Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

Fixed......;)

Not for a lot of London commuters where just a seat, any seat would be preferable to standing for an hour.:good:

 

In the last 10 - 20 years I've been on HSTs, 150s, 158s, 170s, 350s, Mk2s sandwiched betwen a pair of 68s, Pendolinos and Pacers (possibly others)

The only one with an really uncomfortable seat was the Pacer which had an urban bus seat, the Pendo was OK but a bit narrow for my liking.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Not for a lot of London commuters where just a seat, any seat would be preferable to standing for an hour.:good:

 

In the last 10 - 20 years I've been on HSTs, 150s, 158s, 170s, 350s, Mk2s sandwiched betwen a pair of 68s, Pendolinos and Pacers (possibly others)

The only one with an really uncomfortable seat was the Pacer which had an urban bus seat, the Pendo was OK but a bit narrow for my liking.

That’s pretty much my point... a nice seat on a moving train... I doubt if many would give a hoot if it travelled at 75 or 150mph. 
 

Griff

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Imagine how long it would take to get a consensus for a project like this on RMweb alone. In fact, think how much effort could be save on loads of projects if they couldn't start until EVERYONE agreed! Now multiply that by several thousand. Can I hear people in the corner screaming "monorail"? And some others shouting "maglev" ...

ISTR that the BNP actually had building a Maglev instead of HS2 in their policies - a Maglev with a top speed lower than the conventional trains on HS2... 

 

* A leaflet came unsolicited through my door, in case anyone is wondering. 

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, griffgriff said:

I doubt if many would give a hoot if it travelled at 75 or 150mph. 
 

Griff

It could make the difference between a one hour journey and a two hour journey, where the two hour one is little faster than a car

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, melmerby said:

Not for a lot of London commuters where just a seat, any seat would be preferable to standing for an hour.:good:

 

In the last 10 - 20 years I've been on HSTs, 150s, 158s, 170s, 350s, Mk2s sandwiched betwen a pair of 68s, Pendolinos and Pacers (possibly others)

The only one with an really uncomfortable seat was the Pacer which had an urban bus seat, the Pendo was OK but a bit narrow for my liking.

You should try the 800s then, bloomin’ awful and the reason we stopped using the train to visit family up country , the HSTs were luxury in comparison.

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

You should try the 800s then, bloomin’ awful and the reason we stopped using the train to visit family up country , the HSTs were luxury in comparison.

since the 800`s came in on the east coast I have (regrettably) abandoned the train for my Jag. The 800 seats are so dreadful they are an insult to the paying passenger and I for one will not pay well over a £100 for a return ticket to London.   Of course Covid has blurred everything but I would be interested to know the loss of first class passengers. It might be cheaper in the long run to rip out those seats and offer some new ones with a little more comfort.

Edited by class26
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, griffgriff said:

Not between Manchester and Leeds it wouldn’t ;)

 

Griff

How many times have we heard "You lot in the south get all the new things & northerners get ignored"... but now you don't want investment for the north?

The railways don't need 200mph trains on them straight away. They just need to be able to accept these if the requirement arises. Building them as flat & straight as possible will not cost much more than building them with steep gradients & tight curves like those on the WCML.

 

What if you want to travel from Liverpool to Newcastle? That would probably be via Manchester & Leeds.

The initial suggestions for NW-NE may not stretch that far in either direction, but these are busy routes so it is very likely that extensions to these places will be considered in the future.

It is the lack of forward thinking like this when the railways were built that has created the need for new routes now.

 

London-Bristol was an exception. Brunel was forward thinking by designing it straight & flat. 7' gauge would probably have been an advantage now too.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What the leaders in the North envision is creating a virtual metropolis of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield joined together by a fast frequent train service.

 

If people can easily get to any of those centres in a short time then all of them economically benefit because it won't matter which of those centres people live in when they can get to one of the others whenever they want to.

 

It's a sort of linear northern version of London which benefits massively because of it's size, having something similar up north will reap similar benefits.

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

London-Bristol was an exception. Brunel was forward thinking by designing it straight & flat. 7' gauge would probably have been an advantage now too.

At the risk of taking this off on a tangent, I would say keeping the 7ft gauge would have made no difference to the capability of rail today and may have made it worse.  There is no real issue with stability, maximum speeds are limited by factors such as air resistance and rail-wire contact.  A wider gauge increases the minimum curve radius possible at low speeds, I don't think it would affect high speed alignments, but it makes stations and depots more costly and difficult.  

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see the moaning and complaining when a 140 mph rail service is started linking Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds - possibly on to Newcastle at 125 mph.

 

The complaint will be because "the North" has missed out, or been short changed again, because it only got 140 mph, while the South got 225 mph trains. (completely forgetting that HS2 serves the North as well).

 

.

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, lmsforever said:

I would think a line that is flat and straight in the pennines is nigh impossible except if it was in a tunnel all the way.

It'll be like the Sanyo & Kyushu shinkansen.

 

That approach has an impact on rolling stock; the small windows and relatively short service lives (of most types at least) are a direct consequence of the amount of high speed tunnel running on those routes.

 

I imagine it's true of the Joetsu and other routes north of Tokyo, but I haven't been on them to know what they're like.

 

Edit: they also build their tunnels smaller than is being done for HS2 and other European LGVs, which is another factor.

Edited by Zomboid
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

It'll be like the Sanyo & Kyushu shinkansen.

 

That approach has an impact on rolling stock; the small windows and relatively short service lives (of most types at least) are a direct consequence of the amount of high speed tunnel running on those routes.

 

I imagine it's true of the Joetsu and other routes north of Tokyo, but I haven't been on them to know what they're like.

 

Edit: they also build their tunnels smaller than is being done for HS2 and other European LGVs, which is another factor.

Bit like corks in bottles as they rush out of the end of the tunnel.

They have had a lot of problems caused by the tight fit compared to must other railways, including a sort of 'sonic boom' caused by the air pressure, which they have tried to mitigate by the fancy entrance/exit to the tunnels:

Tec-16-56-59eng.pdf

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies if this subject has been discussed elsewhere but does anyone think it strange than HS2 is being built to 4' 81/2" ? If it is designed as fast/greater capacity intercity passenger transit than won't future generations think it odd than we are still using the axle width of  C19th NE wagonways for this purpose ...

Brunel's broad gauge mainlines were 7ft in 1840s (?). 

Freight could go on existing/new standard gauge lines but wouldn't a series of more advanced new dedicated passenger transit lines be the correct approach for future needs.

Or - a series of dedicated passenger transit lines using new technologies. Don't know which ones :huh:.

That might be the key question.

 

 

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

But that would prevent services over the new lines being extended over existing lines to serve destinations off the end, such as Glasgow. The new lines are only justified when the existing infrastructure can't cope, which is why HS2 is being built and "HS3" is being discussed.

Jonathan

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're not going to build to 4'8" and a bit, then you might as well build a maglev or hyperloop.

 

There's loads of experience in the rest of the world of high speed rail on standard gauge tracks, and for the up to 400km/h which HS2 is designed for, it's entirely appropriate and in itself doesn't put a barrier in the way of running trains between the high speed and conventional networks. You'd need a very good reason to build it to anything else.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Round of applause 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Piston said:

 If it is designed as fast/greater capacity intercity passenger transit than won't future generations think it odd than we are still using the axle width of  C19th NE wagonways for this purpose ...

 

 

 

I think you will find it's a bit older than that.

The streets of Pompeii have stepping stones across the cobbled streets and the gaps for wagons to pass through are pretty close to standard gauge.

I think you will find it was derived from the optimum width to fit a single horse wagon.

  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Piston said:

Apologies if this subject has been discussed elsewhere but does anyone think it strange than HS2 is being built to 4' 81/2" ? If it is designed as fast/greater capacity intercity passenger transit than won't future generations think it odd than we are still using the axle width of  C19th NE wagonways for this purpose ...

Brunel's broad gauge mainlines were 7ft in 1840s (?). 

Freight could go on existing/new standard gauge lines but wouldn't a series of more advanced new dedicated passenger transit lines be the correct approach for future needs.

Or - a series of dedicated passenger transit lines using new technologies. Don't know which ones :huh:.

That might be the key question.

 

 

And yet Spain has built its high speed lines at 4 ft 8.5", while their mainlines are 5ft?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Piston said:

Apologies if this subject has been discussed elsewhere but does anyone think it strange than HS2 is being built to 4' 81/2" ? If it is designed as fast/greater capacity intercity passenger transit than won't future generations think it odd than we are still using the axle width of  C19th NE wagonways for this purpose ...

Brunel's broad gauge mainlines were 7ft in 1840s (?). 

Freight could go on existing/new standard gauge lines but wouldn't a series of more advanced new dedicated passenger transit lines be the correct approach for future needs.

Or - a series of dedicated passenger transit lines using new technologies. Don't know which ones :huh:.

That might be the key question.

 

 

 

Others have commented admirably as to the extent to which alternative technologies are currently viable.

 

I would just add that, to the uninitiated, the whole point of the additional infrastructure being built or contemplated, is to add to existing capacity. It is not about creating a whole new technology that is incompatible. To do otherwise would simply add to the league of competing transport modes, in a relatively small island, that has already decimated our capability not only to secure a rational transport system, but one that generates a rational re-distribution of modal shift, to meet climate targets.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, corneliuslundie said:

Is that for interoperability with France? Or cheaper rolling stock as it can be off-the shelf instead of custom designed?

Jonathan

 

Interoperability within the UK is hard enough - just what do you mean by off-the-shelf? Where is that available in an international rolling stock market exactly?

 

How is it cheaper to design stock and traction only suitable for the UK market? Of course it can be done, but it is not "cheaper", in fact far from it, as you imply. Are you living in another age?

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Interoperability within the UK is hard enough - just what do you mean by off-the-shelf? Where is that available in an international rolling stock market exactly?

 

How is it cheaper to design stock and traction only suitable for the UK market? Of course it can be done, but it is not "cheaper", in fact far from it, as you imply. Are you living in another age?

I think that Corneliuslundie was referring to the Spanish high speed system

  • Agree 3
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...