New high speed rail link!
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8221540.stm
That isn't actually all that fast... and will take two decades to finish.
This is a perfect example of why our country is going nowhere. 20 years to get it finished, 5 years of that is planning issues, and when it's finally finished it's behind current stuff fielded by other nations already!
Pants!
That isn't actually all that fast... and will take two decades to finish.
This is a perfect example of why our country is going nowhere. 20 years to get it finished, 5 years of that is planning issues, and when it's finally finished it's behind current stuff fielded by other nations already!
Pants!
Mr Whippy said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8221540.stm
This is a perfect example of why our country is going nowhere. 20 years to get it finished, 5 years of that is planning issues, and when it's finally finished it's behind current stuff fielded by other nations already!
Pants!
Oh come on! Where's your nationalistic pride?This is a perfect example of why our country is going nowhere. 20 years to get it finished, 5 years of that is planning issues, and when it's finally finished it's behind current stuff fielded by other nations already!
Pants!
We just obliterated the 103 year old world steam car speed record by...a pathetic 13 mph. I'd be embarrassed to publicise it personally.
shouldbworking said:
I'd rather they reopened some of the closed rail links in the southwest. narest station to me must be ~12 miles away.
Railway probably doesn't own the land.In Spain they just bulldoze people's homes and give them no recompense... here a newt *may* have once lived there, so we abandon an entire project...
The BBC was talking of 70m per mile as a build cost.
Does any one know how that compares to say France with their high speed looks.I think that build figure if like any other project here will at least double then you have to factor in the odd brown envelope to help with planning/contracts
Does any one know how that compares to say France with their high speed looks.I think that build figure if like any other project here will at least double then you have to factor in the odd brown envelope to help with planning/contracts
dr_gn said:
Oh come on! Where's your nationalistic pride?
We just obliterated the 103 year old world steam car speed record by...a pathetic 13 mph. I'd be embarrassed to publicise it personally.
"We"?? How did you help exactly? That wasn't a UK plc attempt on the steam WSR, it was a few guys in a workshop with a bit of funding from Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. I'd be bloody proud of that achievement myself.We just obliterated the 103 year old world steam car speed record by...a pathetic 13 mph. I'd be embarrassed to publicise it personally.
moribund said:
dr_gn said:
Oh come on! Where's your nationalistic pride?
We just obliterated the 103 year old world steam car speed record by...a pathetic 13 mph. I'd be embarrassed to publicise it personally.
"We"?? How did you help exactly? That wasn't a UK plc attempt on the steam WSR, it was a few guys in a workshop with a bit of funding from Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. I'd be bloody proud of that achievement myself.We just obliterated the 103 year old world steam car speed record by...a pathetic 13 mph. I'd be embarrassed to publicise it personally.
Proud of building a car with technology available in 2009, which appears to be barely superior to an antique (and no doubt massively inferior in terms of mph/pound spent)??
I'm absolutely amazed at how rubbish it really is when you consider that the previous record holding 1906 Stanley Steamer was, by most accounts, capable of 150mph, and the 1920's Doble steam saloon car (which looks like a brick) was capable of 120 mph.
It's a huge insult to the previous record holder IMO - to take a record by such a tiny margin after the benefit of over 100 years of technological advancement, and than make a big deal out of it.
Edited by dr_gn on Thursday 27th August 09:42
The trouble is that railways are fantastically expensive to build and run and not very flexible! The rules and regs around rail ops add massive cost (for perfectly understandable reasons), the signalling costs are massive, the construction costs are massive and you end up not actually running that may trains on them. To make the railways even half affordable the load factors are very high. They are ideal in & out of and around places like london where you need to move massive amounts of commuters but I am not convinced that they are the right thing for Medium distance travel. Sure, people say that its cheaper by rail than by road but that's ONLY because of the massive public subsidy that is geven to the railways. If the rail company's & Customers had to pay the true cost of rail it would be unaffordable.
The green lobby has cottoned on to rail travel as being environmentally less harmful than road transport, particulalry if electrically powered. really? Where does the electric come from - Coal & gas fired power stations normally.
If a true green (& Cheap) transport methodology was required, we'd actually be moving a vast % more of our freight by Sea, River & Canal & places like London, Birmingham & Manchester would make far more of the Rivers & Canals that they have for commuter traffic. You can still get a 200 tonne freighter as far inland as Nottingham - thats a lot of freight containers. Manchester still has the Ship Canal; The Thames is navigable as afar as Oxford; the Severn is navigable as far as Shrewsbury etc etc.
I did once read a study that suggested that it would be cheaper for us to rip up the majority of the non commuter railways and replace them with Concrete block roads, purely for the use of lorries and buses. No signalling infrastructure required, no worrying about rail/ train interaction, cheaper maintenance, less congestion on the rest of the roads etc etc etc.
An integrated & cheap transport policy should have far more transport by water, inter city links by concrete roads replacing rail and commuter rail where necessary. Not very, very expensive long distance high speed rail routes.
BTW, I worked in the rail industry for a while & many would agree that long distance rail routes are a waste of money.
The green lobby has cottoned on to rail travel as being environmentally less harmful than road transport, particulalry if electrically powered. really? Where does the electric come from - Coal & gas fired power stations normally.
If a true green (& Cheap) transport methodology was required, we'd actually be moving a vast % more of our freight by Sea, River & Canal & places like London, Birmingham & Manchester would make far more of the Rivers & Canals that they have for commuter traffic. You can still get a 200 tonne freighter as far inland as Nottingham - thats a lot of freight containers. Manchester still has the Ship Canal; The Thames is navigable as afar as Oxford; the Severn is navigable as far as Shrewsbury etc etc.
I did once read a study that suggested that it would be cheaper for us to rip up the majority of the non commuter railways and replace them with Concrete block roads, purely for the use of lorries and buses. No signalling infrastructure required, no worrying about rail/ train interaction, cheaper maintenance, less congestion on the rest of the roads etc etc etc.
An integrated & cheap transport policy should have far more transport by water, inter city links by concrete roads replacing rail and commuter rail where necessary. Not very, very expensive long distance high speed rail routes.
BTW, I worked in the rail industry for a while & many would agree that long distance rail routes are a waste of money.
Take a look at this - something I'll be working on in the near future:
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/02/a-world-wit...
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/02/a-world-wit...
telecat said:
Waste of time and money. This needs to be looked at from alternative angles. If you think tracks then why not go MAGLEV or bury it. Why not look at "Mini Trains" or larger track width as IKB did. It needs more radical thinking if they are starting from scratch.
Underground transport systems (which is what the article is about) are not necessarily a waste of time and money. We are not just talking about the transport of goods or people.The reason research is being done into this is to find 'alternative angles'.
dr_gn said:
telecat said:
Waste of time and money. This needs to be looked at from alternative angles. If you think tracks then why not go MAGLEV or bury it. Why not look at "Mini Trains" or larger track width as IKB did. It needs more radical thinking if they are starting from scratch.
Underground transport systems (which is what the article is about) are not necessarily a waste of time and money. We are not just talking about the transport of goods or people.The reason research is being done into this is to find 'alternative angles'.
In respect of the new high speed link it sounds like they have already decided on the tech/speeds, they need the time to actually build it.
I have no idea why it can't be built in 5 years personally, just hire four times as many people for 4 times less time
We may as well advertise to the world how slow and crap we are in the UK these days. Don't worry everyone, the UK is WELL off the map of global big players!
Dave
dr_gn said:
You're easily pleased.
Proud of building a car with technology available in 2009, which appears to be barely superior to an antique (and no doubt massively inferior in terms of mph/pound spent)??
I'm absolutely amazed at how rubbish it really is when you consider that the previous record holding 1906 Stanley Steamer was, by most accounts, capable of 150mph, and the 1920's Doble steam saloon car (which looks like a brick) was capable of 120 mph.
It's a huge insult to the previous record holder IMO - to take a record by such a tiny margin after the benefit of over 100 years of technological advancement, and than make a big deal out of it.
You're missing the point by a mile. It wasn't done for your benefit. I bet you're the kind of guy that witters on when a UK amateur sportsman fails to win a medal. What have you won recently?Proud of building a car with technology available in 2009, which appears to be barely superior to an antique (and no doubt massively inferior in terms of mph/pound spent)??
I'm absolutely amazed at how rubbish it really is when you consider that the previous record holding 1906 Stanley Steamer was, by most accounts, capable of 150mph, and the 1920's Doble steam saloon car (which looks like a brick) was capable of 120 mph.
It's a huge insult to the previous record holder IMO - to take a record by such a tiny margin after the benefit of over 100 years of technological advancement, and than make a big deal out of it.
This is no major corporate gig, there's no massive backing or even international competition. There's not the kudos the Thrust team have today - which the 1906 car would have been equivalent to in context. In terms of £ spent the new car was probably similar to what some on here spend on a year of club racing. It's just a bunch of guys having a go and succeeding in their own dream. Can't think of anything better myself. Maybe you'd like to go and show them how it's done?
moribund said:
dr_gn said:
You're easily pleased.
Proud of building a car with technology available in 2009, which appears to be barely superior to an antique (and no doubt massively inferior in terms of mph/pound spent)??
I'm absolutely amazed at how rubbish it really is when you consider that the previous record holding 1906 Stanley Steamer was, by most accounts, capable of 150mph, and the 1920's Doble steam saloon car (which looks like a brick) was capable of 120 mph.
It's a huge insult to the previous record holder IMO - to take a record by such a tiny margin after the benefit of over 100 years of technological advancement, and than make a big deal out of it.
You're missing the point by a mile. It wasn't done for your benefit. I bet you're the kind of guy that witters on when a UK amateur sportsman fails to win a medal. What have you won recently?Proud of building a car with technology available in 2009, which appears to be barely superior to an antique (and no doubt massively inferior in terms of mph/pound spent)??
I'm absolutely amazed at how rubbish it really is when you consider that the previous record holding 1906 Stanley Steamer was, by most accounts, capable of 150mph, and the 1920's Doble steam saloon car (which looks like a brick) was capable of 120 mph.
It's a huge insult to the previous record holder IMO - to take a record by such a tiny margin after the benefit of over 100 years of technological advancement, and than make a big deal out of it.
This is no major corporate gig, there's no massive backing or even international competition. There's not the kudos the Thrust team have today - which the 1906 car would have been equivalent to in context. In terms of £ spent the new car was probably similar to what some on here spend on a year of club racing. It's just a bunch of guys having a go and succeeding in their own dream. Can't think of anything better myself. Maybe you'd like to go and show them how it's done?
"...the most obvious goal of this project is to bring another land speed record to Britain..."
(and since I'm British, it's presumably being done in part "for my benefit"?)
That seems to contradict your first assertion.
They then go on to say:
"...there is a deeper and longer term portion of the project. We hope this follow on goal will have a significant impact on the future of automobile technology."
What a load of tosh. The thing runs on LPG FFSake. Why not just burn that in an internal combustion engine and be done with it instead of using it to heat water to use in a turbine or whatever and adding massive amounts more inefficiency? Trying to dress it up as "green" is rubbish.
What have they proved by doing this? That a bunch of guys with too much money and time can piss it away building a car that's inferior to an antique? That's why I would have no interest in "showing them how it's done"? It's uttery pointless as far as I can see.
Finally, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in whether any British sportsman wins a medal or not. I can't think of anything less relevant to my life.
What have I won recently? Who cares? Games are for kids.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff