Author Topic: HS2  (Read 6448 times)

Re: HS2
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2013, 11:01:52 am »
The lastest Maersk ships carry up to 18,000 containers. That's an awful lot of lorries.
Get a bicycle. You will never regret it, if you live- Mark Twain

Re: HS2
« Reply #26 on: November 07, 2013, 11:13:21 am »
Indeed.

How many can be carried on HS2?  0

How many can be carried on current network? 
I don't really know. I do know that the current network needs money spending on maintenance; as pointed out upthread, some of the "must build HS2 or spend X on maintenance" is so much bullshit, as the maintenance spend has to be done anyway.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Re: HS2
« Reply #27 on: November 07, 2013, 11:41:40 am »
...
I'm a rail enthusiast; I love the idea of new railways and flash 200mph trains. But I'm struggling with this. I think it's been poorly thought out and its routing is suspect. On the other hand, we are bloody dreadful at doing anything with transport other than building more fucking roads. It's time we grasped this nettle.
More or less my feelings.

I'd love to see a major rail building programme. Just not this one. And before we do anything like this, I want to see closed lines re-open (there are quite a few that can), longer platforms, better signalling, & all the other things that could get more out of what remains of the old network, plus some new links. What happened to linking Heathrow to the main line rail network, for example?

I fear that HS2 is an alternative to all that lot. It'll gobble up money that then won't be available to spend on things which should be higher priority. It's a policy of "build a shiny showcase, & let the rest rot". And far, far, too London-centric.
"A woman on a bicycle has all the world before her where to choose; she can go where she will, no man hindering." The Type-Writer Girl, 1897

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: HS2
« Reply #28 on: November 07, 2013, 11:48:04 am »
The lines were originally built for coal trucks at 40mph line speed. There isn't much that can be done cheaply to modify the tunnels and curves between Inverkeithing and Kircaldy
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

TimC

  • Bike pilot
Re: HS2
« Reply #29 on: November 07, 2013, 01:40:20 pm »
The lines were originally built for coal trucks at 40mph line speed. There isn't much that can be done cheaply to modify the tunnels and curves between Inverkeithing and Kircaldy

Given £42 billion, I think there's quite a lot that could be done to improve these tunnels and a lot of other infrastructure on the legacy railway, including reopening many closed lines and improving the trunk routes to the point at which separate HS infrastructure becomes unnecessary. Given a bit more imagination and this budget, the integrated transport concept could come a lot closer to reality. With the UK's population likely to continue increasing at a significant rate, it's time to think a little more creatively about congestion and its causes and solutions.

Re: HS2
« Reply #30 on: November 07, 2013, 02:46:03 pm »
Given £42 billion, I think there's quite a lot that could be done to improve these tunnels and a lot of other infrastructure on the legacy railway

Not really. Working on existing lines is staggeringly expensive because of access issues. On a seven hour overnight, you might only get two hours of useful work - the rest is lost getting equipment and material to and from the worksite. Even modest closures can result in massive disruption across the network because of the knock-on effects on train movement. A complete closure for the duration of the work simply isn't tenable.

Those issues are much worse in the UK than anywhere else in the world, because of the age of our network, the lack of easement and the huge number of listed structures on and around the railway network. A job that costs x in Germany or Spain might cost 2x or 5x in the UK if access is tight or there's a listed bridge in the wrong place. It seems counter-intuitive, but building new lines from scratch is usually no more expensive than modernising an old line.

I'm opposed to HS2 because of the disproportionate cost of high-speed rail, but would wholeheartedly support a line following a similar route but designed for conventional running at <125mph.

Re: HS2
« Reply #31 on: November 07, 2013, 03:06:29 pm »
I'm opposed to HS2 because of the disproportionate cost of high-speed rail, but would wholeheartedly support a line following a similar route but designed for conventional running at <125mph.
Ditto

A slower-speed line can be more wiggly, which will enable routing round troublesome terrain etc. Also offers more opportunity for mixed traffic (freight and local light-passenger).
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Re: HS2
« Reply #32 on: November 07, 2013, 03:16:28 pm »
To have a comparable capacity, a "slow speed" line would need to be four track. Just imagine the nimbies' response to that!

TimC

  • Bike pilot
Re: HS2
« Reply #33 on: November 07, 2013, 03:37:09 pm »
But could use existing, disused, trackbeds, and be compatible with freight also.

Re: HS2
« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2013, 03:46:48 pm »
To have a comparable capacity, a "slow speed" line would need to be four track. Just imagine the nimbies' response to that!

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

With modern signalling (proper rolling block), more trains can be run simultaneously on a single track when running at a slower speed. There is an optimal speed for this - it's about 100kph. If I can dig out the Lancaster Uni study I'll link to it.

Why would 4 tracks be worse than 2 high-speed lines? Less noise from lower-speed.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: HS2
« Reply #35 on: November 07, 2013, 04:15:19 pm »
If you are runnign a mixed line then the stop start nature of passenger trains, and the slower speeds of freight trains do not make for a good combination. You would need regions of four track to allow for passing and engineering redundancy.
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

Re: HS2
« Reply #36 on: November 07, 2013, 04:21:39 pm »
If you are runnign a mixed line then the stop start nature of passenger trains, and the slower speeds of freight trains do not make for a good combination. You would need regions of four track to allow for passing and engineering redundancy.

You mean passing loops.

That's not 4 track.

I worked with rail planning software for 10 years.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: HS2
« Reply #37 on: November 07, 2013, 07:31:08 pm »
I would submit that 'regions of four track' covers everything from passing loops to four complete tracks.

I had a train set when I was wee.
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

Re: HS2
« Reply #38 on: November 07, 2013, 07:36:30 pm »
nope. not to a railwayman
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Wombat

  • Is it supposed to hurt this much?
Re: HS2
« Reply #39 on: November 08, 2013, 08:08:57 am »
My view is that if we were gonig to build HS2, we should have done it 20 or more years ago, but its too late to make sense now.  I agree that we should expand the general purpose railways at moderately high speed (i.e our normal 125mph standard) but that decreasing the travel time by half an hour or so to Birmingham is effectively pointless.  i am a hardened rail enthusiast, but I still cannot see the sense of HS2 as proposed.  It seems t be focused on improving things a lot for a very few cities, rather than generally improving rail infrastructure for the entire population, or even a reasonable proportion of it.
Wombat

Re: HS2
« Reply #40 on: November 08, 2013, 09:26:20 pm »
I'm opposed to HS2 because of the disproportionate cost of high-speed rail, but would wholeheartedly support a line following a similar route but designed for conventional running at <125mph.
What, upgrade the existing Buckinghamshire/Oxfordshire lines, & reinstate the line out through Quainton Road . . . . ?    ;D
"A woman on a bicycle has all the world before her where to choose; she can go where she will, no man hindering." The Type-Writer Girl, 1897

Re: HS2
« Reply #41 on: March 24, 2014, 09:30:37 pm »
So it appears that we are going to spend 50 billion or so to save the odd twenty minutes involving chewing up some more of the remaining countryside, but are not now going to link the new lines to  a European connection, despite the tunnelling work currently being undertaken under londinium. Are we barking mad? Do we not understand the meaning of 'planning' 'vision' or 'joined up'?
Get a bicycle. You will never regret it, if you live- Mark Twain

Martin

  • Give me bas relief
    • WWW
Re: HS2
« Reply #42 on: March 24, 2014, 09:36:40 pm »
But could use existing, disused, trackbeds, and be compatible with freight also.

apart from the Great Central (which goes 'nowhere' and apart from the fact that either end still exists as an intensively run urban route and otherwise has been largely built on / destroyed / preserved / used for the National Grid) which would they be?

So it appears that we are going to spend 50 billion or so to save the odd twenty minutes in involving chewing up some more of the remaining countryside, but are not now going to link the new lines to  a European connection, despite the tunnelling work currently being undertaken under londinium. Are we barking mad? Do we not understand the meaning of 'planning' 'vision' or 'joined up'?

Nobody from the Continent wants to go anywhere in the UK other than London direct by train and vice versa; the aborted Nightstar and NoL E* builds showed this

Re: HS2
« Reply #43 on: March 24, 2014, 10:25:37 pm »
I was thinking the poor souls who are actually going to have to pay for this thing may want to use it as a means of access to the continent. Or what is the point of the whole thing?
Get a bicycle. You will never regret it, if you live- Mark Twain

Re: HS2
« Reply #44 on: March 24, 2014, 11:05:59 pm »
Nobody from the Continent wants to go anywhere in the UK other than London direct by train and vice versa; the aborted Nightstar and NoL E* builds showed this

They never got the chance to show it ...

But at least GNER (or whatever the franchise was called then) got the chance to play with some of the NoL E* sets for a bit, rather than them just sitting mothballed.

Re: HS2
« Reply #45 on: March 25, 2014, 07:00:28 am »
I do think that not linking to HS1 is mildly perverse, and I imagine the decision has been taken as an easy way to save £700m (out of a total spend of about £42bn).

My prediction is that it will be linked up, but about 10 years later and at a cost of about 10 times the current amount.

Why on earth do we think that this government is capable of producing joined up infrastructure. Their track record in this area is about as poor as it gets.
Rust never sleeps

Martin

  • Give me bas relief
    • WWW
Re: HS2
« Reply #46 on: March 25, 2014, 07:32:23 am »
Nobody from the Continent wants to go anywhere in the UK other than London direct by train and vice versa; the aborted Nightstar and NoL E* builds showed this

They never got the chance to show it ...

But at least GNER (or whatever the franchise was called then) got the chance to play with some of the NoL E* sets for a bit, rather than them just sitting mothballed.

AIUI Nightstar (on overnight sleeper that was going to run from Devon Wales and Scotland IIRC) and NoL were just to placate marginal Tory seats that thought the Channel Tunnel was only going to benefit London and the SE; once it was built they quickly saved the dosh on what was always going to be untested markets (who is really going to want a through journey to the Continent from those parts when there are already air / road alternatives?)

Re: HS2
« Reply #47 on: March 25, 2014, 07:35:39 am »
Nobody from the Continent wants to go anywhere in the UK other than London direct by train and vice versa; the aborted Nightstar and NoL E* builds showed this

Really ? All the people dragging their cases across from St Pancras to Kings Cross or Euston after getting of the Eurostar must just be confused then. It would make a great deal of sense for people from the North of England to be able to get a direct train to Paris or Brussels as well, It would shave three hours of that journey as currently you have to allow time to change in London and get through customs which means also allowing for your train in the UK being cancelled or delayed, you cant schedule it so there is only 30 minutes transfer time in London.
I would suggest that being able to get a direct train to the continent from the north of England would be a much bigger benefit to the north than shaving 20 minutes of the time to get to London.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

Martin

  • Give me bas relief
    • WWW
Re: HS2
« Reply #48 on: March 25, 2014, 07:51:35 am »
wasn't the refusal to have on train border checks what finally scuppered NoL? every station it stopped at in UK would need a border control.

Re: HS2
« Reply #49 on: March 25, 2014, 08:40:40 am »
Aye. They had onboard passport checks when E* first started (complete with office for the douaniers and a cell for miscreants), and even crossing into the DDR before the Berlin Wall came down, it was on a train that a border guard took the piss out of my name.

But no, the security of Albion's soil means we have to check everyone before they get on or after they get off the train, not do it the way the rest of Europe did even before Schengen.