HS2, whats the current status ?

[dcb]

PRTVR said:

But the roads are for the masses, so no free pint, I am for investment in railways just not HS2, the money could be better spent elsewhere.

It could indeed.

Something like 80 or 85% of all journeys are by car, something like 5-8% by rail, so it's clear that spending on road networks is about an order of magnitude more effective than on rail.

ABD has it that about 30p a litre off fuel for eight years would cost the same as HS2.

http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/770.htm

Millions of folks don't live anywhere near Manchester or London.
The whole nation would benefit from fuel at 70p a litre.

[theboss]

MarshPhantom said:

theboss said:

What's so hard to accept about the fact that millions of people in the Midlands and Northern cities *want* fast and easy access to London? You'd think they might know what serves their business interests better than a bunch of PHers who feel they should be confined to their own regions.

Move closer to London then.

Me personally - no chance. I don't particularly stand to gain from HS2 unless it takes a few cars off the M40.

But its interesting, that rather than improving transport infrastructure you think everyone should simply move nearer London... great...

There's plenty of room for people to 'spread out' a little in this country amd HS2 will help.

[The Moose]

dcb said:

PRTVR said:

But the roads are for the masses, so no free pint, I am for investment in railways just not HS2, the money could be better spent elsewhere.

It could indeed.

Something like 80 or 85% of all journeys are by car, something like 5-8% by rail, so it's clear that spending on road networks is about an order of magnitude more effective than on rail.

ABD has it that about 30p a litre off fuel for eight years would cost the same as HS2.

http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/770.htm

Millions of folks don't live anywhere near Manchester or London.
The whole nation would benefit from fuel at 70p a litre.

What? And practically guarantee some serious deflation?!

[JB!]

PRTVR said:

JB! said:

Yep, pretty much.

The Network Rail HST New Measurement Train causes delays when it runs on the West Coast fast lines, as it can only do 110mph as it doesn't tilt, whereas the Pedolinos do 125mph, meaning the services behind the measuremt train are X(7?) mins late within the first hour of running...

SO.

Split the traffic, solve the problem. Freights and stoppers on one network, intercity jobbies on the other.

If my memory serves me the point of tilting trains was for passenger comfort, not speed, I remember traveling on one of the first HS125 diesel trains many moons ago, very impressed when the driver announced we were traveling at 125 MPH, having followed developments in the railways over the years ( the few that there have been) I do not think higher speed is the way to go, the cost really doesn't justify the returns, unless it is for job creating or national pride, people are talking about cutting journey times in half, but that is only for the few, every day our roads from Manchester to London along with everywhere else are very busy, people are choosing to use the car, even though it takes considerable longer, to spend a fortune on making a few people's life easier is wrong.

Its for speed. Superelevation(cant) maths and physics stuffs but basically tilt=higher speed through bends.

I'm not that fussed about the higher speed, but new lines are needed, and you might as well future proof them with high speed capacity.

[Rick101]

JB! said:

The Network Rail HST New Measurement Train causes delays when it runs on the West Coast fast lines, as it can only do 110mph as it doesn't tilt,

Just for info, NMT is ticketed for 125mph running.

[BGARK]

For those saying the HS2 is a good idea so they can get to London a bit easier, what for exactly, why do you need to be in London?

[Rick101]

Th issue is network capacity. The high speed part is jut trying to catch up with other countries that have had it for 40 years.

[nc107]

There are (certainly were) standards on the maximum lateral acceleration a passenger could be subjected to from a comfort POV. A normal HST could travel the WC lines safely at 125mph (assuming its basic dynamics don't give wheel unloading issues - which generally they don't), but the passengers would feel thrown around.

Cant is the tilt of the track, cant deficency is the difference above and beyond the cant at which a passenger would see zero lateral acceleration (think an aeroplane banking yet you being unaware of it). The standards were expressed in terms of speed, curve radius, lateral acceleration and maximum cant deficiency allowed.

Essentially tilt allows a train to run at higher speeds whilst maintaining passenger comfort (i.e. meeting the passenger lateral acceleration standards) on existing infrastructure by compensating for the larger cant deficiency via tilting the body. However tilt is expensive and imparts additional reliability issues so its use is pretty limited now. In addition, on the West Coast, the relatively pedestrian acceleration of the Pendlolinos means a high accelerating 110mph train can keep quite close to its timings. That's not to play down its importance to the WC timetable but I think its viewed now as a bit of a cul-de-sac as far as railways are concerned.

[theboss]

BGARK said:

For those saying the HS2 is a good idea so they can get to London a bit easier, what for exactly, why do you need to be in London?

As I alluded to in an earlier post - everyone likes to questions the real 'need' to get to London yet every local and long distance service into just about every London terminus is rammed, whether its business folk on the morning peak or students on weekends / bank holidays. Why do we presume all these journeys are needless or feel that people shouldn't have the freedom to go where they damned well choose?

[MarshPhantom]

theboss said:

MarshPhantom said:

theboss said:

What's so hard to accept about the fact that millions of people in the Midlands and Northern cities *want* fast and easy access to London? You'd think they might know what serves their business interests better than a bunch of PHers who feel they should be confined to their own regions.

Move closer to London then.

Me personally - no chance. I don't particularly stand to gain from HS2 unless it takes a few cars off the M40.

But its interesting, that rather than improving transport infrastructure you think everyone should simply move nearer London... great...

I'm all for improving infrastructure, there are plenty of options for getting from the North to London already, HS2 seems like an answer to a problem that doesn't exist.

[BGARK]

theboss said:

Why do we presume all these journeys are needless or feel that people shouldn't have the freedom to go where they damned well choose?

I am not clear what you mean, everyone is free to go wherever they want already, who is stopping them?

[theboss]

BGARK said:

theboss said:

Why do we presume all these journeys are needless or feel that people shouldn't have the freedom to go where they damned well choose?

I am not clear what you mean, everyone is free to go wherever they want already, who is stopping them?

It's frequently stated here as a counter-arguement for HS2, that people simply shouldn't need to travel the length of the country regularly, or that business would better flourish in the North of the country if major infrastructure investments were made internally within that region instead of improving links to other major conurbations and our capital. The reality of relentless annual increases in passenger numbers and thus need to engineer greater capacity and faster journey times is seemingly irrelevant to anyone opposed - as if the solution is to simply stop people from travelling or presume that in 10 years time all business interaction will be conducted 'virtually'.

[Vaud]

theboss said:

It's frequently stated here as a counter-arguement for HS2, that people simply shouldn't need to travel the length of the country regularly, or that business would better flourish in the North of the country if major infrastructure investments were made internally within that region instead of improving links to other major conurbations and our capital. The reality of relentless annual increases in passenger numbers and thus need to engineer greater capacity and faster journey times is seemingly irrelevant to anyone opposed - as if the solution is to simply stop people from travelling or presume that in 10 years time all business interaction will be conducted 'virtually'.

I partly agree. I would prioritise a fast East-West link from Leeds-Manchester to start with.

HS3, but scaled back a bit. 30 mins Leeds (plus improved links to Sheffield, York and Newcastle)<>Manchester would be good and help Manchester Airport expand.

[BGARK]

theboss said:

BGARK said:

theboss said:

Why do we presume all these journeys are needless or feel that people shouldn't have the freedom to go where they damned well choose?

I am not clear what you mean, everyone is free to go wherever they want already, who is stopping them?

It's frequently stated here as a counter-arguement for HS2, that people simply shouldn't need to travel the length of the country regularly, or that business would better flourish in the North of the country if major infrastructure investments were made internally within that region instead of improving links to other major conurbations and our capital. The reality of relentless annual increases in passenger numbers and thus need to engineer greater capacity and faster journey times is seemingly irrelevant to anyone opposed - as if the solution is to simply stop people from travelling or presume that in 10 years time all business interaction will be conducted 'virtually'.

Sorry I don't really understand if you are agreeing or disagreeing with HS2. My original question also has not yet been answered..

By the way we have virtual communication already, its called the telephone, emails and PH. Give it 2 more years and we will all be using optical VR.

Perhaps we should also invest in steam engines, as moving backwards in time seems to make sense to some people on here?

[Sonic]

BGARK said:

For those saying the HS2 is a good idea so they can get to London a bit easier, what for exactly, why do you need to be in London?

Work.

[theboss]

BGARK said:

theboss said:

BGARK said:

theboss said:

Why do we presume all these journeys are needless or feel that people shouldn't have the freedom to go where they damned well choose?

I am not clear what you mean, everyone is free to go wherever they want already, who is stopping them?

It's frequently stated here as a counter-arguement for HS2, that people simply shouldn't need to travel the length of the country regularly, or that business would better flourish in the North of the country if major infrastructure investments were made internally within that region instead of improving links to other major conurbations and our capital. The reality of relentless annual increases in passenger numbers and thus need to engineer greater capacity and faster journey times is seemingly irrelevant to anyone opposed - as if the solution is to simply stop people from travelling or presume that in 10 years time all business interaction will be conducted 'virtually'.

Sorry I don't really understand if you are agreeing or disagreeing with HS2. My original question also has not yet been answered..

By the way we have virtual communication already, its called the telephone, emails and PH. Give it 2 more years and we will all be using optical VR.

Perhaps we should also invest in steam engines, as moving backwards in time seems to make sense to some people on here?

To what question are you owed an answer? I'm suggesting that people's reasons for wanting to travel are completely irrelevant - the demand exists regardless. The fact is, lots of people want to travel between the North / Midlands / London every day whether by road, rail or air. We either substantially develop infrastructure to facilitate fast, painless transportation of people around the country, or ultimately that movement becomes constrained because systems become crowded, antiquated or generally unfit for purpose. I think HS2 represents a step in the right direction personally

[JB!]

Rick101 said:

Just for info, NMT is ticketed for 125mph running.

Not on the WCML it isn't, it cant reach Enhanced Permissible Speeds, I know, I used to work on it

[BGARK]

theboss said:

To what question are you owed an answer? I'm suggesting that people's reasons for wanting to travel are completely irrelevant - the demand exists regardless. The fact is, lots of people want to travel between the North / Midlands / London every day whether by road, rail or air. We either substantially develop infrastructure to facilitate fast, painless transportation of people around the country, or ultimately that movement becomes constrained because systems become crowded, antiquated or generally unfit for purpose. I think HS2 represents a step in the right direction personally

You responded to my post about London but haven't actually answered anything, hence my comment. Please go back if you are not clear what I mean.

"Peoples reasons for travel are irrelevant"

So on that basis we should spend tax payers money on a train, good argument, yay lets do it!

[BGARK]

Sonic said:

BGARK said:

For those saying the HS2 is a good idea so they can get to London a bit easier, what for exactly, why do you need to be in London?

Work.

This is what I thought someone might say.

Can you please explain the maths that justifies this?

[Swervin_Mervin]

BGARK said:

Sonic said:

BGARK said:

For those saying the HS2 is a good idea so they can get to London a bit easier, what for exactly, why do you need to be in London?

Work.

This is what I thought someone might say.

Can you please explain the maths that justifies this?

Perhaps it would be easier for the rest of us if you explained why you think people might not need to get to, or from, London for work-related business? Or anywhere, for that matter.