Discussion
Mojocvh said:
Bit OT but, is this another smokescreen generated to mask the abysmal performance of our leaders in determining our countries ENERGY policies???
With respect, I'm involved with a power station atm with another early in the new year. Several others are awaiting signing on the dotted line, delayed until Milliband et al DON'T get into power, based on Labour's threatened price freeze.They know we need extra capacity & it will happen if social bulls
t doesn't interfere.goldblum said:
RichB said:
ndeed, HS2 is the first large scale railway scheme for just over 100 years. It will link North and South with a state of the art railway. At the same time it will free up capacity on older lines which (one can hope) will perhaps encourage freight off the roads and back onto the railways. If those complaining about were around 150 years ago we would never have had the east coast and west coast mainlines, after all why the need for two? The M1 would never have been built, after all the A1 could cope and why bother building another airport, not that many people fly! People always say how good the French TGV is but when, in Britain, we try to do something different the NIMBYs get agitated. I'm all for it. 
I'm not a NIMBY, I simply never travel by train. I don't know anyone who does often enough for a quicker journey to make a significant impact on them - they aren't bothered about 20 mins either way. My parents travel to London once every six months and the new line will actually add time to their journey as it won't stop at their station anymore. It's a colossal waste of money, but once again London decides how the majority of the country that it's out of touch with has to proceed.Your French TGV analogy isn't accurate as France needs a high speed line to cover much greater distances than our little country.
Your remark that we live in a "little country" is rather facetious. I have no idea why you do but I doubt it requires meeting clients when you could be required to be in Exeter one day and Edinburgh the next. Rail travel is still the best way of covering this mileage.
goldblum said:
Your French TGV analogy isn't accurate as France needs a high speed line to cover much greater distances than our little country.
French High Speed Lines:LGV Sud-Est 254 miles
LGV Atlantique 144 miles
LGV Nord 207 miles
LGV Est 190 miles
HS2:
London-Birmingham 140 miles
London-Manchester 235 miles
London-Leeds 256 miles
Even without the Phase 3 extension to Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow HS2 is longer than the TGV lines.
What i do not get about this entire project is the refusal to a) be compatible or connected with the normal railways, and b) take freight. Why make it so deliberately isolated? I can guarantees that a dedicated passenger service from london to the midlands will never be running at max capacity in terms of people payload, so why not do as the Eurotunnel does and have a freight version of the same train? Imagine the cost, congestion and time savings of sending time-critical goods by rail instead of road. if it was made ro-ro then you could load stuff onto a truck, get to the station, do the journey in record time compared to road, then drive off to final destination. Best combination of road and rail use then
ChemicalChaos said:
What i do not get about this entire project is the refusal to a) be compatible or connected with the normal railways, and b) take freight. Why make it so deliberately isolated?
I assume this is because it is a two rail line not four rail. With passenger trains running at 180mph you cannot have freight on the same line. When you say it's not compatible in what respect? ChemicalChaos said:
What i do not get about this entire project is the refusal to a) be compatible or connected with the normal railways, and b) take freight.
HS2 will have interchanges with other lines but it won't have 'classic' trains running on the high speed line and HS2 trains (probably) won't be able to run on the old lines, if that is what you mean?There is no point having 'classic' trains on the high speed line as their lower line speed with interfere with the running of high speed trains - exactly the same problem that exists today on the WCML.
As HS2 is a new line it can be built to a larger loading gauge (i.e. wider, taller carriages) than 'classic' trains. This means the HS2 trains will be too big to run on existing lines.
Regarding freight, HS2 will free up capacity for freight on the WCML. I'm not aware that freight has been banned from HS2 but I suspect that freight trains are heavier (and therefore slower) than passenger trains so will interfere with the running of high speed trains.
iphonedyou said:
CRL is currently on budget (circa £16bn) - while admittedly smaller scale, it's still absolutely huge, and with the added complexity of being entirely London based and all the hassle that brings.
ralphrj said:
There haven't been many projects of this scale to compare it to but the current Crossrail project is doing fine.
Originally forecast to cost £15.9bn it is now expected to cost £14.8bn. It will be 1 year late but that is as a consequence of the actions taken to achieve the £1.1bn saving not because it is running behind.
Crossrail's another that we'll need to come back to in 4yrs or so Originally forecast to cost £15.9bn it is now expected to cost £14.8bn. It will be 1 year late but that is as a consequence of the actions taken to achieve the £1.1bn saving not because it is running behind.
I wasn't just talking about rail projects though. Any large govt projects?
btw, I'm not disputing the complexity of these things or the sheer magnitude of them. But when business cases are already somewhat questionable, overrun in terms of both cost and time is important - it could make a business case collapse (if one believes it stands up as it is).
RichB said:
goldblum said:
RichB said:
ndeed, HS2 is the first large scale railway scheme for just over 100 years. It will link North and South with a state of the art railway. At the same time it will free up capacity on older lines which (one can hope) will perhaps encourage freight off the roads and back onto the railways. If those complaining about were around 150 years ago we would never have had the east coast and west coast mainlines, after all why the need for two? The M1 would never have been built, after all the A1 could cope and why bother building another airport, not that many people fly! People always say how good the French TGV is but when, in Britain, we try to do something different the NIMBYs get agitated. I'm all for it.
I'm not a NIMBY, I simply never travel by train. I don't know anyone who does often enough for a quicker journey to make a significant impact on them - they aren't bothered about 20 mins either way. My parents travel to London once every six months and the new line will actually add time to their journey as it won't stop at their station anymore. It's a colossal waste of money, but once again London decides how the majority of the country that it's out of touch with has to proceed.Your French TGV analogy isn't accurate as France needs a high speed line to cover much greater distances than our little country.
Your remark that we live in a "little country" is rather facetious. I have no idea why you do but I doubt it requires meeting clients when you could be required to be in Exeter one day and Edinburgh the next. Rail travel is still the best way of covering this mileage.
The last proper North South rail built apprx 150 years ago and since then the population has trebled,
The France arguement does not stand up, approx the same population as the uk in over twice the space so the issues in no
Way compare like with like.
Talking to someone in London earlier today and they are seriously having to consider their business as London is now to expensive for staff.
ralphrj said:
ChemicalChaos said:
As HS2 is a new line it can be built to a larger loading gauge (i.e. wider, taller carriages) than 'classic' trains. This means the HS2 trains will be too big to run on existing lines.
Actually there will be two types of trains on HS2. The first is 'Captive', which like you describe will be built to take full advantage of the continental loading gauge. These will be restricted to HS1 and HS2 (there are some other routes with a large enough loading gauge but it is unlikely that HS2 trains would ever end up on them for various reasons). The other type will be a smaller 'classic compatible' type that will be able to fit on the main classic lines. This will be used to serve points beyond Birmingham when Phase 1 opens then points beyond Manchester and Leeds once Phase 2 opens.In other words once phase 1 opens, all the major intercity expresses between London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Scotland will run on HS2. It's not a case of Phase 1 only serving London-Birmingham. Moving these expresses will free up capacity on the WCML (and the ECML to a lesser extent) for new expresses and direct trains that serve towns that are currently bypassed as well as freight.
Once it's extended to Glasgow/Edinburgh, the time savings become significant enough for rail to be more attractive than flying. A much reduced Anglo-Scottish air market frees up some significant capacity at Heathrow.
StevieBee said:
Ross1988 said:
The capacity that HS2 will free up on the old lines, will allow for ETRMS to be fitted on the EC/WCML eventually, which will be a circa 50% increase in line capacity, as well as increase in freight using these lines.
The reason it will cost a fortune is because the signalling will be top class, and the track will be on will be on slabtrack, using a relatively new method (In the UK) where the initial cost is higher, but maintenance of the track is a lot less over the years, where as ballasted track has to replaced every 30 years or so, it's 80 for slabtrack, with no chance of 'wet beds' or cracked sleepers, and no requirement for tamping.
It does cost a fortune, but it will transform rail travel in this country, granted it will be years in the future, but when have we had a Government that invests in anything longer than their term in power?
Take electrical power production, all of our nuclear sites are getting on, and there is not long term solution to this, other than grants and subsidies for green power generation. With (until recently) little to no investment in the base load capacity.
I do feel sorry for people who have land/houses in the way of HS2 and I hope they are compensated appropriately.
Well said and spot on.The reason it will cost a fortune is because the signalling will be top class, and the track will be on will be on slabtrack, using a relatively new method (In the UK) where the initial cost is higher, but maintenance of the track is a lot less over the years, where as ballasted track has to replaced every 30 years or so, it's 80 for slabtrack, with no chance of 'wet beds' or cracked sleepers, and no requirement for tamping.
It does cost a fortune, but it will transform rail travel in this country, granted it will be years in the future, but when have we had a Government that invests in anything longer than their term in power?
Take electrical power production, all of our nuclear sites are getting on, and there is not long term solution to this, other than grants and subsidies for green power generation. With (until recently) little to no investment in the base load capacity.
I do feel sorry for people who have land/houses in the way of HS2 and I hope they are compensated appropriately.
HS2 is not really for us. It is for the next generation and goes beyond 20 mins quicker to Brum.
HS2 is being built because the EU is mandating by treaty a pan-Europe high-speed rail network that covers all corners of the Union map like a giant set of octopus tentacles. The UK parliament now has no say in the matter whatsoever. HS2 is a done deal.
If Britain really wants to get ahead, it will spend £50 billion on 21st century tech. Like hyperfast mobile broadband (HMB). But that is extremely unlikely, sadly.
lamboman100 said:
Trains are a 19th century technology..
Cars are also 19thC technology but that doesn't stop everyone joining a forum called Pistonheads where we discuss cars 
There is currently no better way of transporting several hundred people around at high speed unless you consider EasyJet to be more advanced
RichB said:
IMBY or not, you openly admit that neither you or your acquaintances travel by rail so on that basis it stands to reason that you should see no value in improving rail transport.
Er, yes. RichB said:
That does not invalidate my opinion on HS2, which I stand by.
I didn't say it did.
RichB said:
Your remark that we live in a "little country" is rather facetious.
Again, just your opinion.RichB said:
I have no idea why you do but I doubt it requires meeting clients when you could be required to be in Exeter one day and Edinburgh the next.
I meet clients, by car. Takes me an average of c. 40 minutes.I would suggest the fact that you travel hundreds of miles to meet yours puts you in a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of people in the U.K. who have to meet clients. Not enough people in fact to justify billions on a new rail network.
speedyguy said:
The France arguement does not stand up, approx the same population as the uk in over twice the space so the issues in no
Way compare like with like.
So they have further to travel? Way compare like with like.
What's the point you're making though? The fact we have twice the population in half the space doesn't make it more likely people will use the train.
RichB said:
There is currently no better way of transporting several hundred people around at high speed unless you consider EasyJet to be more advanced
Yes we already have plenty of trains, spending billions upon billions for a service a minority will use is madness. What will happen to existing lines that become less popular as regular train users switch to HS2? Wages come down and redundancies go up as schedules are cut?
dcb said:
+1
According to UK Parliament
It is also worth reiterating that while 85% of passenger miles take place by car,
van and taxi, and 5% by bus and coach, just 8% are travelled on the railways.
The 8% includes National Rail, London Underground and trams.
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselec...
So any UK railway looks like a side issue to the main transport issue, the roads.
I think any politician will look very foolish to chuck tens of billions
of UK taxpayer pounds at 8% of the problem, in preference to 85% of
the problem.
Any figures for freight?According to UK Parliament
It is also worth reiterating that while 85% of passenger miles take place by car,
van and taxi, and 5% by bus and coach, just 8% are travelled on the railways.
The 8% includes National Rail, London Underground and trams.
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselec...
So any UK railway looks like a side issue to the main transport issue, the roads.
I think any politician will look very foolish to chuck tens of billions
of UK taxpayer pounds at 8% of the problem, in preference to 85% of
the problem.
goldblum said:
RichB said:
Your remark that we live in a "little country" is rather facetious.
Again, just your opinion.goldblum said:
speedyguy said:
The France arguement does not stand up, approx the same population as the uk in over twice the space so the issues in no
Way compare like with like.
So they have further to travel? Way compare like with like.
What's the point you're making though? The fact we have twice the population in half the space doesn't make it more likely people will use the train.
Cheryl Gillan is a case in point selfish local vote 'winning' politics vs the national good.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 29th April 22:16
Again, just your opinion.
What's the point you're making though? The fact we have twice the population in half the space doesn't make it more likely people will use the train.
speedyguy said:
Anyone with a set of eyes and a map can see it's fact not opinion.
I meant whether my comment was facetious or not was a matter of opinion!speedyguy said:
The France arguement does not stand up, approx the same population as the uk in over twice the space so the issues in no
Way compare like with like.
So they have further to travel? Way compare like with like.
What's the point you're making though? The fact we have twice the population in half the space doesn't make it more likely people will use the train.
speedyguy said:
No but the Frenchies have a lot less density of population therefore less Nimbys to complain as less people in rural (ish) areas are affected.
So you mean it was easier to get TGV up because of this?speedyguy said:
Cheryl Gillan is a case in point selfish local vote 'winning' politics vs the national good.
What national good? It's not in my good or anyone I know. Kind of London to make my mind up for me though. I just don't see any truthful/proved to my satisfaction cost/benefit for anyone outside the capital except mad commuters. Really I just think it's bonkers.paulrockliffe said:
Any figures for freight?
Notta lot.Wikipedia has
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_freight_transpor...
100 million tonnes per year is less than 2 tonnes per UK person per year.
Doesn't sound a lot to me. I could be wrong.
dcb said:
Notta lot.
Wikipedia has
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_freight_transpor...
100 million tonnes per year is less than 2 tonnes per UK person per year.
Doesn't sound a lot to me. I could be wrong.
There are plans for more frieght, with multimodal gateways being constructed in a lot of ports. Freight is on the increase, and the only reason it is relatively low on the current network is lack of access and frieght being mainly limited to night time movements.Wikipedia has
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_freight_transpor...
100 million tonnes per year is less than 2 tonnes per UK person per year.
Doesn't sound a lot to me. I could be wrong.
The increase in network capacity will allow for more freight. Although an increase in freight will also increase maintenance costs
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff