Suppose HS2 was cancelled
Discussion
Sorry Valiant, but every reference to HS2 is / was all about speed, all the DFT documentation on Gov.HS2 pushes speed as it’s (so called) major selling point. From the route to track and tunnel design the speed and associated noise from said high speed are the major considerations to the current design.
If they’d gone for the full “Y” as originally proposed then yes a significant amount of extra capacity would be available, OOK to Curzon Street, not so much.
This train set will be nothing more than Englands longest graffiti wall.
If they’d gone for the full “Y” as originally proposed then yes a significant amount of extra capacity would be available, OOK to Curzon Street, not so much.
This train set will be nothing more than Englands longest graffiti wall.
Essarell said:
Sorry Valiant, but every reference to HS2 is / was all about speed, all the DFT documentation on Gov.HS2 pushes speed as it’s (so called) major selling point.
That's because they are thick.A friend of mine worked for the DFT for 12 months, and his view was that it was the most inept and miss-managed organisation he'd ever worked for.
Essarell said:
Sorry Valiant, but every reference to HS2 is / was all about speed, all the DFT documentation on Gov.HS2 pushes speed as it’s (so called) major selling point. From the route to track and tunnel design the speed and associated noise from said high speed are the major considerations to the current design.
If they’d gone for the full “Y” as originally proposed then yes a significant amount of extra capacity would be available, OOK to Curzon Street, not so much.
This train set will be nothing more than Englands longest graffiti wall.
It's primarily about capacity; that some civil servants are stupid enough to set the 'speed' rabbit running, to be taken up by the media because they're too stupid to know any better, doesn't make it true. It bypasses the most congested part of the existing rail network, allows high speed traffic to be segregated from slow and will provide a huge increase in the capacity of WCML. If they’d gone for the full “Y” as originally proposed then yes a significant amount of extra capacity would be available, OOK to Curzon Street, not so much.
This train set will be nothing more than Englands longest graffiti wall.
If there ever was to be any speed benefit (the clue is in the name whatever is said about capacity) that’s been totally negated by terminating at Old Oak Common. The latest update on costs could be eyewatering since it will now be affected by inflation and fuel costs…. That’s Putin’s fault presumably.
hidetheelephants said:
It's primarily about capacity; that some civil servants are stupid enough to set the 'speed' rabbit running, to be taken up by the media because they're too stupid to know any better, doesn't make it true. It bypasses the most congested part of the existing rail network, allows high speed traffic to be segregated from slow and will provide a huge increase in the capacity of WCML.
Surely if capacity was the main goal they’d run it 24hrs a day? As it stands trains will only run from 05:00-23:59 (8- 23:59 Sundays). Re speed vs capacity argument, are you suggesting that it’s civil servants specing High Speed (250 mph) trains and that the reality will be that the Train Operating Co (whomever it is that take up the franchise) will actually run trains at a speed more in common with the rest of the classic network?
Essarell said:
Surely if capacity was the main goal they’d run it 24hrs a day? As it stands trains will only run from 05:00-23:59 (8- 23:59 Sundays).
Re speed vs capacity argument, are you suggesting that it’s civil servants specing High Speed (250 mph) trains and that the reality will be that the Train Operating Co (whomever it is that take up the franchise) will actually run trains at a speed more in common with the rest of the classic network?
The operator won't have much flexibility, no.Re speed vs capacity argument, are you suggesting that it’s civil servants specing High Speed (250 mph) trains and that the reality will be that the Train Operating Co (whomever it is that take up the franchise) will actually run trains at a speed more in common with the rest of the classic network?
The capacity increases as the speed increases for a given amount of rolling stock (carriages times seats). The operator won't be buying extra rolling stock just so they can run more slowly.
Essarell said:
Surely if capacity was the main goal they’d run it 24hrs a day? As it stands trains will only run from 05:00-23:59 (8- 23:59 Sundays).
You don't get many commuters at 3am, so not much demand for trains then. The whole point is to take the faster (long distance) trains off the existing network to allow more trains, both slower and faster ones, to run. Think of it like a bypass, in road terms. It is a million time more complicated and inefficient to have a mix of slower and faster trains on a single line than to separate the 2 out. Also, if it ran 24/7 when do they do the maintenance and repairs? It's a lot easier to have periods of regular known down time to do work than run for 24/7 but have to come out of service for a week when things need maintenance, or even if you do it overnight you've still got the problem of the night trains which will need to be cancelled or diverted. 24/7 running is a big headache for not much extra gain.
Essarell said:
hidetheelephants said:
It's primarily about capacity; that some civil servants are stupid enough to set the 'speed' rabbit running, to be taken up by the media because they're too stupid to know any better, doesn't make it true. It bypasses the most congested part of the existing rail network, allows high speed traffic to be segregated from slow and will provide a huge increase in the capacity of WCML.
Surely if capacity was the main goal they’d run it 24hrs a day? As it stands trains will only run from 05:00-23:59 (8- 23:59 Sundays). aeropilot said:
Essarell said:
hidetheelephants said:
It's primarily about capacity; that some civil servants are stupid enough to set the 'speed' rabbit running, to be taken up by the media because they're too stupid to know any better, doesn't make it true. It bypasses the most congested part of the existing rail network, allows high speed traffic to be segregated from slow and will provide a huge increase in the capacity of WCML.
Surely if capacity was the main goal they’d run it 24hrs a day? As it stands trains will only run from 05:00-23:59 (8- 23:59 Sundays). Bonefish Blues said:
It is indicative of how poor HS2's comms has been though - not to mention the misleading Programme title itself.
Agreed on the comms aspect, it’s sold to us as one thing but it’s looking like quite another. HS2 claims it’ll carry an additional (to the rest of the network) 300000 passengers per day! That’s obviously nonsense as it sounds like it’s realistically only going to carry passengers that are already on the network, albeit slightly faster? Essarell said:
Bonefish Blues said:
It is indicative of how poor HS2's comms has been though - not to mention the misleading Programme title itself.
Agreed on the comms aspect, it’s sold to us as one thing but it’s looking like quite another. HS2 claims it’ll carry an additional (to the rest of the network) 300000 passengers per day! That’s obviously nonsense as it sounds like it’s realistically only going to carry passengers that are already on the network, albeit slightly faster? Obviously as the scope of HS2 gets less then the number of additional passengers attracted to it reduces. If it ever reaches Manchester then it would feasibly be replacing air services from London to Manchester and I always felt the biggest benefit would have been to aspire to eliminate domestic air travel entirely with relatively cheap extensions to Glasgow and Edinburgh, however this was never seriously pursued.
Bonefish Blues said:
It is indicative of how poor HS2's comms has been though - not to mention the misleading Programme title itself.
It's HS2 because London to Folkstone was HS1. And they are built to be faster than existing trains. Unfortunately the media like simple messages, and as it was called HS2 the simple message was "speed" rather than capacity. For every argument against HS2, the same argument was made back in 1850 when the existing network was constructed. HS2 isn't for today, really, it's for your kid's kid's kid's to use in 80 years time, by which time the cost will have been long forgotten and thousands of people will use it every day, grateful that the Governments of the past saw fit to invest in the country.
Many of the same arguments were made about the M40, but were quickly forgotten as soon as people started using it!
Condi said:
It's HS2 because London to Folkstone was HS1. And they are built to be faster than existing trains. Unfortunately the media like simple messages, and as it was called HS2 the simple message was "speed" rather than capacity.
For every argument against HS2, the same argument was made back in 1850 when the existing network was constructed. HS2 isn't for today, really, it's for your kid's kid's kid's to use in 80 years time, by which time the cost will have been long forgotten and thousands of people will use it every day, grateful that the Governments of the past saw fit to invest in the country.
Many of the same arguments were made about the M40, but were quickly forgotten as soon as people started using it!
If it’s for our kids, kids, etc then they should get on and build the whole damn thing, get cracking in the North and build southwards. For every argument against HS2, the same argument was made back in 1850 when the existing network was constructed. HS2 isn't for today, really, it's for your kid's kid's kid's to use in 80 years time, by which time the cost will have been long forgotten and thousands of people will use it every day, grateful that the Governments of the past saw fit to invest in the country.
Many of the same arguments were made about the M40, but were quickly forgotten as soon as people started using it!
LotusOmega375D said:
No point. They’ll all be driven everywhere in autonomous vehicles by then. HS2 will be like the Severn Valley Railway to them.
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.
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.
That’s a great example, we used to use trains, buses and trams in far greater numbers then a far more effective solution came alongThis image compares busses with cars and bicycles, but the effect of trains is the same as busses.
Essarell said:
That’s a great example, we used to use trains, buses and trams in far greater numbers then a far more effective solution came along
What is the far more effective solution, given as train use was, pre-pandemic, at record levels, and more cities are installing trams rather than removing them? Condi said:
Essarell said:
That’s a great example, we used to use trains, buses and trams in far greater numbers then a far more effective solution came along
What is the far more effective solution, given as train use was, pre-pandemic, at record levels, and more cities are installing trams rather than removing them? Ignoring my business travel our regular trips to London are by car or plane even though I can walk to a major East Coast Stn. Our public transport system is blighted by stupid costs (£300 return for 2 people to London)breakdowns, anti-social behaviour, cancellations, strikes and the unavoidable engineering work. HS2 only adds another layer to a country that can’t run a bath, our recent record of running railways is appalling and whoever wins this franchise will be just another to Nationalise, in fact I can’t see any operator taking it in its 2031 ish format.
Edited by Essarell on Saturday 3rd June 02:08
Chrisgr31 said:
LotusOmega375D said:
I flew back into Heathrow from Germany on Friday. Due to the wind direction, we headed over NW London before landing from the West. From a cloudless sky, I looked out over the Chilterns and was appalled and embarrassed by this huge broad scar of construction work stretching as far as I could see towards Birmingham. It’s incredible that the project was ever given the go ahead in the first place. You might not be able to see the Great Wall of China from space, but I bet you can see this!
Had you come in from the south east you would have seen HS1 which did similar damage but has now blended in with the landscape and takes up significantly less space than a motorway.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff