HS2

[Joseph_Pestell]

24 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

There's a core group of hard-left demonstrators who turn up to all these rallies - climate change, pro-Palestine, anti-austerity, etc etc.  Their understanding of each issue is probably limited. In fact their understanding of everything is probably a bit limited. 

They understand how to "work the system".

 

 

 

[billbedford]

 

3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

I am a tree hugger and think society faces a fundamental transition on multiple levels.

 

Well...

 

If you are really serious wanting trees to thrive, then giving them more carbon dioxide will work, and a bit of extra warmth would help too. 

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

Page 14 bottom  - Oil World, known reserves the R/P ratio (known reserves to production) 50 years

Page 30 bottom  - Natural gas - World R/P ratio 50.9 years

Page 42 bottom  - Coal - World R/P ratio 132 years (this will go up as we burn less - as will oil & nat gas above)

 

I note they haven't included the fuel predicted (by some scientists) at present rates of consumption, to run out first - firewood.

[billbedford]

The government has just banned the sale of wet wood, and coal, for domestic heating. So that's all right then...

[jjb1970]

HS2 will add capacity. Electric trains are not environmental impact free but they're a lot less harmful than diesel engines and such like, and if we're going to build a new railway to the North it may as well be a high speed one.

 

I think there are legitimate concerns over cost and it is important to ensure the program is delivered efficiently.  However I am struggling to see a credible plan B or argument against HS2.

[Allegheny1600]

3 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Page 14 bottom  - Oil World, known reserves the R/P ratio (known reserves to production) 50 years

Page 30 bottom  - Natural gas - World R/P ratio 50.9 years

Page 42 bottom  - Coal - World R/P ratio 132 years (this will go up as we burn less - as will oil & nat gas above)

 

Now they add R/P s for key minerals for energy transition.

 

Cobalt 42 years

Natural Graphite 342 years

Lithium 225 years

Rare Earths 701 years

Fascinating and informative post, thanks Apollo!

I think this is a dumb question but are there any statistics on uranium/plutonium reserves, please? I think that nuclear power stations can generate their own fuel with fast breeders but that may be "only" for weapons grade material. I'm no nuclear physicist so I only have a layman's understanding of such things. 

As you point out, there is no way on earth that we can replace gas, coal, oil with wind, tides, solar etc so the only other option appears to me, to be nuclear - as unpopular as that may sound.

HS2 and other electric railways would be fine operating from nuclear derived energy but not if that fuel source is limited too.

Cheers,

John.

[runs as required]

20 hours ago, Zomboid said:

I do think the stations in general are more terminus heavy than would be ideal. If Leeds & Manchester HS2 were through stations then that would benefit the services heading further north (particularly people coming from the north into Leeds & Manchester, and especially if the high speed lines are extended further north in future), but obviously to build them as through stations would be a major expense. At least they're adjacent to the conventional lines so the trains into the classic network can call at the same station at the captive ones will.

What I love about Berlin (as a rail enthusiast you understand) is the way DB ICEs snake through the centre on the Ubahn via Friedrichstrasse and across Museum island.

Us oicks waiting for the Ubahn trains can watch little 'cameos' of OTT stars in their furs being helped aboard into the First Class with their poodles and hatboxes bound for ... where ... ?

 

With completion of that horrendous multi level Hauptbahnhof will this sort of running be a thing of the past?

I can remember my old Planning professor arguing that public transport had to be 'attractive'. He lived in Hoylake and enjoyed the ferry into L'pool the days he showed up.

dh

Edited February 22, 2020 by runs as required

[billbedford]

4 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Here's something controversial - guys n gals, The yearly issued "BP Strategic Energy review 2019 , used as a source of reference in the industry

 

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-full-report.pdf

 

Page 14 bottom  - Oil World, known reserves the R/P ratio (known reserves to production) 50 years

Page 30 bottom  - Natural gas - World R/P ratio 50.9 years

Page 42 bottom  - Coal - World R/P ratio 132 years (this will go up as we burn less - as will oil & nat gas above)

 

 

Yes, but. Oil companies don't have infinite resources for exploration, so they tend to look for reserves to replace know depletions. Actually the 50 year R/P ratio oil is better than it has been for the last 40 years. 

[APOLLO]

1 hour ago, Allegheny1600 said:

Fascinating and informative post, thanks Apollo!

I think this is a dumb question but are there any statistics on uranium/plutonium reserves, please? I think that nuclear power stations can generate their own fuel with fast breeders but that may be "only" for weapons grade material. I'm no nuclear physicist so I only have a layman's understanding of such things. 

As you point out, there is no way on earth that we can replace gas, coal, oil with wind, tides, solar etc so the only other option appears to me, to be nuclear - as unpopular as that may sound.

HS2 and other electric railways would be fine operating from nuclear derived energy but not if that fuel source is limited too.

Cheers,

John.

 

The R/P of uranium ore isn't mentioned in the BP review - (if it is I can't find it). However I found this

 

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

 

Interesting subject.

 

Brit15

[caradoc]

8 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Meanwhile, on the environmental protest front, Extinction Rebellion are planning to hold mass protests against HS2, involving blockades and protests at work sites and even more radical acts of disruption and sabotage.

Other similar, or linked groups have similar plans to stop any new line being built across the Pennines.

.

 

Extinction Rebellion might have more effect on pollution, global warming etc by blockading far greater contributors, eg motorways, roads into towns, to schools, multi-storey car parks, rather than existing or proposed electric railways. However they would get very short shrift from the motorists affected.......

 

[APOLLO]

4 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

Yes, but. Oil companies don't have infinite resources for exploration, so they tend to look for reserves to replace know depletions. Actually the 50 year R/P ratio oil is better than it has been for the last 40 years. 

 

R/P ratio is at best an educated guess based on known existing reserves and future guestimated production (i.e usage). The Coronavirus over in China has cut oil demand significantly, and therefore price quite considerably in recent days. Could be just a blip - or could have a longer effect. Burning less fossil fuels over time will definitely extend the ratios. The R/P of oil has been fairly static last few years, Natural Gas however has dropped significantly from, 58.6 to 50.9 in less than 10 years. (BP 2011 report). 

 

For info - from the report 

Notes: Total proved reserves of oil – Generally taken to be those quantities that geological and engineering information indicates with reasonable certainty can be recovered in the future from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. The data series for total proved oil reserves does not necessarily meet the definitions, guidelines and practices used for determining proved reserves at company level, for instance as published by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, nor does it necessarily represent BP’s view of proved reserves by country. Reserves-to-production (R/P) ratio – If the reserves remaining at the end of any year are divided by the production in that year, the result is the length of time that those remaining reserves would last if production were to continue at that rate

 

There are probably significant reserves of both Oil & Natural Gas still to be found - BUT is it worth spending huge $$$$$ / £££££ exploring for them in a world hell bent on reducing / eliminating their burning ?  Added to that they are likely to be in hostile environments - Arctic regions etc ---  A huge dilemma for the heads of BP Shell etc. 

 

Too many people in the world - and they all want "The western lifestyle" - THAT is the problem (our problem).

 

Brit15

[Mike Storey]

OK - I see topic drift aplenty here. There is another thread for this stuff, if you care to look for it. Can we please concentrate on what ecological demonstrations/protests will/might affect HS2, on this thread? Or, perhaps even what energy consumption issues are for HS2, v other modes.

 

This is not a thread for general discussion of viable energy sources, green or otherwise, unless it directly has relevance to HS2. (OK, I know that some of you will argue it all has relevance, but that horse has left the bleeding stable...) Some deviation on a thread can often be interesting, but this has run its course. If allowed to continue, this debate will transmogrify into a very different discussion, as I have seen happen elsewhere, and it was not good.

 

So, please, keep to the subject, more or less.

[APOLLO]

Apologies Mike - I'm guilty as charged. Perhaps a mod can move the associated posts re energy to the Coal for heritage railways thread if they are more appropriate there.

 

Brit15

[The Stationmaster]

21 hours ago, lmsforever said:

The  ongoing saga that is HS2   needs to be put under the microscope quickly as the attitude of management and spiralling costs with very little to show for it.With construction to be started soon a team needs to be put in place that will carry out the build in a sensertive manner this is one of the things that is worrying many people  ,at the moment they put out a bulldoze everyone out of the way attitude.The line is going to pass just over half a mile from my home and I think I should be worried .I hope the town will not be overrun with construction lorries as it is already in gridlock most of the day .Just driving across the town a distance of two miles usually takes over fifteen minutes or longer.I accept that it will happen but I want it built properly with compassion and car, that's not a lot to ask is it?

I really sympathise with this because of something I have heard from a chap I used to work with wh lives somewhat nearer to London that you and whose neighbourhood is affected by earthworks.  There appears from what he says - and he'll freely admit to being a grumpy old man - that there has been some very narrow minded thinking about some aspects of the project as far as spoil removal and delivery of bulk materials are concerned with a heavy emphasis on using road transport because, it would seem, that was all those planning the work thought of.

 

It makes an interesting and worrying comparison with, for example, the Belgian LGV where the first thing that was built was a rail served civil engineering base from which work progressed in both directions.  Clearly you can't work like that for tunnels and some large bridges because of the way they have to fit into the critical path, and to make changes now would undoubtedly affect costs but it is an area where - if he is right - some things were not well thought through.

[The Stationmaster]

43 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

OK - I see topic drift aplenty here. There is another thread for this stuff, if you care to look for it. Can we please concentrate on what ecological demonstrations/protests will/might affect HS2, on this thread? Or, perhaps even what energy consumption issues are for HS2, v other modes.

 

This is not a thread for general discussion of viable energy sources, green or otherwise, unless it directly has relevance to HS2. (OK, I know that some of you will argue it all has relevance, but that horse has left the bleeding stable...) Some deviation on a thread can often be interesting, but this has run its course. If allowed to continue, this debate will transmogrify into a very different discussion, as I have seen happen elsewhere, and it was not good.

 

So, please, keep to the subject, more or less.

As I see these demos and sit-ins or sit-ons are a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy because dealing with them will cost time and money.  Perhaps it would be advisable for the project team to carefully identify in their budget outturn details all the additional costs arising from the likes of rentamob sitting in tree or trampling through woodland that won't be touched by the scheme in order to get to any bits that will.

 

And one answer to them is simple - just bash through all the sites where trees need felling asap - there are plenty of tree surgeons looking for work when the wind drops

[Bernard Lamb]

12 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I really sympathise with this because of something I have heard from a chap I used to work with wh lives somewhat nearer to London that you and whose neighbourhood is affected by earthworks.  There appears from what he says - and he'll freely admit to being a grumpy old man - that there has been some very narrow minded thinking about some aspects of the project as far as spoil removal and delivery of bulk materials are concerned with a heavy emphasis on using road transport because, it would seem, that was all those planning the work thought of.

 

 

There appear to be two side to this situation. I agree that going on what I have seen the overall policy adopted by HS2 as a company is as your comment. However the policy adopted by at least one large contactor is very much broader in outlook. This is the one a relation of my neighbour is involved in. I would love to be able to quote some details but cannot do so at this stage. They will be based on several sites and the provisions at each and how they supply both equipment and materials  seem to have received a lot of though to obtain a solution that sets a balance between cost and environmental concern. The chap might well have been giving me a load of BS when I asked some relevant questions. However as he came up with sensible answers straight away I have no reason to doubt him. He did mention one site in  a critical manner and pointed out that it was not one where his company was involved.

 

Sorry to go completely OT but people in the London Area will probably have heard about the Tideway super sewer project. This was subject to the same rent a mob challenges in the design and consultation stage. This week it has reached the half way point and is on time and within budget. Very large projects can be done given the financial and political will. Is it coincidental that you do not hear any comment from any politicians or environmental groups now that the work is progressing in such a good way?

Bernard 

 

[Fat Controller]

2 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

There appear to be two side to this situation. I agree that going on what I have seen the overall policy adopted by HS2 as a company is as your comment. However the policy adopted by at least one large contactor is very much broader in outlook. This is the one a relation of my neighbour is involved in. I would love to be able to quote some details but cannot do so at this stage. They will be based on several sites and the provisions at each and how they supply both equipment and materials  seem to have received a lot of though to obtain a solution that sets a balance between cost and environmental concern. The chap might well have been giving me a load of BS when I asked some relevant questions. However as he came up with sensible answers straight away I have no reason to doubt him. He did mention one site in  a critical manner and pointed out that it was not one where his company was involved.

 

Sorry to go completely OT but people in the London Area will probably have heard about the Tideway super sewer project. This was subject to the same rent a mob challenges in the design and consultation stage. This week it has reached the half way point and is on time and within budget. Very large projects can be done given the financial and political will. Is it coincidental that you do not hear any comment from any politicians or environmental groups now that the work is progressing in such a good way?

Bernard 

 

Seems to be a bit ill-thought out. When CTRL Section 1 was being built, spoil was carried on haulways that were built along the line of route from cutting sites to the next embankment. One of my wife's colleagues was the engineering geologist responsible for overseeing this. No spoil was taken off site, and very little, if any, went via public roads. There is only one 'borrow-pit' on the whole Section 1, not far from 'Potters' Corner', just by the junction of the main line and the Ashford loop.

[black and decker boy]

As I am directly involved with schemes that were developed on the assumption of lots of spare (and so free) spoil from HS2, I can say that the designs have been adjusted so that there is very little disposal needed from the non tunnelling sections. How much tunnel spoil is needed in the above ground earthworks and how much goes for use elsewhere, I cannot say.

 

the projects I am involved with are now searching for alternative sources.

 

the HS2 contractors will not be hauling vast quantities of spoil on the highway, it’s slow, it’s low volume and very expensive compared to the industry norm of internal haul routes and large dump trucks. If / how trains can play a part is Debatable  given the rural nature of much of HS2 between tunnel sections.

[Joseph_Pestell]

22 hours ago, billbedford said:

The government has just banned the sale of wet wood, and coal, for domestic heating. So that's all right then...

Well at least they did it before I bought a new woodburner which I was about to do.

[The Stationmaster]

7 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

As I am directly involved with schemes that were developed on the assumption of lots of spare (and so free) spoil from HS2, I can say that the designs have been adjusted so that there is very little disposal needed from the non tunnelling sections. How much tunnel spoil is needed in the above ground earthworks and how much goes for use elsewhere, I cannot say.

 

the projects I am involved with are now searching for alternative sources.

 

the HS2 contractors will not be hauling vast quantities of spoil on the highway, it’s slow, it’s low volume and very expensive compared to the industry norm of internal haul routes and large dump trucks. If / how trains can play a part is Debatable  given the rural nature of much of HS2 between tunnel sections.

According to HS Ltd nearly 4 million tonnes of excavated material is surplus to their requirements or unsuitable for reuse so will go elsewhere (the implication being that it would only be able to go to landfill although there is some ambiguity about such material elsewhere in their documentation ).  They also estimate that c.13,000 tonnes of demolition material will go to landfill because it cannot be reused or recycled and c.44,000 tonnes of construction waste will also go to landfill because it cannot be reused or recycled.

 

So there is, for example, a considerable area of long term dumping (called 'sustainble') in the Ickenham area which I think is probably what my former colleague has told me about as the natural land drainage of the area (not shown on the HS documentation) is in the vicinity of the site where material will be 'sustainably' dumped (which might explain why the natives aren't happy?).  This incidentally is material for which an HS2 rep at a local meeting stated that removal by rail had not been thought of and is presumably part of the 4 million surplus tonnes. 

 

SHS2's documentation does however state that they have considered removal by rail (presumably where they believed it possible?) as an alternative to removal by road over public highways.  And they do state that removal, and other construction traffic, over public highways will take place. 

[black and decker boy]

In construction terms, 4million tonnes is tiny.

 

one of my recent projects created 500,000 tonnes of spoil. It was a 2.5km Road. We reused 2/3rds.

 

the 2 projects I am involved with that hoped to use HS2 spoil need close to 1m tonnes of imported spoil to create road embankment. 
 

if the 4m tonnes of HS2 spoil is chalk From tunnel sections then it’s suitability For reuse is limited, especially in road embankments 

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Well at least they did it before I bought a new woodburner which I was about to do.

You shouldn't be burning wet wood on a log burner anyway. It's the cheap rubbish sold by corner shops, markets stalls etc.

It's far from ideal.

The chap next door has a log burner and he gets all my wood offcuts, most is constructional timber which is kiln dried.

Most of the time his chimney doesn't put out much smoke.

[lmsforever]

So there are to be road movements further smashing our badly maintained roads to pieces  okay when you report a bad pothole it is repaired but they seem to collapse fairly quickly .The new link road from the A418 to Butlers Cross  is about the only good thing to come out of HS2 for Aylesbury  as I have said before we are collapsing under more and more traffic from new estates and through traffic that should not be there.There seems to be a great deal of interest in the new service to MK  which bodes well for the future ,but we will have to suffer ,a station at Calvert would seem to be a must ifHS2 is to help curb car use.

[lmsforever]

Wonder what the next thing to be banned will be probably something we all use and no alternative.

[Grovenor]

49 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

  as I have said before we are collapsing under more and more traffic from new estates and through traffic that should not be there.There seems to be a great deal of interest in the new service to MK  which bodes well for the future ,but we will have to suffer ,

And you blame HS2 for this!