Suppose HS2 was cancelled

[Bonefish Blues]

Hammersia said:

Bonefish Blues said:

Can I ask another 'how long is a piece of' questions?

Roughly what proportion of the total energy usage of high speed rail is represented by the trains themselves running? I've seen the Tender documents and the numbers for usage/km seem quite modest but I've got no sense of how much it takes to run a HS system

If you look at the recent TGV duplex then maximum power for each train is quoted (wiki) 9000Kw for 600 passengers, so 15kW per passenger.

The trains won't use full power, they do use regenerative braking, and on the flip side there will be a lot of transmission losses.

There's a longer analysis here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in...

Looks like 4-500 mpg for well filled high speed trains.
2-300 mpg for well filled buses.

Thanks. I'm assuming that energy used running the actual trains is a relatively small part of the total running the HS line/network itself?

[Talksteer]

Bonefish Blues said:

Hammersia said:

Bonefish Blues said:

Can I ask another 'how long is a piece of' questions?

Roughly what proportion of the total energy usage of high speed rail is represented by the trains themselves running? I've seen the Tender documents and the numbers for usage/km seem quite modest but I've got no sense of how much it takes to run a HS system

If you look at the recent TGV duplex then maximum power for each train is quoted (wiki) 9000Kw for 600 passengers, so 15kW per passenger.

The trains won't use full power, they do use regenerative braking, and on the flip side there will be a lot of transmission losses.

There's a longer analysis here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in...

Looks like 4-500 mpg for well filled high speed trains.
2-300 mpg for well filled buses.

Thanks. I'm assuming that energy used running the actual trains is a relatively small part of the total running the HS line/network itself?

Not sure which question you are asking:

1: The cost of energy is a small portion of your ticket cost.
2: The trains are the major user of energy on the rail network, only a few % is lost in the power supply and all the other energy uses are much smaller.

[Bonefish Blues]

Talksteer said:

Bonefish Blues said:

Hammersia said:

Bonefish Blues said:

Can I ask another 'how long is a piece of' questions?

Roughly what proportion of the total energy usage of high speed rail is represented by the trains themselves running? I've seen the Tender documents and the numbers for usage/km seem quite modest but I've got no sense of how much it takes to run a HS system

If you look at the recent TGV duplex then maximum power for each train is quoted (wiki) 9000Kw for 600 passengers, so 15kW per passenger.

The trains won't use full power, they do use regenerative braking, and on the flip side there will be a lot of transmission losses.

There's a longer analysis here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in...

Looks like 4-500 mpg for well filled high speed trains.
2-300 mpg for well filled buses.

Thanks. I'm assuming that energy used running the actual trains is a relatively small part of the total running the HS line/network itself?

Not sure which question you are asking:

1: The cost of energy is a small portion of your ticket cost.
2: The trains are the major user of energy on the rail network, only a few % is lost in the power supply and all the other energy uses are much smaller.

You answered it at 2. thanks, I was looking for train energy use relative to the overall network

[Essarell]

Latest Office of Rail and Road finally published the latest passenger numbers with a circa 19% increase in passenger numbers and a growth of revenue. The Elizabeth Line does add significant numbers but definitely an upward trend in rail usage.

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/ip3ayian/passe...

[hidetheelephants]

Essarell said:

Latest Office of Rail and Road finally published the latest passenger numbers with a circa 19% increase in passenger numbers and a growth of revenue. The Elizabeth Line does add significant numbers but definitely an upward trend in rail usage.

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/ip3ayian/passe...

What a shame the govt have cancelled the only major rail infrastructure project and salted the earth to prevent it being restarted without years of delay and much unnecessary expense.

[Vasco]

hidetheelephants said:

Essarell said:

Latest Office of Rail and Road finally published the latest passenger numbers with a circa 19% increase in passenger numbers and a growth of revenue. The Elizabeth Line does add significant numbers but definitely an upward trend in rail usage.

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/ip3ayian/passe...

What a shame the govt have cancelled the only major rail infrastructure project and salted the earth to prevent it being restarted without years of delay and much unnecessary expense.

Even so, the right decision given the enormous costs involved - however caused/whether justified.

[abzmike]

I wonder if the newly annointed Foreign Secretary will be asked to expand on his reaction to the binning of phase 2, not that he's back in the cabinet.

[hidetheelephants]

Vasco said:

Even so, the right decision given the enormous costs involved - however caused/whether justified.

It isn't; if he wanted to save money there were ample areas to cut out or value engineer, as it is he's pissed hundreds of millions up the wall for nothing and rendered the expenditure of billions very poor value while spinning bullst about investing elsewhere in the network. This was it, there are no rail projects ready to go and no other means of increasing capacity, just this honking great behemoth which looked expensive because it had been lumbered with a load of unrelated costs and managed poorly. Now the best that can happen is Labour getting in and reviving rail investment but without the lies and bullst.

[Vasco]

hidetheelephants said:

Vasco said:

Even so, the right decision given the enormous costs involved - however caused/whether justified.

It isn't; if he wanted to save money there were ample areas to cut out or value engineer, as it is he's pissed hundreds of millions up the wall for nothing and rendered the expenditure of billions very poor value while spinning bullst about investing elsewhere in the network. This was it, there are no rail projects ready to go and no other means of increasing capacity, just this honking great behemoth which looked expensive because it had been lumbered with a load of unrelated costs and managed poorly. Now the best that can happen is Labour getting in and reviving rail investment but without the lies and bullst.

It certainly should have been cancelled much earlier !

[hidetheelephants]

Vasco said:

It certainly should have been cancelled much earlier !

Thank you, Ned Ludd. Traffic is up on a network already bursting, it needs more capacity and HS2 was the only game in town, or it was until Rishi Beeching took his axe to it.

[legzr1]

hidetheelephants said:

Vasco said:

It certainly should have been cancelled much earlier !

Thank you, Ned Ludd. Traffic is up on a network already bursting, it needs more capacity and HS2 was the only game in town, or it was until Rishi Beeching took his axe to it.

Exactly this and very similar to comments from various bodies who actually know what they’re talking about.

A wasted opportunity for much needed improvements to an essential service.

Some of us can see this. Others not so much.

[Amateurish]

legzr1 said:

hidetheelephants said:

Vasco said:

It certainly should have been cancelled much earlier !

Thank you, Ned Ludd. Traffic is up on a network already bursting, it needs more capacity and HS2 was the only game in town, or it was until Rishi Beeching took his axe to it.

Exactly this and very similar to comments from various bodies who actually know what they’re talking about.

A wasted opportunity for much needed improvements to an essential service.

Some of us can see this. Others not so much.

Don't worry, this has been explained to Vasco multiple times. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[Vasco]

legzr1 said:

hidetheelephants said:

Vasco said:

It certainly should have been cancelled much earlier !

Thank you, Ned Ludd. Traffic is up on a network already bursting, it needs more capacity and HS2 was the only game in town, or it was until Rishi Beeching took his axe to it.

Exactly this and very similar to comments from various bodies who actually know what they’re talking about.

A wasted opportunity for much needed improvements to an essential service.

Some of us can see this. Others not so much.

Hello again

It may well be needed, I'm not going to claim any knowledge to the contrary.

However.......

It seems to have been cancelled finally due to costs being way over estimates.......How come ? - poor estimates, excessive spending, time/delays, pandering to too many others/NIMBYs etc ??? Possibly all of those.

Rail *income* from passengers is still much lower than expected (I realise that pax *volumes* are now high at weekends etc)

A proportion of travellers appear to have switched to cars, or just not travelling at all (Covid?)

Passenger trains were to terminate way out of central London (Old Oak Common ?) for many years.

Some freight operators had suggested that they would consider moving some/all of train loads to road haulage if costs got too high, or strikes interfered with their requirements.

If it had been planned to start from the Manchester end would the whole project have even been approved ?

Given the poor outlook I don't think many of the UK voters were too bothered by the cancellation of HS2.

[Bonefish Blues]

The latest parliamentary report is a good place to start.

[Essarell]

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/15/t...

ALSTOM looking to cut manufacturing capacity in the UK due to the curtailment of HS2, that’ll be another nail in the “Green Jobs bonanza “ bubble that we were looking forward to reaping the rewards of.

[flatlandsman]

To be honest the fact that there are 500 odd perm jobs and nearly 800 contract means they have clearly been worried about the place for a while! You only do that to make it damn easy to dump millions in payroll at the drop of a hat when you have to

[hidetheelephants]

flatlandsman said:

To be honest the fact that there are 500 odd perm jobs and nearly 800 contract means they have clearly been worried about the place for a while! You only do that to make it damn easy to dump millions in payroll at the drop of a hat when you have to

That's how most manufacturing works these days, nothing unusual about it. If the govt hadn't had their IR35 brainfart it would probably be a higher ratio of contractors.

[Yertis]

hidetheelephants said:

Now the best that can happen is Labour getting in and reviving rail investment but without the lies and bullst.

Have you never lived under a Labour government?

[hidetheelephants]

Yertis said:

hidetheelephants said:

Now the best that can happen is Labour getting in and reviving rail investment but without the lies and bullst.

Have you never lived under a Labour government?

No; do you have a point? The genesis of HS2 was during New Labour, even if it was CMD that pressed the button.

Edited by hidetheelephants on Friday 17th November 00:02

[andy97]

Essarell said:

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/15/t...

ALSTOM looking to cut manufacturing capacity in the UK due to the curtailment of HS2, that’ll be another nail in the “Green Jobs bonanza “ bubble that we were looking forward to reaping the rewards of.

I think the issue is not the curtailment of HS2 but the fact that they don’t have any orders between now and the start of the HS2 rolling stock production, so here’s about an 18 month gap without much work.