Discussion
Not a thread about whether it is worth the money, or if it required etc. There are plenty of other threads about that...
But...
How much of the cost is due to wanting a 'high speed' train, rather than a 'normal speed' train?
In 40 years, between 1830 and 1870, using nothing more than hand power and investors private money, the UK built 13,000 miles of railway (average of 325 miles per year). Its amazing it is so expensive, and takes so long, to build a mere 140 miles over 150 years later, using public money, modern machines etc. On the train earlier, it is really impressive what was done in the past with huge cuttings, embankments and tunnels, involving the movement of millions of tonnes of earth, and all in a short space of time. Not only did it revolutionise transport at the time, our current network relies largely on the work done all that long ago, much of it largely unchanged. As it is costing so much, would it be much cheaper to build a 125mph train line (similar to the East Coast Mainline), or is the difference not huge once you've bought the land, paid for the track, etc.
But...
How much of the cost is due to wanting a 'high speed' train, rather than a 'normal speed' train?
In 40 years, between 1830 and 1870, using nothing more than hand power and investors private money, the UK built 13,000 miles of railway (average of 325 miles per year). Its amazing it is so expensive, and takes so long, to build a mere 140 miles over 150 years later, using public money, modern machines etc. On the train earlier, it is really impressive what was done in the past with huge cuttings, embankments and tunnels, involving the movement of millions of tonnes of earth, and all in a short space of time. Not only did it revolutionise transport at the time, our current network relies largely on the work done all that long ago, much of it largely unchanged. As it is costing so much, would it be much cheaper to build a 125mph train line (similar to the East Coast Mainline), or is the difference not huge once you've bought the land, paid for the track, etc.
In the 19th century you could just dig your way through where you needed to go. No archaeology. No environmental concerns. Not much in the way of planning - just dig the tunnel and if it goes a bit wonky, dig it again until it's right. Minimal hassle to buy off what was almost certainly just fields miles from anywhere (excepting the stations, but there towns actively wanted the railway to pass through, bringing trade).
Also the payoff for investors was significant, rail was the only way to transport materials other than canal (even more expensive to build and very slow) or horse and cart.
I do wonder if the cost of increase the loading gauge of the West Coast mainline, to run double-decker trains, might not be cheaper and would instantly double capacity. It's one thing to shave 20 minutes off the actual journey, but if you only run one train per hour it doesn't help as much as if you run a slightly slower train three times per hour.
Unfortunately I suspect all the track and beds would have to be relaid to handle the weight, so it ends up even more expensive.
Also the payoff for investors was significant, rail was the only way to transport materials other than canal (even more expensive to build and very slow) or horse and cart.
I do wonder if the cost of increase the loading gauge of the West Coast mainline, to run double-decker trains, might not be cheaper and would instantly double capacity. It's one thing to shave 20 minutes off the actual journey, but if you only run one train per hour it doesn't help as much as if you run a slightly slower train three times per hour.
Unfortunately I suspect all the track and beds would have to be relaid to handle the weight, so it ends up even more expensive.
Flooble said:
Minimal hassle to buy off what was almost certainly just fields miles from anywhere (excepting the stations, but there towns actively wanted the railway to pass through, bringing trade).
That bit isn't necessarily true, there are several accounts of disputes ending up in court, or lines being rerouted because a given gentleman, lord or landowner refused to sell a bit of their estate. Condi said:
Flooble said:
Minimal hassle to buy off what was almost certainly just fields miles from anywhere (excepting the stations, but there towns actively wanted the railway to pass through, bringing trade).
That bit isn't necessarily true, there are several accounts of disputes ending up in court, or lines being rerouted because a given gentleman, lord or landowner refused to sell a bit of their estate. Condi said:
In 40 years, between 1830 and 1870, using nothing more than hand power and investors private money, the UK built 13,000 miles of railway (average of 325 miles per year). Its amazing it is so expensive, and takes so long, to build a mere 140 miles over 150 years later
Seems that way with a lot of things - take the M62 for example - they built the majority of that from scratch in often horrendous weather over very difficult terrain and yet did it faster than turning parts of it or the M60 into a smart motorway.Flooble said:
In the 19th century you could just dig your way through where you needed to go. No archaeology. No environmental concerns. Not much in the way of planning - just dig the tunnel and if it goes a bit wonky, dig it again until it's right. Minimal hassle to buy off what was almost certainly just fields miles from anywhere (excepting the stations, but there towns actively wanted the railway to pass through, bringing trade).
Also the payoff for investors was significant, rail was the only way to transport materials other than canal (even more expensive to build and very slow) or horse and cart.
I do wonder if the cost of increase the loading gauge of the West Coast mainline, to run double-decker trains, might not be cheaper and would instantly double capacity. It's one thing to shave 20 minutes off the actual journey, but if you only run one train per hour it doesn't help as much as if you run a slightly slower train three times per hour.
Unfortunately I suspect all the track and beds would have to be relaid to handle the weight, so it ends up even more expensive.
But by opening up an entirely separate route, all those current high-speed trains don't have to get held up behind the stoppers, or they don't have to make way for the high speed stuff. Its an expensive project to build but it should last how many years to average that out over? Considering how much of what we have now was built 150+ years ago, it isn't quite so expensive all the time, is it?Also the payoff for investors was significant, rail was the only way to transport materials other than canal (even more expensive to build and very slow) or horse and cart.
I do wonder if the cost of increase the loading gauge of the West Coast mainline, to run double-decker trains, might not be cheaper and would instantly double capacity. It's one thing to shave 20 minutes off the actual journey, but if you only run one train per hour it doesn't help as much as if you run a slightly slower train three times per hour.
Unfortunately I suspect all the track and beds would have to be relaid to handle the weight, so it ends up even more expensive.
Shakermaker said:
But by opening up an entirely separate route, all those current high-speed trains don't have to get held up behind the stoppers, or they don't have to make way for the high speed stuff. Its an expensive project to build but it should last how many years to average that out over? Considering how much of what we have now was built 150+ years ago, it isn't quite so expensive all the time, is it?
Most of the time stations have extra tracks so the stopping trains are, er, stopped on the extra lines while the high speed ones rattle past on the main lines. Hence there's not really that much holding up of either type. But my point was that a fast train once per hour isn't as useful for commuting as a slightly slower one every 20 minutes. If I can get to the station and never have to wait more than 20 minutes for a train, it's faster overall than if I potentially have to wait a whole hour. Particularly when you get into connecting services - it's the waiting that kills you.I have my doubts HS2 will last more than 20-30 years before it requires massively expensive maintenance.
Flooble said:
I have my doubts HS2 will last more than 20-30 years before it requires massively expensive maintenance.
All railways need maintaining, but one of the major cost additions to this project is the DfT trying to load all the risk of future maintenance on to the contractor.Analogy - if you buy a car with a one year warrantly it costs you very little extra, because the manufacturer isn't expecting much to go wrong with it.
You want a 5-year extended warranty and you'll pay a lot more for it because the manufacturer would expect more things to go wrong with it.
You want a warranty that will cover the car until you tow it to the scrapyard - oh, and by the way - you've told the manufacturer that you want to keep the car for 50 years. You will be talking a very impressive sum of money - very impressive indeed.
And that, in essence, is what the DfT are trying to do with this contract.
Flying Phil said:
Thanks RS that would certainly account for a lot! I still think it is worth the expense as our railways are now at max capacity in many areas and is using very old infrastructure. It is such a shame that we are faffing about though!!
Getting people north of the midlands to London a little bit faster isn’t a good way to spend £110billion really is it? Considering the upheaval of people’s lives, destroying much countryside, and companies/contractors taking more than their fair share from it. The country needs to grow up (middle management) and allow greater working from home, thus totally negating HS2’s need in the first place. The company I work for does it, but many of the companies I visit have idiots in roles that don’t trust the people that report to them. It’s pathetic really. That £110billion has many better areas to be spent, including upgrading existing railways to increase capacity. All too often when intake the train, there’s only 4-6 carriages on a platform that can easily take 12.
I think it will certainly happen, hundreds, probably thousands of families have already been uprooted by it, 7 billion has already been spent.
And if you are going to do it, go the whole hog, this nonsense of only taking it to Brum, and stonewalling the next bit is crazy, all that's going to do is mightily annoy those up North.
But what they really need is a northern crossrail, that would make their lives easier, not HS2.
I am no engineer but have worked within government projects and they will be roundly fleeced by anyone contracted to do any of this stuff, it is just the way it is, isn't it big firms that have gone under recently!!
And if you are going to do it, go the whole hog, this nonsense of only taking it to Brum, and stonewalling the next bit is crazy, all that's going to do is mightily annoy those up North.
But what they really need is a northern crossrail, that would make their lives easier, not HS2.
I am no engineer but have worked within government projects and they will be roundly fleeced by anyone contracted to do any of this stuff, it is just the way it is, isn't it big firms that have gone under recently!!
fatboy b said:
Getting people north of the midlands to London a little bit faster isn’t a good way to spend £110billion really is it? Considering the upheaval of people’s lives, destroying much countryside, and companies/contractors taking more than their fair share from it. The country needs to grow up (middle management) and allow greater working from home, thus totally negating HS2’s need in the first place.
The company I work for does it, but many of the companies I visit have idiots in roles that don’t trust the people that report to them. It’s pathetic really. That £110billion has many better areas to be spent, including upgrading existing railways to increase capacity. All too often when intake the train, there’s only 4-6 carriages on a platform that can easily take 12.
To hijack an old phrase, that post needs a week's answer or none The company I work for does it, but many of the companies I visit have idiots in roles that don’t trust the people that report to them. It’s pathetic really. That £110billion has many better areas to be spent, including upgrading existing railways to increase capacity. All too often when intake the train, there’s only 4-6 carriages on a platform that can easily take 12.
Rather than rehash all the old detailed arguments, I'll just give you a few bullet points:
1 "Getting people north of the midlands to London a little bit faster isn’t a good way to spend £110billion really is it?
No its not. But that isn't what HS2 is being built for. It is being built as a high speed line up the spine of the country and its major raison-d'etre is to increase the capacity of our railways. You may not be aware of the exponential growth that the railways have seen in the last 25-odd years, and the existing lines can't carry any more traffic - there isn't the space. Unfortunately, the original HS2 plan was sold to the public by an idiot government as "a new faster route to Birmingham and the North," and the poor buggers charged with making the project work have had to put up with the consequenses ever since.
2. "That £110billion has many better areas to be spent, including upgrading existing railways to increase capacity."
I suggest you do some research before you post, The railways in general are currently having billions spend on them on upgrade and refurbishmant work. It isn't an "either/or" situation. And besides, whilst £110bn sounds a lot of money to the likes of you and me, it's loose change down the back of the sofa to the governments finances.
3."The country needs to grow up (middle management) and allow greater working from home, thus totally negating HS2’s need in the first place."
Let me tell you something you clearly don't know. The railway is not there solely for commuters. In fact, from a railway manager's point of view, commuters are a pain in the arse. They only want to travel in the peak so all of those commuter stations are virtually empty for 22 hours in every day, and (and you won't like this bit at all) they don't pay the full cost of their journeys or anywhere near it, because the government is too afraid of losing votes if it lets the railways charge commuters their full whack. And in this connection:
3. "All too often when i take the train, there’s only 4-6 carriages on a platform that can easily take 12"
See above. So rather than see the railway run three-quarters empty trains of 4 to 6 coaches around for most of the day, you'd rather they ran 12-coach ones around instead, or left those coaches (which don't come cheap per unit by the way) hanging around in sidings all day. Without any return on capital invested. That sounds like good business practice, doesn't it...
On another railway-related forum that I contribute to; had you posted that sentence you would have got a stock response:
"Oooooooze gonna pay for it?????"
Commuters are,as I said above, a pain in the arse to a railway manager who don't pay their full whack. So, if they insist on all wanting to pile into the same two or three trains from Little Snoring to London Brdge or wherever and back every day, make some of the buggers stand. You never know, it might give some of 'em the impetus to speak to their idiot middle managers. as you put it, about travelling off peak when they'd a choice of seats and lower fares. But I suppose that's too easy, isn't it?
So it looks like you got a week's answer after all
Edited by rs1952 on Thursday 23 January 15:02
fatboy b said:
rs1952 said:
Lots of crap
Well that deserves is a He's right in that the current lines are at capacity, and he's also right that many people have jobs which can't be done from home.
I would also disagree with many of your points, in that its not taking up 'much of the countryside', its a 50 or 100m strip of land and few people might have to move, but that is the cost of progress.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff