HS2 under review

[Echo]

I too am in a threadbare state, but it doesn't stop me spending money on (model) railways. I just spread the cost over several years, like what the Government would do.

 

Unlike me, the Government has the advantage of the multiplier effect - the fact that money spent goes round and round and round as firms and people spend the income they earn from major projects and pay taxes which then help to pay for another bit of the same project,,,,, and so on.

 

The Government can also print money. I would like to try that too, but doubt if I would have the same success.

[david.hill64]

Physics tells us that there are penalties for wanting faster and faster speeds. Apart from the obvious one of energy consumption caused principally by aerodynamic considerations as speed gets higher, noise becomes a serious issue above about 200mph. (Again caused by aerodynamics). So you can put the trains underground to protect the sensitivities of the good citizens of Bucks, but tunnels cause more drag, so energy costs go up. And then there is the problem of sonic boom, so you end up having to have specially design tunnel portals and larger diameter tunnels (higher construction costs). Or you can invest in noise barriers (unsightly and even if you have a seat by the window there is no view form the train.

 

So as others have said, making it the fastest railway in Europe is not an engineering decision, certainly not a financial decision, but a political decision for bragging rights.

 

And what will be gained in reduced journey time?

 

Let us for convenience assume that London to Scotland is 440 miles. Therefore a train that is capable of instantaneously accelerating from rest to full speed and instantaneously stopping (while not converting the passengers to soup), would have a journey time of 2 hours at 220mph.

 

If we reduced the maximum speed to 200mph the journey would take 2.2 hours or 12 minutes longer.

 

If we reduced the maximum speed to 186mph the journey would take 2.37 hours or 21 minutes longer.

 

These are the best journey time savings that can be realised theoretically: in reality trains do not instantaneously get to top speed, nor do they brake so quickly so the benefits of being able to run at higher and higher speeds are realised for less and less of the journey.. For shorter journeys the percentage benefits are the same (10% or 18% respectfully) but on shorter journey times.

 

So for the extra speed you have to have much higher operating costs, have to install more traction power capacity, have to mitigate against aerodynamic problems, and have higher maintenance costs. And you wont even have the bragging rights that it is a triumph of British Engineering.

 

We need HS2, but it needs an injection of common sense. 300km/h is well proven, low risk and cheaper. What's not to like?

[edcayton]

Call it bragging rights if you want, but to me the only real reason for this railway is as the first stage in a high speed national spine from London to Scotland (as the Scots were promised), and s8d the economics. Are you seriously suggesting (not you David) that we build a new railway so we can mend the old one?

 

If we are going to build the thing (and I am not at all sure we should) then please can we take a bit of national pride back and make it state of the art in terms of speed and connections, or not bother at all. We know that it's going way over whatever budget is set, and changing the spec at this stage means that a whole load of dosh has already been wasted.

 

Ed

[Glorious NSE]

We know that it's going way over whatever budget is set,

Do we?

 

Nobody has put a spade in the ground yet...

 

 

 

[Reorte]

A pound per argument about it and the money would be raised in no time

[pete_mcfarlane]

Do we?

 

Nobody has put a spade in the ground yet...

 

Most of the 'going over budget' seems consist of HS2 opponents telling the newspapers that the real cost will be a lot higher than the current Government figures, often by lumping random other things (Nottingham tram extension for example) in to the costs. 

[62613]

A pound per argument about it and the money would be raised in no time

Oh, no it wouldn't! There's a pound!

[Titan]

 

And using the Deltics as an example is hardly a ringing endorsement: fine machines, but an engineering dead-end.

 

So using a lightweight diesel running at 1500 rpm is a dead end?

 

That must be why they used a 16CSVT in the HST, oh wait...

[Richard E]

Lot's of folk are saying use existing routes or resurrect old routes.

 

Let us just think for a moment - existing routes meander all over the place, 125mph running is generally a maximum although it can be a lot lower. The vast majority is two roads, an up line and a down line. Fine you say, add two more to existing routes. Well, when you get into a built up area that is often not possible without demolishing vast swathes of housing and/or industry. Now think about the cost of buying that property at market value compared to building on virgin ground. Also, since you cannot close the existing lines you can only work in a 4 or 5 hour window in the middle of the night so the timescale is a lot longer and a lot more costly.

 

Turning to existing routes I see much mention of the old GC route. Apart from evicting the GC between Leicester and Nottingham has anyone considered what is still available of the route. It does not run through Nottingham so you would have to engineer a brand new diversionary route round the city - parkway station? What about Leicester where there is a two or three mile gap in the city centre where the land has been redeveloped, or Rugby.

 

What about all the businesses that have grown up using bits of the trackbed - it is totally impractical.

 

On cost grounds alone HS2, which has been missold on the PR side from day 1, is more sensible than trying to adapt or resurrect existing routes as well as taking considerably less time to build compared to adapting and extending existing infrastructure. Route capacity is under strain and HS2 will help relieve that in part, it will not be a cure all.

[PaulRhB]

Ultra high speed is also fairly pointless on a conventional railway because of the distance between trains for braking meaning you don't get a significant capacity increase. Ultimately that's where maglev etc has an advantage but then that's not interchangeable with rails so we'd be back to the broad gauge conundrum

 

As usual it's going to be the best compromise and hopefully even with political fingers in the pie a decent one will emerge.

The fact that as technology increases we seem to be travelling more rather than work from home suggests that the human being just can't be trusted by companies to work as hard or the future security of data is still too uncertain for companies to commit further.

All these plans are based on guesses to an extent but the one known is that the current system has reached capacity if it is to be sustainable maintenance wise. There are some gains to be had in longer trains and major rebuilds like Reading but new lines are the only way to significantly increase capacity. What we really need to decide is what traffic we need to shift more of by rail and whether a mixed freight passenger line at lower speeds would have more benefits long term than high speed at high ticket costs which doesn't attract people away from cars, but only if there options are limited.

[Joseph_Pestell]

You can attract people out of their cars on the basis that if they don't have to drive they can work on the train, relax, or whatever.

 

But Govt seems determined to remove this advantage from the railways by encouraging driverless cars which, allegedly, will increase road capacity. I would not want a driverless car but it is beginning to look like we won't be given the choice before long.

[Vanders]

With the UK in the threadbare state that it is currently in, we simply can't afford some top-of-the-range future-proofed project.

Sorry, but "Ha!" The UK, threadbare? The UK is in excellent shape compared to most other countries, even in Western Europe, and we should very definitely be spending money on infrastructure projects if we want to continue to stay in excellent shape.

 

If you want to see "threadbare" you could join me the next time I pop over to Moldova. As a bonus you can see what happens when you haven't spent any money on your infrastructure in 30 years.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Sorry, but "Ha!" The UK, threadbare? The UK is in excellent shape compared to most other countries, even in Western Europe, and we should very definitely be spending money on infrastructure projects if we want to continue to stay in excellent shape.

 

If you want to see "threadbare" you could join me the next time I pop over to Moldova. As a bonus you can see what happens when you haven't spent any money on your infrastructure in 30 years.

He doesn't need to go that far. A trip to Dorset would do.

[locoholic]

He doesn't need to go that far. A trip to Dorset would do.

Or Herefordshire.

[Christopher125]

Looking at the flyby of the hs2 and I was surprised by the length of tunnelling in the London suburbs which is just following a existing rail line alongside a road as well. This does raise the question of why?

 

The original proposal was to follow the surface route, but there was a lot of opposition in part due to it's elevation above the surrounding area - given the substantial cost and disruption of rebuilding the existing formation, including the major Hanger Lane gyratory, a case could be made to combine the tunnels at either end under West Ruislip and into Old Oak Common into one without returning to the surface. Retaining the NNML between the GWML and Chiltern Mainline was a bonus.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Christopher125

[runs as required]

... Govt seems determined to...[encourage] driverless cars which, allegedly, will increase road capacity. I would not want a driverless car but it is beginning to look like we won't be given the choice before long.

Sadly I think I am too old to experience the benefits of driverless cars.

 

But if you put aside your rail enthusiasm for a moment, the advantages of driverless cars are:

• elimination of modal change during journey
• thereby shortening o/a journey time
• the ability to work during journey
• significant reduction in motor accident death and injury - and insurance costs.
• reduced land-take for inter-urban infrastructure
• virtual elimination of car parking (except for privately owned vehicles - who should expect to pay for the privilege)
• delivery of a much hoped for conservation of our national heritage of towns and villages

It seems to me you would be like Canute if you tried to hold back the driverless car tide.

And the tide may well render the HS programme obsolete within a decade.

 

dh

[Hesperus]

Surely the ideal stomping ground of driverless cars would be for shorter more rural journeys where trains are impractical,  They wouldn't go faster than what we have now and if they are for communal use like a national, 4 wheeled version of Boris Bikes then a long journey would see them used like taxis at each end with rail forming the main part of the journey.  Obviously if they are privately owned then they will clog up carparks in the same way that current cars do.

[PaulRhB]

You seem to be talking about driverless taxis and the impression I get is they are still going to be personal cars. If they reduce parking then they have to drive home again costing more in fuel and congestion as all workers cars would double commuter mileage

Also having to empty out all the 'essential stuff' you presently keep in the car would eat up valuable space at home and you'd always forget it when you went out again costing a fortune in 5p bags, brollies and picnic sets with a cupboard at home full of 5p bags, brollies and picnic sets!

[PaulRhB]

The one upside of a driverless car is for people who currently spend ages looking for their car in supermarket, show ground and festival car parks

[Reorte]

Bit of thread drift here, erm, driverless trains for HS2?

[jjb1970]

Bit of thread drift here, erm, driverless trains for HS2?

Drift or not, automatic train control where the driver is there in case he needs to kill the system (and on plenty of lines, no driver at all) is already an established technology and a key part of increasing line capacity.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Sorry if you feel that I went OT. Just wanted to make the point that HS2 is being justified on the grounds of making more capacity on rail to reduce road usage at a time when technology may make road usage a more attractive option than it is now.

[PaulRhB]

Long distance rail needs someone on board who can go trackside if there's a failure or it could take an hour or two to get to the train and then arrange assistance.

[PaulRhB]

Bit of thread drift here, erm, driverless trains for HS2?

But driverless cars are relevant to the future of transport which HS2 needs to consider. How they will be used is not fully known yet and I was trying to point out that there is a large shift in attitude required if they are going to be used any different to a private car. We buy cars now because it's more convenient than waiting for a taxi every time we want to pop out and it's cheaper if you use it regularly. As a result I can't see car use significantly changing fast whoever drives it because so much infrastructure is built around them and how we use cars now.

HS2 then needs to cater for that model as a series of hubs, like airports, that are easy places to access and offer a much quicker, convenient or cheaper overall journey to attract people away from cars. The question still in my head is whether high speed passenger or an extension of the Chunnel roll on roll off type trains mixed with intermodal fast freight might be best long term

[edcayton]

I have to say that it never occurred to me that driverless cars would be public transport.  Where do I keep all my carp?  You'll be telling me next that I have to travel in the things along with (shock and awe) other people.  Not for me I'm afraid.

 

Ed