Raac

[Omegstrat6]

I'm certainly no expert but is it not blindingly obvious that using concrete with so many aerated holes in comes with certain risks? Concrete is porous and so using RAAC will only increase the risk of water infiltration leading to both a weakening and crumbling of the concrete itself as well as erosion of any steel rebars. This surely must have been known?

Used properly, in situations where it can be protected from water ingress, I'm sure it's own benefits in being far lighter and cheaper to manufacture were valid but water is very adept at seeping into anywhere and very clearly it looks like the old "cutting costs" factor has come home to roost. Well before all this current squit about schools hit the news, there were already stories about numerous local hospitals looking like building sites with props in corridors etc to support sagging ceilings. This is bound indeed to cost an eye watering amount of money to resolve and sincerely doubt that anyone will be held accountable. Guess it won't be just a problem in the UK either though.

[DaveP67 is back!]

Like a lot of things RAAC is fine if used properly and maintained, the issue is with water ingress and corrosion in the reinforcement, keep it dry and check for issues with the steel and it’s good, no need to knee jerk pull it all out, just look after things, prime example of a stitch in time saves nine.

[mickd1961]

One of the biggest things that winds me up with our political class regardless of who’s in power.

Short term thinking, lack of forward planning, kicking the can down the road to make it a problem for successors or another party who gets into power.

It’s the same with motorways.

We know the population keeps growing and we’ve known for 60 years yet we built mainly three lane motorways.

Every motorway should’ve been built with 5 or 6 lanes and because this didn’t happen the work should start now.

Same problem with railways and tram infrastructure.

If I was PM I’d want to put a huge amount into infrastructure and also into wind and solar power and nuclear.

I’d take out huge long term loans to make this happen.

Our country is becoming a tatty embarrassment.

Governments should be legally bound to do this sort of stuff and ministers should face charges of corporate negligence if they don’t deliver.

[Omegstrat6]

Totally agree about the lack of forward planning and maintenance regarding our transport systems-the bloody pot holes that are everywhere is just one example. The government either enable endless bodge job repairs that may last until the next winter or else pour massive amounts of money into vanity projects like HS2 that benefit comparatively few. New road ways are desperately needed in some areas yet just a few miles away they have spent millions on vast stretches of new roads that are barely used.

As for going forward, all this focus on electric vehicles seems to me completely wrong. Firstly the cars themselves are far too expensive for most, secondly there are massive questions around availability and security/safety of charging points to actually ensure everyone can have access to them, thirdly, production of the batteries themselves is certainly not "green" and lastly, there are questions over how long such vehicles last and how recyclable the components are.

Would it not be far better to invest in public transport whether that is electric train services, trams or buses. If such services were secure, comfortable, reliable, ran on decent timetables and serviced greater areas I'm sure most people would use them instead of their cars, especially for work commutes where the majority of cars on the road are only used by the driver. Other countries manage this so much better than us, so why can't we? Just think of the reduction in traffic if this happened. If cars for personal use were then primarily used for leisure maybe hybrid ones would be a better option than full electric?

Also agree about the need for more investment into wind, solar, wave and nuclear energy.

[kettering_baggie]

The government has put a huge amount of money into ‘upgrading’ our railway system, unfortunately it comes under the heading of HS2! What an a waste of money; huge improvements could have been made to railways across the country with the HS2 cash. Eye-watering sums of money to save 10 minutes going from Birmingham to London.

[9goals2hattricks3pen]

The government has put a huge amount of money into ‘upgrading’ our railway system, unfortunately it comes under the heading of HS2! What an a waste of money; huge improvements could have been made to railways across the country with the HS2 cash. Eye-watering sums of money to save 10 minutes going from Birmingham to London.

HS2 is NOTHING to do with saving time on the journey from Birmingham to London it's all about increasing capacity. As I understand it the idea is to move lots of commuter journeys onto the new line and free up the existing line for badly needed freight traffic thus reducing the number of lorries on the road.

Is it the best use of money? No idea but it makes some sense.

[Omegstrat6]

Totally agree Ketts! When you look back to the Victorian "railway mania" from the late 184Os that resulted in even small villages being linked to the rail network you have to ask if that was not better. I do understand that the mania was driven by private investment and the opportunities to make big profits but even so. Surely better to spend money on a rail network which reaches more of the population than put nearly all of it into saving 20 minutes journey time from Manchester to London just to benefit comparatively few business commuters.

[mickd1961]

HS2 is NOTHING to do with saving time on the journey from Birmingham to London it's all about increasing capacity. As I understand it the idea is to move lots of commuter journeys onto the new line and free up the existing line for badly needed freight traffic thus reducing the number of lorries on the road.

Is it the best use of money? No idea but it makes some sense.

If this is the case 923 then perhaps this useless government could communicate this to us as I had absolutely no idea.

The lack of decent rail in the north and cross Pennine is a disgrace though, I’m sure people and freight need to travel in these directions too?

Interesting info though so thank you.

[9goals2hattricks3pen]

If this is the case 923 then perhaps this useless government could communicate this to us as I had absolutely no idea.

The lack of decent rail in the north and cross Pennine is a disgrace though, I’m sure people and freight need to travel in these directions too?

Interesting info though so thank you.

Many years ago I heard a programme about the limitations of the London to Birmingham rail line. It travels north pretty much following the M1. Ideally it would be the equivalent of a motorway but this section was similar to a dual carriageway. The real problems start when it turns west as the line now is more akin to a single carriageway. Imagine trying to timetable fast moving non-stop express with slow moving stop at every station commuter trains with few places to overtake. Then throw in freight!

I agree it’s difficult to understand why this apocryphal that it’s just about saving 20 minutes (which seems to have decreased to 10) has been allowed to grow such legs. Perhaps like so many other things in life it’s easier whether it’s SM or main stream to find the negative headline rather than the positive.

Is HS2 the best use of what is a load of money? I’ve no idea but based on the ‘capacity’ rather than the ‘time’ argument I think it has merit.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a proper informed debate with all the facts before us rather than the knee jerk which takes over?

[Omegstrat6]

The 4 main objectives of HS2 are apparently 1) to increase rail capacity and free up lines to enable a "renaissance of rail freight" 2) achieve greater connectivity between major cities 3) help rebalance the economy (the north/South divide) and 4) enhance sustainability through more efficient low carbon trains.

923 is clearly right about the capacity objective but then, as Mick says, why did the government put nearly all their focus on pushing the other 3 objectives, especially the "levelling up" aspect of connectivity and the savings in journey time as part of the vaunted improved efficiency?

I certainly take 923s point about the aim of getting more freight off the roads and onto rail which I admit to not being fully aware of as a key objective but would still query why so much money has been spent on it when it could have gone on improving public transport systems across the country, particularly in areas that are not well serviced, and benefit far more. At the end of the day those commuters it does benefit may now get a better service but at least they already had a service.

As for the rejuvenation of rail freight, laudable as it may be, this will involve a lot more logistical problems to be solved than simply freeing up rail lines and having more rolling stock. Any large increase in rail freight will also surely involve storage and distribution issues?