High-speed rail is not the end of the line

LIKE many Yorkshire residents I welcome the potential that High-Speed 2 has to offer in reducing journey times from the region to the capital (Yorkshire Post, July 14).

However, I also share the views of many of its detractors who claim that it is better to invest the money in other transport improvements instead.

For example, if HS2 does reduce your travelling time from London to Leeds by 45 minutes as has been suggested, but your final destination is to somewhere like Harrogate, then much of that saving will be lost – the existing grossly inadequate “bus-on-rails” service is way past its sell-by date and road travel in the area is frequently beset by delays.

In my opinion, HS2 will only be truly viable if its implementation goes hand-in-hand with investment in connecting transport services, be they rail, road, bicycle, whatever. Without that, HS2, if it ever does materialise, will be nothing more than a costly white elephant for so many of us.

The case for timber homes

From: Karl Sheridan, Selby Road, Holme-on-Spalding Moor, East Yorkshire.

WHEN our younger ones are struggling to afford even the most basic of homes, why is it that we still seem to be stuck in the Middle Ages as regards house building? Thinking on, in the Middle Ages they were more advanced than we are because they built their homes from timber – and that’s my point. Why are we in this country ignoring timber homes?

They are cheaper to produce; come in kit form, are as durable as a brick-built house and in some cases are more thermally efficient. A fair percentage of houses in America are timber and have many advantages such as speed of erection, a far greater choice of design allowing estates to have character and best of all, they can be moved if the owner wishes to move to a new location but keep his house.

The Norwegian/Icelandic style of log cabins are a far cry from the old-style Wild West ones with one room, and in fact put many a brick-built house to shame. We holidayed in one at the Lake District and to be honest the cabin put our own expensive bungalow to shame.

They are also built from sustainable timber, making them even more green than brick-built houses. So why has this idea been ignored? Why do we allow ourselves to forced into spending hundreds of thousands on bricks and mortar, when we could get a far better house at a far more competitive price? If the planning regulations were relaxed to allow estates of this nature the shortage of housing could be reduced within a few years. Plus in years to come removal and rebuilding costs would be halved. Does the Government have a hidden agenda by ignoring this method of building?

Way back for manufacturing

From: R Hanson, Swallow Lane, Golcar, Huddersfield.

RE: the staffing of manufacturing firms (Yorkshire Post, Business Tuesday, July 12). Schools do not teach young people, nor have they ever done, the skills required to work in any industry.

What they do, or should do and it seems that in too many instances they are failing in this, is give students the basic skills required, such as a sound knowledge of English and mathematics.

Also they need to give young people a mindset that prepares them for a career in industry, and because for the last 30 years manufacturing has been a dirty word – you only go into manufacturing if you cannot get anything else – schools went out of their way to steer students away from this particular branch.

This is one of the reasons it is difficult to get anyone, and especially brighter people, to apply for manufacturing positions.

It was also stated that engineering graduates and school-leavers need a further three years of training to be able to fill vital roles. As regards graduates, universities only provide a broad knowledge of a subject.

The best way to learn is by going to university or college on a day release basis while also being taught where you work – a method very much used by the successful Rolls Royce.

However, the main reason there is a shortage of skills in manufacturing is that for the last 30 years there have been very few apprenticeships in manufacturing, the main reason being that because of low cost competition from emerging economies manufacturers had to keep down their costs.

Cutting out training was one way of doing this. This seemed to happen more in Britain than a lot of other established manufacturing nations, who also seemed more ready to invest in high-tech machinery to cut costs and retain their manufacturing capabilities (Britain preferred to rely on paying lower base rates with plenty of overtime), encouraged and probably aided by their governments.

As long as manufacturing declined in Britain the fact that few people were being trained did not matter much because there were sufficient people to keep the remaining factories in production (and also unfortunately the unions practically banned apprenticeships at the time).

Now that the Government has learnt that a nation needs these industries it is actively encouraging their expansion, but it is going to be at least five years to train a workforce for this. Has Britain got the mind set and the time? I hope so.