View Single Post
Old 21-09-2010, 13:01   #34
Ignitionnet
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Age: 47
Posts: 13,995
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Re: Train company to axe toilets.

For completeness I did have a quick look into the anti-rail Thatcherite millionaire petrolhead Transport Secretary put in the job to cut back on railway investment.

I am struggling a bit here - perhaps you could help me out BBKing?

From the BBC regarding an additional runway for Heathrow:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8678282.stm

Quote:
The Tories opposed the plan, preferring improved rail links to and from Heathrow including a direct link to a new London to Scotland high-speed rail line.
From the DfT:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speeches...ammond20100726

Quote:
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond): The Government is committed to the establishment of a high speed rail network as part of its programme of measures to create a low carbon economy.
He may be a millionaire Jaguar driving petrolhead however cutting back on railway investment doesn't appear to be a documented plan. Though as noted before this is irrelevant to the situation as rolling stock is nothing to do with government railway investment beyond subsidies which are handed out to prop up some operators' revenues.
Ignitionnet is offline   Reply With Quote