CHANGE UP STARS

So just how quickly some people just want to go?

I wondered that night, as, for quite a vain attempt to make himself seem a little more high-brow, I found myself watching Channel Four News debate on the proposed construction of a new high-speed rail line linking London with Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester.

In one corner was a famous music producer and railway enthusiast Pete Waterman, arguing that the country can not afford not to build this 225mph route because we would be left even further behind countries that already have extensive high-speed lines or invest heavily in them and existing networks are already creaking.

The other was a man whose name escapes me of the group against it, complaining that the amount is not added and the route is not worth ripping through our green and pleasant land.

It would seem a classic case of how the other half of the Will to live. In the end, they talked about the railroad, which, if built, allowing someone in London to get to Birmingham in 49 minutes, 73 minutes in Manchester and Leeds in 80 minutes. All times are shorter than seems reasonable 100 minutes or so, that required for passenger trains from Lynn to get to the capital.

And considering the claim that this is obviously meant to reduce the number of people taking domestic flights, I really do not see reducing the journey time to Scotland to just three times the average flight time is really doing much on that front.

So let's straight. At the very moment that the railroad campaigns and politicians in this part of the world jump through hoops just different to get more than one hour train from the capital necessary infrastructure improvements that would be due to the fact the government decision to spend tens of billions on the linewhich will connect the few places in a very short time, but not actually be ready for another 15 years, priorities and all that.

It occurred to me that the money needed to build high-speed lines can go terribly long way to bring the network we already have in the 21st century. I use a lot of trains, mostly to go to and from Leicester, and only a trickle of billions that are intended for high-speed line would be very pleased to put another coach or two on slow trains, or slightly faster trains on this route very much.

But something else and it occurred to me. As Mr. Waterman made the argument that we should build this thing, because it's better than what we have now and other countries have done so, it struck me that the argument is so similar to the idea that we must embrace with the incinerator, since the burning of waste we somehow better than to bury it.

Who is right in one respect. But if people do not want this, they should be a force to deal with it?