosperity. The M60 has made a massively beneficial difference to the economic and everyday lives of the people of the region because of its sheer scale and efficiency.
I stand by what I said. The 1.16 billion rail journeys each year translate into 1.16 billion less road journeys. How do you think transport in London would cope without the underground? It would grind to a halt! What about the M6/M1 if there was no West Coast Mainline linking Manchester and London? Total gridlock is the answer as the M6/M1 would be clogged with cars, coaches and lorries.
Detailed proposals, set to be announced shortly, for the so-called Y-route north of Birmingham will see one line run to Manchester and the other branch to the centre of Leeds.
Under the latest plans, the line will split at Water Orton east of Birmingham, with the eastern branch heading towards the major conurbations of Derby and Nottingham, which will be served by a parkway station at Toton Sidings, currently a goods yard close to the M1.
The western branch will run via Crewe and on to Manchester, taking in at least part of George Osborne’s Tatton constituency in Cheshire.
Already 18 local authorities have joined forces to form the 51M Alliance to oppose the first stage of the route as far as Birmingham, which is due due to open in 2026 - six years ahead of the completion of the lines to Manchester and Leeds.
Their ranks could be swelled as local authorities further north digest the plans for the Y-route. County council leaders are due to meet later this week.
However the strongest opposition is expected to come from district councils once they find that they are on the route.
“It depends how many communities are affected and how badly,” said Martin Tett, leader of the 51M Alliance.
It is understood the line will run to Manchester Piccadilly with a stop at Manchester Airport, which will see the route slicing through part of George Osborne’s Tatton constituency.
The Department for Transport will come under intense pressure minimise the impact of the line on the area which includes the “footballers’ belt” of Alderley Edge and Wilmslow .
Supporters of the scheme say journey times will be slashed by the £33 billion project, which will see 225 mph trains hurtling through the countryside.
It will take passengers one hour and 13 minutes to get from Manchester to London, rather than two hours and eight minutes.
Journey times to Leeds will also be slashed from the current two hours and 20 minutes to one hour and 24.
A Department for Transport spokesman said: “HS2 is a vital project that will create jobs, drive growth and transform connectivity between London, the Midlands and the North.
The Undeground is a change of subject and of course different from the rest of the rail network. It is a vital and indisputable part of London's transport network and of course it largely doesn't get in the way of road traffic because it's 'underground' the clue's in the name. An above ground light rail version WOULD cause complete gridlock.
Every time the West Coast or any other mainline is blocked by floods or other problems the road network absorbs the problem, there is no gridlock or serious traffic increase due of course to the massive discrepancy in workloads done by the two forms of transport. Road could exist and prosper without rail, the opposite is manifestly not the case.
If only we had this type of scheme in the NW.
HS2 is along way from even getting off the ground, and all for what? £33 billion, in the middle of the current dire economic cicumstances, to speed up businessmen's journeys by 45 minutes, total lunacy, driven by 'agenda groups' within the establishment.
That money should be spent proportionally: 85% on the road networks, particularly widening the current relevant motorways,and the remainder on the EXISTING intercity rail lines, even a lot of the rail lobby agree with that. That way it would significantly benefit the VAST MAJORITY instead of slightly speeding up the business elite.
The potential damage to some of our most beautiful areas of our virgin countryside is appalling and literally criminal.
Crossrail, like the underground (which is also suited to London) is specifically being built because it is in extremely wealthy London, where the money, mega powerful and wealthy international businesses and moneymen are. The wealthy and better off want to be isolated when travelling, from the reality of what the capital city is becoming with its small number of the better off and masses of less well off and poor (often immigrant), populations. They also want to avoid the increasing traffic problems caused not by the car itself but by a combination of chronic immigrant led overpopulation in London and the deliberately obstructive and anti-car policies of the Greater London Authority, a situation of course unique to London.
Significant sections of Crossrail will of course also be in tunnels underground. London is, in a vast and increasing number of ways, totally unlike the rest of the UK.
@serpentslayer
I used to work in Manchester city centre up to 1996. I used to catch the Hadfield train home from Piccadilly, a journey I made recently at weekday rush hour for the first time since then. Whilst I always remember the trains were crowded at that time of the day, back in the mid 90s it would have hardly compared to the bursting at the seams job I was confronted with in 2012. Stood up all the way you could barely step sideways. If that's the norm then either it's indicative of population growth or just more people working in Manchester or perhaps both.
The buses are largely the same. I remember the bus home from town being the only place I heard people speaking foreign languages as a child, now most of the people seem to be speaking in all kinds of weird languages.
There's no better way to round of a tiring, warm and fruitless shopping trip around Manchester centre (the model shop must be at least a full mile from the Arndale I swear) than by being stood up in a cramped box surrounded by unwashed students, babbling foreigners and scruffy people playing loud noises on their phones.
That's one of the reasons why so many people prefer their cars.
Post a Comment