Ah...bliss!

They were talking about the time element more than the view. But yes, underground is so grim I tend to want to pass through it as quickly as possible.

Though it is funny when you see other trains in the tunnel, like at Paddington on the northbound Bakerloo.

And here's Amor's design for the underground:

Cool! Who did that?

It looks like Clipart from Office 97 or something

Amor, I think we have another "anyone can do that drawing" moment.

Cyril Power.

He did some nice escalators as well:

What do you mean anyone? Those Clipart people are very talented. But they have a certain style - and it really really looks like that picture.

Have you got one of someone doing a presentation?

LOL (as we don't say on here). I did just laugh though.

At one time I thought the people I saw doing presentations (usually on Capital Gains Tax) had done the pictures themselves.

Plans to be published:

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/10/high-speed-rail-plans

Lord Adonis is discussing it on Radio 5 now. Coming up, he's going to kick the 808, get mad stoopid fresh and waste all those sucker MCs.

Construction could begin as soon as 2017

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. By way of contrast, the high speed link from Madrid to Seville took something like five years from planning to opening.

"soon" being the word you mean? Ha! Ha!

I assume it's felt that Crossrail and this can't be built at the same time.

domhinde wrote:
Most pressing is a new or improved line across Fife from Edinburgh to Perth.
Sadly, there isn't a half-decent line from Edinburgh to Perth anymore. And many people don't believe me when I tell them St Andrews doesn't have a train station.

I've just heard Today In Parliament. The fact that the Transport Secretary is not a member of the Commons is a scandal. You'd think the Tories might have said something about this. Is the fact they didn't a hint that they'll stick a few Lords in the Cabinet?

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Is the fact they didn't a hint that they'll stick a few Lords in the Cabinet?

David Trimble is likely to be one of them.

"a hint that they'll stick a few lords in the cabinet"

I rather hope that they do. The alternative could be disastrous, suddenly bringing in a whole raft of Cabinet Ministers who've barely learned how to be MPs, let alone have the experience to run a Department of State, at what will be an enormously difficult time for an incoming administration.

Labour largely circumvented the "New Minister" problem in 1997 by bringing in a large number of "Special Advisers" who were normally far more experienced than their Ministers at the "hard bastard" side of management - even at the very top of the shop, you had the likes of Campbell and Whelan. That both protected them from the danger of "going native" within their Departments (no politician can resist doing whatever it takes to be popular, it's ingrained in their very souls) and also sent a clear message to the Civil Service that change was going to happen.

However, in 1997, the incoming administration wasn't talking about massive job cuts across all Departments in the way that an incoming one this year will. The management of what are still, beneath the surface, the huge icebergs that consititute the Machinery of Government will be fascinating to watch this summer.

Who do they have in the Lords who's been around a bit and would still fancy it? Their main man in there seems to be Lord Strathclyde, who doesn't look like a Cabinet minister to me.

Apart from David Trimble. I'm not so worried about him as Lady Warsi or even Lady Vorderman or Lady Alsopp.

I think Lord Coe would be given some official role in Cabinet to run the Olympics as a Tory peer.

And would John Major accept the peerage he's so far declined if it meant he could get something like Foreign Secretary to go with it?

Actually Lord Adonis has been a pretty good transport minister and he knows his stuff. There aren't that many MP's with the neccessary experience or knowledge to be transport minister so if someone from the Lord's can do it, so much the better.

As for high-speed rail I'm totally in favour as you would imagine. However, the economic argument doesn't always work in the way you would expect. People think that if you build new roads you create new jobs because it will be faster to get goods out of a particular location. However, it is also quicker to get things in - which creates centralisation and a net loss of jobs. This is the reason why large supermarkets are so powerful, through centralisation. The risk of a high-speed rail network is that a line going London - Birmingham - Manchester - Glasgow / Edinburgh will danage one of those locations economically - probably Scotland. Transport can be a barrier to trade but can also protect it - hence the reason why so many small businesses can flourigh where there is little compeition from multi-nationals - e.g. rural areas and the highlanda and islands of Scotland.

As for the planning process - in France there is a natural assumption that building a high-speed rail line is beneficial so is not discussed at a public inquiry. In the UK projects have to be proven financially as part of the planning. The French have it right with their planning - but unfortunately it can also be used to build new motorways.

Swings and roundabouts as they say.