Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 24/08/2020 at 21:37, corneliuslundie said:

The Euston towers. I thought they were modern!

Shows that I am getting old.

But no great loss from what I remember of my only visit.

Back on HS2 itself, I hope any new buildings will not repeat the mistakes of the past - flat roofs which leak, large areas of glazing which lead to overheating - likely to get worse, and buildings requiring air conditioning year round instead of having passive ventilation systems. What has prompted this thought is two new station buildings shown on the Crossrail thread which look like throwbacks, having all those characteristics.

Jonathan

 

Just the sort of building that wins the architect an award.

  • Agree 2
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/08/2020 at 17:50, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Worksite project offices (possibly at the Chiltern South portal)......

 

RBHS2-1-1000x580.jpg

 

.

 Portakabin are obviously doing well out of this.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

The first rail freight delivery to the HS2 Washwood Heath site has taken place.

HS2 say that 15,000 freight trains will move 10 million tonnes of aggregate over the next 10 years.

 

 

Mmmm.  That's about 50 trains per DAY for ten years......... that seems like quite a lot?  Even assuming this is journeys it's approximately an hourly trainload.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

 

Mmmm.  That's about 50 trains per DAY for ten years......... that seems like quite a lot?  Even assuming this is journeys it's approximately an hourly trainload.

Not sure that's right.  15000 divided by 365 divided by 10 is just over 4, which seems a reasonable number per day (it would probably be more on weekdays and few/none at weekends).  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/08/2020 at 09:06, Edwin_m said:

I wasn't really referring to the sort of bump that would be possible within marginal capacity, more the sort of serious long-term increase that HS2 might facilitate.  Looking at the link below, intermodal traffic has been reasonably constant in recent years.  If there's been a dip since those figures then it will be down to covid reducing either demand or the ability to handle it, and by definition either means there's no scope to carry extra traffic.   If you're referring to the longer-term loss of coal traffic, yes that means locos may be available, and drivers may be available if they haven't been made redundant and lost their route knowledge.  But the network capacity released will mostly be from bulk ports to power stations in the northern half of the country, not on the main lines and container port routes where the intermodal demand is. 

 

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/freight-rail-usage-and-performance/

 

Weren't you??

 

The use of spare capacity on multi-modal paths would generate around a 40% increase in loadings (taking spare haulage on existing trains (Felxistowe alone has had a 25% increase in capacity since works there, Ipswich and along the EW spine) and with existing spare paths, and the new paths out of Tilbury/London Gateway).

 

I understand what you are saying about the release of paths further North - that is fair. But it is also of note that that those same Northern ports are trying to attract additional multi-modal traffic to make up for it. So far, virtually all that extra traffic (however slim - we shall not know for another year probably), has gone by road. The most strenuous of that activity has been in Liverpool, or thereabouts, but the most successful has actually been on the East coast north of Hull (purely from de-cantage from Rotterdam, in smaller ships). Apart from some trial runs, almost none has gone by rail.

 

The serious, long term increase cannot start without incentive to use rail, or disincentives to use road. I see little of either, as yet, with governments to date, especially with the freeze on Section 18 grants, or changes to road tax and diesel duty for the past ten years, let alone any attempt at curtailing cabotage or supporting road usage charges.

 

So whilst I concur that additional capacity from the SE ports would be a "good thing", there would appear to be a number of other factors that are needed to make that demand transpire, and capacity is but one. So I reject your analysis as somewhat deviant, and highly misleading to the innocent.

 

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

Not sure that's right.  15000 divided by 365 divided by 10 is just over 4, which seems a reasonable number per day (it would probably be more on weekdays and few/none at weekends).  

Duh!  My eyesight must be duff after staring at a laptop screen for too long, I read that as 150,000.

Agreed, that's much more realistic; two return trips daily.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
32 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Duh!  My eyesight must be duff after staring at a laptop screen for too long, I read that as 150,000.

Agreed, that's much more realistic; two return trips daily.

 

thats right 2 trips a day when its up and running, from my point of view its a west midlands driver job between crewe and washwood heath and back so an ideal job for me!

 

ive also just reminded my boss i sign to chinley via northenden so would like to learn the last little bit to hindlow!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Weren't you??

 

Seeing as this is a thread about HS2, I assume we should be discussing long-term capacity.  But your previous post was all about short-term capacity created by Covid, and suggested it wasn't taken up due to lack of demand.  I pointed out there were other potential factors that would affect this , and someone else pointed out that Covid also made capacity available on the roads (it probably also suppressed demand but nobody has mentioned that ).  So I'm not really sure what point anyone's arguing here and I don't really see that using words like deviant and misleading helps in spreading light rather than heat.  

 

The northern ports are problematic for rail intermodal.  They have most of the northern population within a truck driver's shift out and back so most containers to/from these areas will go by road.  Between these ports and the south-east would be a good distance for rail, but most shippers serve one of the south-east ports as well or instead.  So while there may be some rail capacity (the convoluted journeys made by biomass suggest there's not much) there isn't that much reason to use it.  

 

My view is that what happened or didn't happen during the short-term capacity availability from Covid tells us very little one way or the other about the long-term demand for railfreight.  Rearranging logistics is difficult and nobody's going to do it during a pandemic when it will all have to be restored at an unknown point a few months hence.  But if HS2 creates long-term capacity for freight on routes like the WCML then it's likely to be taken up over time, as studies have suggested that demand for long-distance intermodal on rail is suppressed by lack capacity.  

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

Birmingham Interchange has now received planning consent, albeit with a caveat regarding parking. This is the most comprehensive article I have found about it, which also explains the interconnections with the Airport, International, NEC and so on.

 

https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/2043788-hs2-secures-approval-for-interchange-station-at-birmingham-airport

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

Seeing as this is a thread about HS2, I assume we should be discussing long-term capacity.  But your previous post was all about short-term capacity created by Covid, and suggested it wasn't taken up due to lack of demand.  I pointed out there were other potential factors that would affect this , and someone else pointed out that Covid also made capacity available on the roads (it probably also suppressed demand but nobody has mentioned that ).  So I'm not really sure what point anyone's arguing here and I don't really see that using words like deviant and misleading helps in spreading light rather than heat.  

 

The northern ports are problematic for rail intermodal.  They have most of the northern population within a truck driver's shift out and back so most containers to/from these areas will go by road.  Between these ports and the south-east would be a good distance for rail, but most shippers serve one of the south-east ports as well or instead.  So while there may be some rail capacity (the convoluted journeys made by biomass suggest there's not much) there isn't that much reason to use it.  

 

My view is that what happened or didn't happen during the short-term capacity availability from Covid tells us very little one way or the other about the long-term demand for railfreight.  Rearranging logistics is difficult and nobody's going to do it during a pandemic when it will all have to be restored at an unknown point a few months hence.  But if HS2 creates long-term capacity for freight on routes like the WCML then it's likely to be taken up over time, as studies have suggested that demand for long-distance intermodal on rail is suppressed by lack capacity.  

 

The point is that it is not just capacity which is hindering modal switch. The creation of extra capacity will not, in itself, generate extra demand, bar the extension of some existing arrangements.

 

The economics of road haulage have only improved over the past several years, whereas rail haulage has barely stood still, and with the changes in track access charges, have mostly worsened (without the additional unit train capacity lacking in uncompleted schemes such as FTN, the Electric Spine etc, etc). 

 

So, studies showing demand is constrained by capacity, are only a part of the story. In any event, these are largely used by developers to gain consents to wider expansion of port capacity. There is no follow up to ensure that extra capacity is actually used - that is reserved only to construction, demolition and recycling sites.

 

 For evidence of this, read through the bizarre Southampton saga.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

So, studies showing demand is constrained by capacity, are only a part of the story. In any event, these are largely used by developers to gain consents to wider expansion of port capacity. There is no follow up to ensure that extra capacity is actually used - that is reserved only to construction, demolition and recycling sites.

 

You are right that this is true of many developments where high level (perhaps Ministerial) approval is required.  Developers tell the red card holders what they want to hear.  Near here there was a planning application for a large warehousing complex which was blocked, appealed and over-ruled by the minister before being appealed again.  One of the local protest groups then found a logistics expert amongst them who looked at the figures.  He worked out that the number of lorry movements amounted to less than one vehicle, per loading bay, per day.  This was clearly nonsensical, but the developer obviously hoped to get approval and when ten times the claimed lorry traffic was created, shrug at the local authority.  After all, what could they do, close them down and put people out of work?

 

The railways aren't immune to this.  The Channel Tunnel is carrying a fraction of the freight  and passenger traffic claimed for it when HS1 was proposed, but it has been admitted since that those writing the business case worked backwards to arrive at a figure justifiable to ministers.  It didn't need to be achievable, just believable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

The point is that it is not just capacity which is hindering modal switch. The creation of extra capacity will not, in itself, generate extra demand, bar the extension of some existing arrangements.

 

The economics of road haulage have only improved over the past several years, whereas rail haulage has barely stood still, and with the changes in track access charges, have mostly worsened (without the additional unit train capacity lacking in uncompleted schemes such as FTN, the Electric Spine etc, etc). 

FTN incomplete?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/08/2020 at 08:26, ess1uk said:

FTN incomplete?

 

 

Compared to its original scope and strategy, yes. Very much so. The essentials not yet done are:

 

1. Ely by-pass/re-signalling etc.

 

2. Ely - Peterborough upgrade (although partly done)

 

3. Leicester re-modelling

 

4. Syston re-modelling

 

If however, you take FTN to mean simply re-gauging, then most (all?? - not sure if Stamford Tunnel has yet been re-gauged?) of that has been done. But not much use, if the additional traffic forecast could not be accommodated. The whole argument for FTN was that the railways could not compete because they could not accommodate the larger ISO containers, now fairly standard. If they could, then far greater movements by rail could be won, as well as retaining existing traffic. As it happens, the need for that has been put back a while.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

FTN can also stand for "Fixed Telecom Network" or something similar, which was what I thought you were referring to. That's operational and has been for some time.

 

I'd use a lower case t for Felixstowe to Nuneaton - FtN...

 

(At first I wondered what rebuilding Ely North Jn had to do with a line side telecoms network...)

Edited by Zomboid
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

FTN can also stand for "Fixed Telecom Network" or something similar, which was what I thought you were referring to. That's operational and has been for some time.

 

I'd use a lower case t for Felixstowe to Nuneaton - FtN...

 

(At first I wondered what rebuilding Ely North Jn had to do with a line side telecoms network...)

Usually expressed as F2N I believe.  

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

I only heard it in the background so did not fully grasp all of it, but Boris at PMQ had a right dig at HS2 management and their attitude towards the general public. He was not impressed with their PR. Something to do with road closures and problems with kids getting to a school.

Bernard

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

I only heard it in the background so did not fully grasp all of it, but Boris at PMQ had a right dig at HS2 management and their attitude towards the general public. He was not impressed with their PR. Something to do with road closures and problems with kids getting to a school.

Bernard

 

I watched it in full, and he did have a dig, using the planted question. Along the lines of occasional "high handedness" and suchlike. But in virtually every case so far investigated properly, the necessary notices were distributed and consultations held. I do not, for one moment, suggest that is true in absolutely every case, but the climbing on any bandwagon that might give him a few more backbenchers support, comes to mind.

 

As this is now classed as the single largest infrastructure project taking place anywhere in Europe, and possibly much of the rest of the world, outside China, it is highly probable that some issues will transpire. But such is the need for political gammon from this PM, given current poll ratings, so is the inevitability of this sort of showbiz.

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

BBC Breakfast TV report seems fairly pointless. No real news value and seems to be merely a mouthpiece for the opponents.

Yep, he's on screen right now.  Apparently the whole world has changed, so a business case built over 20+ years of study is overturned in six months of extreme disruption.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Just now, Northmoor said:

Yep, he's on screen right now.  Apparently the whole world has changed, so a business case built over 20+ years of study is overturned in six months of extreme disruption.

And, as usual, he is completely misusing figures to bolster his case.

All mention too of numbers of passengers. No mention at all of increased railfreight opportunities that it creates which one would expect so-called environmentalists to welcome.

  • Like 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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.