HS2, whats the current status ?
Discussion
robinessex said:
Why can't the railways GPS everything, and do away with 1890 signaling system ?
They can do something similar. A technique called moving block signalling is used in certain circumstances which works by having the trains determine their precise position and speed in real time and transmit it back to a central server which transmits back stop /go /speed limit instructions in real time.GPS has the slight limitation that it doesn't work in tunnels, so it can't be the primary location technology. But the point is the same.
The problem with moving block is that it is very complicated to work in a failsafe way as well as reuriring very complex and high reliability radio infrastructure. The complexity goes through the roof once you start adding points, junctions, branches, etc. So that it is not considered feasible to build a system on anything other than a metro line.
Some parts of the tube use moving block, as will central parts of crossrail, as it is the only signalling technology which can handle such busy lines.
There was an attempt to convert the WCML to moving block, which was abandoned after spending several billion on R&D which concluded that it was impossible to implement on such a complex line.
That is why we shouldn't build HS2.
Scale that up to 20 passengers and 250-300 mile range and you basically have a high speed rail killer. All the environmental benefits but a tiny fraction of the infrastructure cost and the ability to link every remotely large town relatively directly.
If you don't like that then swap high speed rail for high speed electric buses. A bus that runs on electricity at 155mph, range of 200 miles is perfectly feasible (square cube law with larger vehicles). Because it runs rubber on tarmac the infrastructure costs of the dual carriageway you build instead is a fraction of the cost of high speed rail.
This is perfectly possible to operate on auto-pilot and you don't need signalling to make it work.
Talksteer said:
That is why we shouldn't build HS2.
Scale that up to 20 passengers and 250-300 mile range and you basically have a high speed rail killer. All the environmental benefits but a tiny fraction of the infrastructure cost and the ability to link every remotely large town relatively directly.
If you don't like that then swap high speed rail for high speed electric buses. A bus that runs on electricity at 155mph, range of 200 miles is perfectly feasible (square cube law with larger vehicles). Because it runs rubber on tarmac the infrastructure costs of the dual carriageway you build instead is a fraction of the cost of high speed rail.
This is perfectly possible to operate on auto-pilot and you don't need signalling to make it work.
Working from the base line of "I don't think this is worth doing" - an opinion in itself, of course, not a fact - we go on to spurious reasons why it can't or shouldn't be done. Next add a combination of he following excuses to taste:
- "There's new technology just around the corner that will make it obsolete." This technology is always "just around the corner" or "in a few years time" - never actually available right this minute. Funny that...
- "There's a cheaper way to do it" (not as good but cheaper - apparently we can run a bus at 155mph. Well if we can I don't want to be on it...)
- "There's a cheaper way of doing it" (or so it looks to the uninformed but it turns out more expensive and disruptive in the long run - like upgrading the WCML again for example...)
- "We've managed without it so far so why do we need it now?" If the entire human race thought that way we'd still be living in mud huts. Probably wouldn't need HS2 if we did though...
- "Its already gone over budget so we should scrap it. The idiots in charge couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery." This argument, is usually flawed because a) an estimate (not a quotation) is produced for the job; b) the NIMBYS come out in force and succeed in getting more compensation or more screening or a diversion or whatever, all of which will cost money. Then the NIMBYs complain that the managers can't be trusted because the costs have already gone up and it hasn't been started yet. This one gets trotted out virtually every time someone comes up with an ambitious project, and is a perfect example of critics being selective in their arguments
And if even that fails, think of a soundbite that belittles the project "Vanity project;" Project fear," any such will do...
And in case anyone thinks I am letting sarcastic humour cloud my judgement, always remember that Crossrail was first proposed in 1947. That's right - that was not a typo, 1947. Perhaps in 1948 someone told somebody high up in the project that electric buses were just around the corner...
rs1952 said:
steveT350C said:
Regarding the capacity argument; I went from Gerrards Cross to Birmingham last Tuesday morning. 1 change at Banbury.
1st leg, GX to Banbury, about 7:40am, the train was only two carriages and was 95% empty. 2nd leg train had about 10 carriages and was maybe a 3rd full. Arrived in Birmingham 9:45am.
Return jouney leaving Birmingham the following day; both trains were similarly empty.
You've misunderstood the use of the word "capacity" in this context.1st leg, GX to Banbury, about 7:40am, the train was only two carriages and was 95% empty. 2nd leg train had about 10 carriages and was maybe a 3rd full. Arrived in Birmingham 9:45am.
Return jouney leaving Birmingham the following day; both trains were similarly empty.
We are talking about the physical capacity of the railways to run trains, not the capacity on trains ie.enough seats for the bums that want to sit on them.
rover 623gsi said:
HS2 is mainly about rebalancing the national economy, regeneration and providing jobs. I don’t think the flying stuff would do that to the same extent
Unfortunately it is likely to have the opposite effect of #1, fail on #2, and be a very expensive way of #3.Flying stuff not a winning idea for me though...
Vaud said:
What is that flying machine?
Is in invulnerable to weather compared to trains? What is the cost per mile of operation?
It is one of the Uber eVTOL common reference models, it is legit not vapour wear, the guys who run Uber Elevate are basically the ex NASA VTOL team. Is in invulnerable to weather compared to trains? What is the cost per mile of operation?
If you don't like that one look up Kittyhawk Cora, that is an eVTOL already flying.
The eVTOLs have a range of around 80-100 miles and 4 seats plus a systems operator (initially).
The initial cost of pp in short hops will be around the $2 per mile, eventually they will be below the marginal cost of driving ~40p/mile.
Its interesting that you went for the cost angle when flying is already cheaper than going by train! Electric flying will be in the region of 5-10 times cheaper per passenger than conventional aircraft.
The fuel is cheap, electric systems need a fraction of the maintenance and most importantly the propulsion systems can be derived from commodity components being produced in their millions.
The target cost once several thousand eVTOLs have been manufactured is $250,000.
The same tech can be scaled up to a 20-50 seat air bus with a 200-300 mile range, that range will go up 8% per year as batteries improve.
As for weather, initially these things will be tested in Texas or LA, but fundamentally planes can operate in pretty extreme weather.
The key element where these are much better than trains and to a lesser extent planes is that their infrastructure is not weather sensitive and as the operate with no schedule local disruption goes no further.
Talksteer said:
It is one of the Uber eVTOL common reference models, it is legit not vapour wear, the guys who run Uber Elevate are basically the ex NASA VTOL team.
If you don't like that one look up Kittyhawk Cora, that is an eVTOL already flying.
The eVTOLs have a range of around 80-100 miles and 4 seats plus a systems operator (initially).
The initial cost of pp in short hops will be around the $2 per mile, eventually they will be below the marginal cost of driving ~40p/mile.
Its interesting that you went for the cost angle when flying is already cheaper than going by train! Electric flying will be in the region of 5-10 times cheaper per passenger than conventional aircraft.
The fuel is cheap, electric systems need a fraction of the maintenance and most importantly the propulsion systems can be derived from commodity components being produced in their millions.
The target cost once several thousand eVTOLs have been manufactured is $250,000.
The same tech can be scaled up to a 20-50 seat air bus with a 200-300 mile range, that range will go up 8% per year as batteries improve.
As for weather, initially these things will be tested in Texas or LA, but fundamentally planes can operate in pretty extreme weather.
The key element where these are much better than trains and to a lesser extent planes is that their infrastructure is not weather sensitive and as the operate with no schedule local disruption goes no further.
I'm sorry to be realistic but:If you don't like that one look up Kittyhawk Cora, that is an eVTOL already flying.
The eVTOLs have a range of around 80-100 miles and 4 seats plus a systems operator (initially).
The initial cost of pp in short hops will be around the $2 per mile, eventually they will be below the marginal cost of driving ~40p/mile.
Its interesting that you went for the cost angle when flying is already cheaper than going by train! Electric flying will be in the region of 5-10 times cheaper per passenger than conventional aircraft.
The fuel is cheap, electric systems need a fraction of the maintenance and most importantly the propulsion systems can be derived from commodity components being produced in their millions.
The target cost once several thousand eVTOLs have been manufactured is $250,000.
The same tech can be scaled up to a 20-50 seat air bus with a 200-300 mile range, that range will go up 8% per year as batteries improve.
As for weather, initially these things will be tested in Texas or LA, but fundamentally planes can operate in pretty extreme weather.
The key element where these are much better than trains and to a lesser extent planes is that their infrastructure is not weather sensitive and as the operate with no schedule local disruption goes no further.
- The Uber is an unproven reference model that cites a 60 mile range
- Air traffic is always more sensitive to weather, especially smaller aircraft (not least the airport/landing area becomes a controlling factor as they have to space out landings more. Tech only goes so far.
- Capacity. "Vehicles must have three or four passenger seats in addition to the pilot. For four passengers
- No chance for $200k.
There may be a niche for flying taxis like this, serving some areas - I agree. Not to mass replace trains, but to replace exec cars.
Also I doubt that masses of VTOL will never be allowed to fly over London, by example and land/takeoff... in a defined air corridor like helicopters, maybe.
rover 623gsi said:
HS2 is mainly about rebalancing the national economy, regeneration and providing jobs. I don’t think the flying stuff would do that to the same extent
That's why it starts in Leeds and Manchester then !!!! A flying bus or the HS2 white elephant both sound like turds wrapped in very expensive glitter ...
Lots of things will change and technology will evolve. We now do more Skype meetings than ever, what is the point in travelling for hours to speak for a couple when there? I have also noticed the skype meeting appear more effective as people just get on with it.
In the UK space is a huge issue , so when the French had TGV to build they just did it, without the hassle HS2 has had to go through, which is why we drag our feet as we allow everyone and their dog to object.
I still think HS2 is the wrong thing and does not help the economy in too many ways. Freight is the big issue and this will not add to the freight capability. That is why the Northern Powerhouse struggles as to get freight from one end to the other is an added expense in both time and cost.
HS2 is a vanity project but it will get built, it will costs billions more than budgeted and it will not benefit that many, but it will provide jobs which we will need. They should make sure that everything we can get from UK companies is helped to win the contracts.
In the UK space is a huge issue , so when the French had TGV to build they just did it, without the hassle HS2 has had to go through, which is why we drag our feet as we allow everyone and their dog to object.
I still think HS2 is the wrong thing and does not help the economy in too many ways. Freight is the big issue and this will not add to the freight capability. That is why the Northern Powerhouse struggles as to get freight from one end to the other is an added expense in both time and cost.
HS2 is a vanity project but it will get built, it will costs billions more than budgeted and it will not benefit that many, but it will provide jobs which we will need. They should make sure that everything we can get from UK companies is helped to win the contracts.
rs1952 said:
IMHO this post is a classic example of why it takes so long for anything to get done in this country.
Working from the base line of "I don't think this is worth doing" - an opinion in itself, of course, not a fact - we go on to spurious reasons why it can't or shouldn't be done. Next add a combination of he following excuses to taste:
And if even that fails, think of a soundbite that belittles the project "Vanity project;" Project fear," any such will do...
And in case anyone thinks I am letting sarcastic humour cloud my judgement, always remember that Crossrail was first proposed in 1947. That's right - that was not a typo, 1947. Perhaps in 1948 someone told somebody high up in the project that electric buses were just around the corner...
Good rant, I notice that you don't actually address the solution proposed. I suggest watching the Uber Elevate conference material first, and before you call fan boy I'm actually in aerospace/nuclear R&T.Working from the base line of "I don't think this is worth doing" - an opinion in itself, of course, not a fact - we go on to spurious reasons why it can't or shouldn't be done. Next add a combination of he following excuses to taste:
- "There's new technology just around the corner that will make it obsolete." This technology is always "just around the corner" or "in a few years time" - never actually available right this minute. Funny that...
- "There's a cheaper way to do it" (not as good but cheaper - apparently we can run a bus at 155mph. Well if we can I don't want to be on it...)
- "There's a cheaper way of doing it" (or so it looks to the uninformed but it turns out more expensive and disruptive in the long run - like upgrading the WCML again for example...)
- "We've managed without it so far so why do we need it now?" If the entire human race thought that way we'd still be living in mud huts. Probably wouldn't need HS2 if we did though...
- "Its already gone over budget so we should scrap it. The idiots in charge couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery." This argument, is usually flawed because a) an estimate (not a quotation) is produced for the job; b) the NIMBYS come out in force and succeed in getting more compensation or more screening or a diversion or whatever, all of which will cost money. Then the NIMBYs complain that the managers can't be trusted because the costs have already gone up and it hasn't been started yet. This one gets trotted out virtually every time someone comes up with an ambitious project, and is a perfect example of critics being selective in their arguments
And if even that fails, think of a soundbite that belittles the project "Vanity project;" Project fear," any such will do...
And in case anyone thinks I am letting sarcastic humour cloud my judgement, always remember that Crossrail was first proposed in 1947. That's right - that was not a typo, 1947. Perhaps in 1948 someone told somebody high up in the project that electric buses were just around the corner...
Secondly I think you draw attention to the principal issues with rail, road and any other mature infrastructure heavy sector.
When these technologies are newish the transformational benefits are obvious and society is prepared to move fast and in some cases allow a small number of people to have negative outcomes.
Now such systems are mature the benefits are incremental and the costs are massive as other infrastructure has been built around the original road/railway.
A new system will have the same transformational effects rail did a century ago, things will happen fast.
Elon Musk thought of his tunnel system about 18months ago, the LA and Chicago system will be built before HS2.
eVTOL will be tested in cities in the next 2-3 years, people will get used to them flying. Within two years of that trials of passenger flights will occur, once that happens expect very rapid growth as public policy makers will be able to see it in action.
I suspect that the trials in LA/Texas will be wildly successful I for one will probably visit one of the trial cities to have a go on the system.
Talksteer said:
eVTOL will be tested in cities in the next 2-3 years, people will get used to them flying. Within two years of that trials of passenger flights will occur, once that happens expect very rapid growth as public policy makers will be able to see it in action.
So why aren't helicopters more widespread in, say, London (for the rich)? They are confined to very narrow air corridors (and London is on the Heathrow flight path).Why will eVTOL be any different? The physical constraints are the same.
Flying lots (1000s or 10,000s) of vehicles over crowded cities will not get mass acceptance in my view. With volume comes increased complexity and it is then a probability game for increased accidents.
Uptake? Yes. But not mass uptake.
Vaud said:
Talksteer said:
eVTOL will be tested in cities in the next 2-3 years, people will get used to them flying. Within two years of that trials of passenger flights will occur, once that happens expect very rapid growth as public policy makers will be able to see it in action.
So why aren't helicopters more widespread in, say, London (for the rich)? They are confined to very narrow air corridors (and London is on the Heathrow flight path).Why will eVTOL be any different? The physical constraints are the same.
Flying lots (1000s or 10,000s) of vehicles over crowded cities will not get mass acceptance in my view. With volume comes increased complexity and it is then a probability game for increased accidents.
Uptake? Yes. But not mass uptake.
Truely autonomous cars are always just 5 years away - they've been saying that for ages, prototypes are always shown working, companies launch ideas that will be the next big leap but in reality it will decades still before we see anything close to hailing a Johny Cab.
Same with trains, moving block signalling is the future but it is insanely expensive and will take decades to implement. Just as London Underground has found - already billions spent on a relatively straightforward railway and we've still only got about half the network done. (And still requires a driver!). HS2 will be built and working before any meaningful percentage of the mainline railway is converted. The cost and timescales involved in HS2 is up for debate but we ain't China. We have a planning process to go through that shouldn't just ignore and then bulldoze through your back garden, nor do we have legions of slaves (sorry, fully trained and experienced workers) to build it to a questionable quality.
Flying taxi plane thingies look good on paper and make good headlines but in reality, it ain't happening any time soon.
On and Talksteer, you are V8Fettler in disguise and I claim my five pounds
Talksteer said:
Good rant,
Thank you Talksteer said:
I notice that you don't actually address the solution proposed.
No I don't, for the simple reason that aviation is not a subject about which I have much significant knowledge. And I try not to fall into the trap of making statements about matters I know little about, unlike many people on railway-related threads on PH 
I was rather hoping that some one with a little more knowledge of the subject would come along and add to that element of the debate, and indeed they now have. The only thing I thought of is what the CAA and Air Traffic control would have to say about literally thousands of these glorified hang gliders cluttering up airspace, and I see that has now been addressed.
By the way, Air Traffic Control is a form of signalling - you know - the sort of thing you won't need with these things...
As regards 155mph electric buses, where the f
k are these supposed to operate? They wouldn't be allowed to mix with ordinary road traffic at that speed, so they would need their own dedicated road network, and/or run at far reduced speeds on the ordinary road network at the start and end of their journeys, and over other sections en route where a dedicated road was not available. Immediately you begin to see that once you look behind the headline of 155mph, the overall average speed between any two points in the UK less that 200 miles apart is unlikely to be more than 70mph, and that is a bloody sight less than trains are doing today, even before HS2.Then start to look at safety considerations (which often aren't fashionable around here but something that such schemes would need to take into account). A bus running off the road due to a collision or component failure at that speed would be completely wrecked if it hit any crash barrier currently in existence that I am aware of. If it "took off" how far would it go before it landed with that take-off speed? The amount of land that would be needed on each side of this dedicated road, purchased purely on safety grounds, would be far and away greater than the land needed for the dedicated road itself. In total, probably a lot more land than a double track railway would need.
And who you are you going to allow to drive these buses at 155mph? I think we can forget Romanian immigrants on minimum wage for this one... You would need a highty-skilled highly paid individual for this. Railway drivers are earning up to £60k - think on...
So as you see there are many flaws in your apparently simplistic approach to these matters. They are all in a big box over in the corner marked "Practicalities"
Edited by rs1952 on Sunday 9th December 12:20
Talksteer said:
eVTOL will be tested in cities in the next 2-3 years, people will get used to them flying. Within two years of that trials of passenger flights will occur, once that happens expect very rapid growth as public policy makers will be able to see it in action.
I suspect that the trials in LA/Texas will be wildly successful I for one will probably visit one of the trial cities to have a go on the system.
To this point, I think you are right in part - they will big up traction in the US in areas where there is weak/no mass transit. San Francisco - San Jose is an awful, awful drive (up to 3 hrs) but is not a huge distance. There are plenty of execs that would pay $100/each for that journey to be <30 mins. Or those that live out in the hills, as a commute in to work.I suspect that the trials in LA/Texas will be wildly successful I for one will probably visit one of the trial cities to have a go on the system.
The Caltrain exists, but that is still >1hr and it is very dated.
"Crossrail could now cost almost £3bn more than budgeted, and the opening of the rail line across London is set to be further delayed until at least 2020.
A fresh bailout announced on Monday by the mayor, Sadiq Khan, and the Department for Transport (DfT), includes loans of up to £2.05bn to London. It means the final bill for Crossrail could reach £17.6bn, instead of the £14.8bn it was expected to cost as recently as June.
A review of the project by the new Crossrail chief executive, Mark Wild, has found that the planned opening in autumn 2019 – postponed just over three months ago from the original date of 9 December 2018 – is no longer viable. A new opening date has yet to be set."
Can we have more outrage about Crossrail?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/10/fi...
My personal bias here is that I think the country needs to be throwing lots of cash at infrastructure in the north (a lot of which will probably result in over budget, white elephants) if there is going to be any chance of a significant revival in the regions rather than improving services in the S/E which is doing pretty well as things stand.
http://theconversation.com/fact-check-does-the-nor...
forget crossrail2 in favour of an improved transPennine rail route?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/07/g...
A fresh bailout announced on Monday by the mayor, Sadiq Khan, and the Department for Transport (DfT), includes loans of up to £2.05bn to London. It means the final bill for Crossrail could reach £17.6bn, instead of the £14.8bn it was expected to cost as recently as June.
A review of the project by the new Crossrail chief executive, Mark Wild, has found that the planned opening in autumn 2019 – postponed just over three months ago from the original date of 9 December 2018 – is no longer viable. A new opening date has yet to be set."
Can we have more outrage about Crossrail?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/10/fi...
My personal bias here is that I think the country needs to be throwing lots of cash at infrastructure in the north (a lot of which will probably result in over budget, white elephants) if there is going to be any chance of a significant revival in the regions rather than improving services in the S/E which is doing pretty well as things stand.
http://theconversation.com/fact-check-does-the-nor...
forget crossrail2 in favour of an improved transPennine rail route?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/07/g...
rs1952 said:
IMHO this post is a classic example of why it takes so long for anything to get done in this country.
Working from the base line of "I don't think this is worth doing" - an opinion in itself, of course, not a fact - we go on to spurious reasons why it can't or shouldn't be done. Next add a combination of he following excuses to taste:
And if even that fails, think of a soundbite that belittles the project "Vanity project;" Project fear," any such will do...
And in case anyone thinks I am letting sarcastic humour cloud my judgement, always remember that Crossrail was first proposed in 1947. That's right - that was not a typo, 1947. Perhaps in 1948 someone told somebody high up in the project that electric buses were just around the corner...
Good rant, I notice that you don't actually address the solution proposed. I suggest watching the Uber Elevate conference material first, and before you call fan boy I'm actually in aerospace/nuclear R&T.Working from the base line of "I don't think this is worth doing" - an opinion in itself, of course, not a fact - we go on to spurious reasons why it can't or shouldn't be done. Next add a combination of he following excuses to taste:
- "There's new technology just around the corner that will make it obsolete." This technology is always "just around the corner" or "in a few years time" - never actually available right this minute. Funny that...
- "There's a cheaper way to do it" (not as good but cheaper - apparently we can run a bus at 155mph. Well if we can I don't want to be on it...)
- "There's a cheaper way of doing it" (or so it looks to the uninformed but it turns out more expensive and disruptive in the long run - like upgrading the WCML again for example...)
- "We've managed without it so far so why do we need it now?" If the entire human race thought that way we'd still be living in mud huts. Probably wouldn't need HS2 if we did though...
- "Its already gone over budget so we should scrap it. The idiots in charge couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery." This argument, is usually flawed because a) an estimate (not a quotation) is produced for the job; b) the NIMBYS come out in force and succeed in getting more compensation or more screening or a diversion or whatever, all of which will cost money. Then the NIMBYs complain that the managers can't be trusted because the costs have already gone up and it hasn't been started yet. This one gets trotted out virtually every time someone comes up with an ambitious project, and is a perfect example of critics being selective in their arguments
And if even that fails, think of a soundbite that belittles the project "Vanity project;" Project fear," any such will do...
And in case anyone thinks I am letting sarcastic humour cloud my judgement, always remember that Crossrail was first proposed in 1947. That's right - that was not a typo, 1947. Perhaps in 1948 someone told somebody high up in the project that electric buses were just around the corner...
Secondly I think you draw attention to the principal issues with rail, road and any other mature infrastructure heavy sector.
When these technologies are newish the transformational benefits are obvious and society is prepared to move fast and in some cases allow a small number of people to have negative outcomes.
Now such systems are mature the benefits are incremental and the costs are massive as other infrastructure has been built around the original road/railway.
When a new system that does have transformational effects like rail did a century ago, things will happen fast.
Elon Musk thought of his tunnel system about 18 months ago, the LA and Chicago system will be built before HS2.
eVTOL will be tested in cities in the next 2-3 years, people will get used to them flying. Within two years of that trials of passenger flights will occur, once that happens expect very rapid growth as public policy makers will be able to see it in action.
I suspect that the trials in LA/Texas will be wildly successful I for one will probably visit one of the trial cities to have a go on the system. I don't think I'll be alone.
Technologies like eVTOL are infrastructure light and can be transplanted relatively easily. If the public demands them (and I think that they will) they will happen fast.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
This is the line of thought by people who estimated that SpaceX would need $4 billion to develop a new rocket and it would cost $300 million per launch.An eVTOL will mass around 1000kg, seat 4 people, be made of CF, have around 500bhp of electric motors and 80kwh of batteries. It will be produced at volumes of around 4-5000 per year.
You could scale it against helicopters in which case it would come in at about $2 million or you could scale it against a McLaren 720s with a Tesla drive train in which case it comes out at around $250k.
There is no inherent reason why flying things need to cost enormous amounts of money, fundamentally the only difference between something that flies and something that doesn't is QA and V&V and those costs fall drastically on a per unit basis if you volume produce the product.
eVTOL will use technology that is already commoditiesed (batteries/motors) from day one and they also can pull technical solutions from delivery drones which will provide a lower risk place to try things out.
As for buses costing 400k I present to you the effects of not manufacturing at volumes products that the public don't give a s
t about!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff