Suppose HS2 was cancelled
Discussion
Evanivitch said:
This just needs to be pushed again and again. Maybe a nice infographic. Or a public awareness campaign. Or something. People need to get it.
It's the equivalent of having a motorway with a junction every half a mile, traffic lights and tractors.
Yep. Soon to be seen on the ECMLIt's the equivalent of having a motorway with a junction every half a mile, traffic lights and tractors.
HS2 is essentially a bypass for fast moving trains. The trains will be compatible with existing lines, so the fast trains to Manchester and Glasgow can scoot past the slower traffic from Euston to Watford, stopping at every station in between.
When you understand that, it make sense. We build bypasses for cars all the time, we are just doing the same for trains. Once you have decided to build a bypass then as per the analogy above, the cost difference between a 125mph track and a 200mph track is so little as to make it a no-brainer.
When you understand that, it make sense. We build bypasses for cars all the time, we are just doing the same for trains. Once you have decided to build a bypass then as per the analogy above, the cost difference between a 125mph track and a 200mph track is so little as to make it a no-brainer.
Evanivitch said:
This just needs to be pushed again and again. Maybe a nice infographic. Or a public awareness campaign. Or something. People need to get it.
It's the equivalent of having a motorway with a junction every half a mile, traffic lights and tractors.
Well, kind of, except motorways tend to have at least a few junctions.It's the equivalent of having a motorway with a junction every half a mile, traffic lights and tractors.
The M4 doesn't bypass the A4 by going from London to Cardiff with no junctions.
HS won't serve anyone much who lives in the M40 suburbialand.
The 'it's not about speed' mantra seems to be something the pro-HS2 lobby made up when the speed element became a laughing stock.
Bascally as it stands the main gain looks to be, London gets one or eventually two, new airports.
If we use HS2 to free up the old tracks for slow trains and freight, that must be a down grade to the semi-fast services for places like Coventry?
I think there is some sense in the ida that HS2 should have run from Ashford (kent) to Newcastle.
Has nayone seen the 'Ministry of Changing our Minds' report in detail?
They've probably spend quite a few million quid concluding HS2 won't work?
With that jolly old motorway analogy, how much more would it have cost to have built HS2 as four tracks and a bit more connectivity?
( or is that 'how much bigger is a bigger infinity?')
For large numbers of people, what the rail network needs is a London Bypass.
The rail service from London to Scotland isn't too bad, it's half a day.
Southampton to Edinburgh is a whole day by train or an hour in an old skool plane with real propellors.
The sodding bus is not much slower than some of the rail options.
just having a read thru the Oakervee report (2019) into HS2 and it is an interesting read backing up everything noted in recent posts:
"Conclusion 10: The government should recommit to the full Y-shaped network, linking Phase One to Manchester, the East Midlands, Yorkshire, and beyond. It only makes sense to do Phase One if continuing with northern phases to deliver transformational benefits to the North of England and Midlands"
"Conclusion 62: There are no-shovel ready alternatve investments in the existng network that are available: if HS2 were to be cancelled, many years of planning work would be required to identfy, design and develop new proposals. The upgrading of existng lines would also come at a high passenger cost with signifcant disrupton.
Conclusion 63: The Review strongly advises against cancelling the scheme"
"Conclusion 10: The government should recommit to the full Y-shaped network, linking Phase One to Manchester, the East Midlands, Yorkshire, and beyond. It only makes sense to do Phase One if continuing with northern phases to deliver transformational benefits to the North of England and Midlands"
"Conclusion 62: There are no-shovel ready alternatve investments in the existng network that are available: if HS2 were to be cancelled, many years of planning work would be required to identfy, design and develop new proposals. The upgrading of existng lines would also come at a high passenger cost with signifcant disrupton.
Conclusion 63: The Review strongly advises against cancelling the scheme"
OutInTheShed said:
Well, kind of, except motorways tend to have at least a few junctions.
The M4 doesn't bypass the A4 by going from London to Cardiff with no junctions.
HS won't serve anyone much who lives in the M40 suburbialand.
The M4 between J37 and J45 is a great example of what goes wrong when you have too many junctions. Just because you want to drive 70mph in the outside lane doesn't mean you're not affected by cars joining and leaving in lane 1 (of 2).The M4 doesn't bypass the A4 by going from London to Cardiff with no junctions.
HS won't serve anyone much who lives in the M40 suburbialand.
Equally, the M4 between J17 and J18 is about 10 miles!
OutInTheShed said:
They've probably spend quite a few million quid concluding HS2 won't work?
Was that their conclusion? Or just that it's not on time or schedule?OutInTheShed said:
With that jolly old motorway analogy, how much more would it have cost to have built HS2 as four tracks and a bit more connectivity?
Define how much more connectivity you want? Yes, stations are expensive and for the sake of what additional connectivity to where? How many cities are between London and Birmingham?OutInTheShed said:
For large numbers of people, what the rail network needs is a London Bypass.
I agree. I'd love for HS2 to hail a new beginning in HS rail in the UK. Somewhere before HS10 it would be great if London-Swansea was high speed, and Bristol to Manchester.Evanivitch said:
OutInTheShed said:
Well, kind of, except motorways tend to have at least a few junctions.
The M4 doesn't bypass the A4 by going from London to Cardiff with no junctions.
HS won't serve anyone much who lives in the M40 suburbialand.
The M4 between J37 and J45 is a great example of what goes wrong when you have too many junctions. Just because you want to drive 70mph in the outside lane doesn't mean you're not affected by cars joining and leaving in lane 1 (of 2).The M4 doesn't bypass the A4 by going from London to Cardiff with no junctions.
HS won't serve anyone much who lives in the M40 suburbialand.
Equally, the M4 between J17 and J18 is about 10 miles!
OutInTheShed said:
They've probably spend quite a few million quid concluding HS2 won't work?
Was that their conclusion? Or just that it's not on time or schedule?OutInTheShed said:
With that jolly old motorway analogy, how much more would it have cost to have built HS2 as four tracks and a bit more connectivity?
Define how much more connectivity you want? Yes, stations are expensive and for the sake of what additional connectivity to where? How many cities are between London and Birmingham?OutInTheShed said:
For large numbers of people, what the rail network needs is a London Bypass.
I agree. I'd love for HS2 to hail a new beginning in HS rail in the UK. Somewhere before HS10 it would be great if London-Swansea was high speed, and Bristol to Manchester.How much extra connectivity?
I don't know, lets spend a few tens of millions on studies and reports into that.
I'd take issue with your "new beginning in HS rail in the UK", there's a lot more point to it if you look beyond the UK.
OutInTheShed said:
London to Swansea is under 3 hours. When you allow for people not actually ever starting from one rail terminus and wanting to go to another, high(er) speed rail is not going to make huge differences door to door.
Again, not expecting huge reductions in travel time (unless we .ake.a genuine effort to get bullet trains...) but it massively improves freight and rail capacity on the South Wales Main line! Remember that issue we were talking about.OutInTheShed said:
How much extra connectivity?
I don't know, lets spend a few tens of millions on studies and reports into that.
I'd take issue with your "new beginning in HS rail in the UK", there's a lot more point to it if you look beyond the UK.
Look beyond the UK? Why? We have a high population density, and our population centres literally grew around the railway lines...I don't know, lets spend a few tens of millions on studies and reports into that.
I'd take issue with your "new beginning in HS rail in the UK", there's a lot more point to it if you look beyond the UK.
OutInTheShed said:
……..
For large numbers of people, what the rail network needs is a London Bypass.
The rail service from London to Scotland isn't too bad, it's half a day.
Southampton to Edinburgh is a whole day by train or an hour in an old skool plane with real propellors.
The sodding bus is not much slower than some of the rail options.
Agree. A rail version of the M25 maybe.For large numbers of people, what the rail network needs is a London Bypass.
The rail service from London to Scotland isn't too bad, it's half a day.
Southampton to Edinburgh is a whole day by train or an hour in an old skool plane with real propellors.
The sodding bus is not much slower than some of the rail options.
Perhaps even linking Heathrow with Oxford,Luton, Stansted and Gatwick airports to facilitate a sort of distributed airport network as well as providing rail linkage from the South to the Midlands and the North without going via London.
New bridge installed under an existing railway line in Warwickshire.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-coventry-...
Construction is happening (in some areas) pretty rapidly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-coventry-...
Construction is happening (in some areas) pretty rapidly.
On the argument of "why not just upgrade the existing line?" I've spent some time on the M6 in the West Midlands today, much more time than I should have done because they're working on and around junction ten. I would say that it's a reasonable illustration of the kind of chaos caused by trying to do a major upgrade on a system that still has to be open and working.
Chrisgr31 said:
Its apparently on budget. However government changing their mind at Euston means £105m spent on design is wasted. How you spend £105m on design is beyond me!
Of course if we decided what we were going t do and did it projects like this would be a lot cheaper and arrive a lot quicker. I understand one big issue with HS2 and its cost is the guarantees contractors have to give. Means its all titanium plated!
Big complex building, team of 20 architects, 30 engineers, 15 project management office, 20 supply chain and commercial, 20 admin, 20 legal and planning, 20 interface management. That team would burn £20 million a year and spend your £100 million in 5 years.Of course if we decided what we were going t do and did it projects like this would be a lot cheaper and arrive a lot quicker. I understand one big issue with HS2 and its cost is the guarantees contractors have to give. Means its all titanium plated!
Real team is likely much larger due to having to manage hundreds of stakeholders.
EliseNick said:
Slab track is more expensive to install, but cheaper to maintain. I don't know how long it takes to break even.
Stations are really expensive, so more stations would increase the cost...
I'd love to see more investment in other bits of the railway system, but it's not really an either/or situation. This video explains it all far better than I can: https://youtu.be/Nf5avCUNP0M
I would assume that the track bed costs are probably rounding errors. The issue with HS2 is that it is completely over specified in terms of how much of it is is a tunnel, deep cutting or on a bridge.Stations are really expensive, so more stations would increase the cost...
I'd love to see more investment in other bits of the railway system, but it's not really an either/or situation. This video explains it all far better than I can: https://youtu.be/Nf5avCUNP0M
The example of what it would in theory unlock would be the Midlands hub around to Toton station on HS2 by removing the fast drains from Derby and Nottingham the tracks to the existing stations could be turned into fast electric suburban rail linking the large Tiens and cities with fast trains going several times an hour.
Condi said:
Not sure I agree, there will nearly always be a place for high speed mass transit systems, simply because it is a very efficient (space and time) method of transport. Autonomous cars are not going to be doing 150+mph on the motorway, and our cities and motorways will be incredibly busy if each person currently using the train has his own 3m long square box.
This image compares busses with cars and bicycles, but the effect of trains is the same as busses.
This is where the train people run out of imagination.This image compares busses with cars and bicycles, but the effect of trains is the same as busses.
1: If all the cars on motorways are autonomous EVs there is no particular reason they couldn't all be travelling at 155mph.
2: If they all travel at the same speed the autonomous systems can run them very close together.
3: If we use road pricing we can get people to travel in appropriate sized vehicles for the road space, these are unlikely to be more than about 12 seats.
4: Said InterCity high speed EVs could travel in tunnels in cities, see loop, but they also access the existing road network.
Talksteer said:
This is where the train people run out of imagination.
1: If all the cars on motorways are autonomous EVs there is no particular reason they couldn't all be travelling at 155mph.
2: If they all travel at the same speed the autonomous systems can run them very close together.
3: If we use road pricing we can get people to travel in appropriate sized vehicles for the road space, these are unlikely to be more than about 12 seats.
4: Said InterCity high speed EVs could travel in tunnels in cities, see loop, but they also access the existing road network.
Anything MIGHT be true in future, but there's no serious development of hyperloop going on anywhere, and there's no technology likely to be developed over the next 50 years that would enable efficient (as low power as a large train, green) running of EVs at anything like 155mph. They will be chucking out huge amounts of heat per person per mile. 1: If all the cars on motorways are autonomous EVs there is no particular reason they couldn't all be travelling at 155mph.
2: If they all travel at the same speed the autonomous systems can run them very close together.
3: If we use road pricing we can get people to travel in appropriate sized vehicles for the road space, these are unlikely to be more than about 12 seats.
4: Said InterCity high speed EVs could travel in tunnels in cities, see loop, but they also access the existing road network.
Talksteer said:
This is where the train people run out of imagination.
1: If all the cars on motorways are autonomous EVs there is no particular reason they couldn't all be travelling at 155mph.
2: If they all travel at the same speed the autonomous systems can run them very close together.
3: If we use road pricing we can get people to travel in appropriate sized vehicles for the road space, these are unlikely to be more than about 12 seats.
4: Said InterCity high speed EVs could travel in tunnels in cities, see loop, but they also access the existing road network.
If. If. If.1: If all the cars on motorways are autonomous EVs there is no particular reason they couldn't all be travelling at 155mph.
2: If they all travel at the same speed the autonomous systems can run them very close together.
3: If we use road pricing we can get people to travel in appropriate sized vehicles for the road space, these are unlikely to be more than about 12 seats.
4: Said InterCity high speed EVs could travel in tunnels in cities, see loop, but they also access the existing road network.
And how long realistically do you think it will take to get there? You’re relying on everyone who wants to use a motorway buying a performance EV amd only allowing performance EVs on it and using tech that still on the drawing board and that’s before we get to trucks, buses, etc and then you have the problem of where do all these cars go after they’ve left the motorway. Thousands of cars per hour extra onto London’s streets - that’ll help congestion…
Your utopia will still be a dream when HS2 is up and running.
Talksteer said:
This is where the train people run out of imagination.
1: If all the cars on motorways are autonomous EVs there is no particular reason they couldn't all be travelling at 155mph.
2: If they all travel at the same speed the autonomous systems can run them very close together.
3: If we use road pricing we can get people to travel in appropriate sized vehicles for the road space, these are unlikely to be more than about 12 seats.
4: Said InterCity high speed EVs could travel in tunnels in cities, see loop, but they also access the existing road network.
So now the private individual has to pay and maintain a 155 mph capable car? And the public infrastructure has to be completely rebuilt to accommodate those speeds.1: If all the cars on motorways are autonomous EVs there is no particular reason they couldn't all be travelling at 155mph.
2: If they all travel at the same speed the autonomous systems can run them very close together.
3: If we use road pricing we can get people to travel in appropriate sized vehicles for the road space, these are unlikely to be more than about 12 seats.
4: Said InterCity high speed EVs could travel in tunnels in cities, see loop, but they also access the existing road network.
Condi said:
Talksteer said:
4: Said InterCity high speed EVs could travel in tunnels in cities, see loop, but they also access the existing road network.
Much like the HS2 trains will run on existing track once North of Manchester? 
Rail is ~7% of passenger miles, even if you build HS2 to its full potential and build at great expense all the regional improvements to unlock the potential from removing the high speed trains from classic lines the most you will do is add a few percent to those existing 7% of passenger miles.
Whereas if autonomy means that most people give up their personal cars (due to vastly lower costs) then ride sharing becomes frictionless (and incentivised by price), average occupancy goes up then we could move double the number of people on the existing road network.
Evanivitch said:
Talksteer said:
This is where the train people run out of imagination.
1: If all the cars on motorways are autonomous EVs there is no particular reason they couldn't all be travelling at 155mph.
2: If they all travel at the same speed the autonomous systems can run them very close together.
3: If we use road pricing we can get people to travel in appropriate sized vehicles for the road space, these are unlikely to be more than about 12 seats.
4: Said InterCity high speed EVs could travel in tunnels in cities, see loop, but they also access the existing road network.
So now the private individual has to pay and maintain a 155 mph capable car? And the public infrastructure has to be completely rebuilt to accommodate those speeds.1: If all the cars on motorways are autonomous EVs there is no particular reason they couldn't all be travelling at 155mph.
2: If they all travel at the same speed the autonomous systems can run them very close together.
3: If we use road pricing we can get people to travel in appropriate sized vehicles for the road space, these are unlikely to be more than about 12 seats.
4: Said InterCity high speed EVs could travel in tunnels in cities, see loop, but they also access the existing road network.
It also likely provides strong economic incentives to move away from owning your own vehicle. This sounds worse for people habituated to the model of owning their own vehicle and comparing personal ownership with current public transport (inconvenient, dirty and filled with the dregs of society).
However the better analogy is with owning your own DVDs Vs streaming every TV or movie ever made. With shared autonomy you now "own" every car on the road. Shared autonomy isn't going to be like a monopoly public transport provider, providers who deliver dirty scruffy vehicles are going to lose business.
So your 155mph vehicle is highly unlikely to be be privately owned.
Given the minimum curvature radius for a UK motorway is 1000ft at most we might need to occasionally slow to 125mph if it's raining on the tightest curves only. We definitely don't need new alignments or more lanes. A single lane of 12 seat vehicles at the sort of headways automation finds relatively easy to pull off would shift as many people as HS2, so your 3 lane motorway could be inner lane HGVs all going at 60, middle lane is for acceleration close to exits and for swapping leadership in platoons/ breakdowns elsewhere, outside lane for cruising.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff