HS2

[KeithMacdonald]

1 hour ago, GoingUnderground said:

The best analogy to explain our current voting system is the Le Mans 24 hour race where the car (candidate) that has travelled the farthest (has the most votes) after 24 hours (when the polling stations closed) wins the race (election).

 

With pit stops to pickup the postal votes.

 

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/voter/how-vote-post

 

[DY444]

2 hours ago, 4630 said:

Interesting piece on Sky News at the moment - other 'news' providers are available - by Sam Coates their Deputy Political Editor.

 

The photo at the head of the article is also useful as it gives an aerial view, I assume fairly recently taken, of the large construction site at Euston.

 

This, for me, is the key quote;

 

"The government has overcommitted to projects that can be funded from this money, but has not decided which will be axed and which will survive. In this context, no big projects - think Sizewell as well as HS2, for example - can be considered safe. There isn't enough money to go around."

 

I guess it's all part of the softening up process to prepare 'us' for an announcement, presumably as part of the Budget statement, which is scheduled to be delivered, alongside a full forecast from the Office for Budgetary Responsibility, on 15th March.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-hunt-championing-brexit-freedoms-and-hs2-muddle-shows-gap-between-what-government-says-and-what-it-can-actually-deliver-12796940

 

I'm not buying that though.  We've done the HS2 politics to death but the bottom line is it will continue because there is no political advantage to the present Government in stopping it. 

 

As for Sizewell, well on Monday this week we got uncomfortably close to power cuts due to low temperatures and not much wind (which is not uncommon in winter).  What saved us basically was the (3?) remaining coal fired plants.  For some reason, which frankly I can only put down to abject stupidity, the media can't get their heads around the idea that reducing emissions means more demand for electricity, which in turn means more 24x365 dependable generating plant.  Putting too much reliance on wind will result in blackouts sooner or later as there are days when it only produces a fraction of its rated capacity.  If that happens there are going to an awful lot of recriminations. 

 

This "we can't afford nuclear" stuff really grinds my gears.  You want net-zero?  Well net-zero carries a big price tag so you can't have it both ways.

[martin_wynne]

14 minutes ago, DY444 said:

on Monday this week we got uncomfortably close to power cuts due to low temperatures and not much wind

 

The wind might stop blowing, the sun might stop shining -- but the tide still goes in and out. At known and predictable times. Why aren't we doing more tidal? How many Swanseas would it take to not need nuclear?

 

 https://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/

 

Martin.

Edited January 28, 2023 by martin_wynne
https

[APOLLO]

14 minutes ago, DY444 said:

As for Sizewell, well on Monday this week we got uncomfortably close to power cuts due to low temperatures and not much wind (which is not uncommon in winter).  What saved us basically was the (3?) remaining coal fired plants.  For some reason, which frankly I can only put down to abject stupidity, the media can't get their heads around the idea that reducing emissions means more demand for electricity, which in turn means more 24x365 dependable generating plant.  Putting too much reliance on wind will result in blackouts sooner or later as there are days when it only produces a fraction of its rated capacity.  If that happens there are going to an awful lot of recriminations. 

 

This "we can't afford nuclear" stuff really grinds my gears.  You want net-zero?  Well net-zero carries a big price tag so you can't have it both ways.

 

Great post.

 

If it becomes a choice of HS2 or Sizewell (and more) nuclear power stations, then there is only one choice - or freeze (and during power cuts HS2 won't run !!). Simple.

 

We are getting VERY close to the edge in this country, on many counts, the No 1 being energy, both gas and electricity.

 

HS2's prime reason was to relieve pressure on the WCML. So pare it back to a 140mph Pendolino / Azuma passenger only limited stop line. In todays internet everything age who NEEDS to travel at 225 mph ?.

 

Nuff said, trains are crap again today around Wigan (WCML). Priority ? No chance, anyone north of Crewe can *****

 

Brit15

 

 

[Northmoor]

41 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

Great post.

 

If it becomes a choice of HS2 or Sizewell (and more) nuclear power stations, then there is only one choice - or freeze (and during power cuts HS2 won't run !!). Simple.

 

We are getting VERY close to the edge in this country, on many counts, the No 1 being energy, both gas and electricity.

 

HS2's prime reason was to relieve pressure on the WCML. So pare it back to a 140mph Pendolino / Azuma passenger only limited stop line. In todays internet everything age who NEEDS to travel at 225 mph ?.

 

Nuff said, trains are crap again today around Wigan (WCML). Priority ? No chance, anyone north of Crewe can *****

 

Brit15

 

 

Brit15 - For the umpteenth time (please read back through this thread for the detailed explanation) the business case for HS2 settled on this maximum speed as it is the most cost-effective speed:

1. if you run the trains slower, you will need more of them to maintain the same service interval (at 140mph max., a LOT more of them), because it will take each unit longer to complete each round trip.  With trains being about £20-30M each, that's something you want to avoid if you can.
2. If the journey time is no faster or barely so than the current WCML service, you won't attract traffic from the M1/M6 and most importantly (from an environmental, greenhouse gas reduction PoV), the airlines.

Your "Who NEEDS to...." statement is the kind worse than "Nimbyism".  You don't need something, so are telling others they shouldn't get it.  I've coined a term for it: YoSHIEs, meaning You Shan't Have It Either.

 

We know your train services are rubbish in the North West at the moment, we get it.  Blaming expenditure on HS2 for this is pointless and wrong, it's like blaming expenditure on a new local school for your GP's surgery closing early.  They don't come out of the same pot.  Remember money is spent on employing people and they can't be simply substituted between projects/organisations; if HS2 construction stops tomorrow, the guys driving the tunneling machines aren't suddenly going to be driving Trans-Pennine trains on Monday.

Edited January 28, 2023 by Northmoor

[APOLLO]

Oops, I did it again (Britney Spears) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Brit15

[Phil Parker]

31 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

HS2's prime reason was to relieve pressure on the WCML. So pare it back to a 140mph Pendolino / Azuma passenger only limited stop line. In todays internet everything age who NEEDS to travel at 225 mph ?.

 

So stop work on the project and redesign it from scratch. Good idea. If we keep doing that, then consultants gets pots of money for each reworking of the plan, and we never, ever get the infrastructure the country needs.

[DY444]

4 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

The wind might stop blowing, the sun might stop shining -- but the tide still goes in and out. At known and predictable times. Why aren't we doing more tidal? How many Swanseas would it take to not need nuclear?

 

 https://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/

 

Martin.

 

I don't know but I don't see how it is possible to get anywhere near net-zero without nuclear.

 

Plenty of people know what they want to achieve and what they don't want to do to achieve it.  Trouble is all the things they don't want mean it is impossible. 

 

I'll give you an (admittedly extreme) example of what I mean.  I was reading the transcript of the court case where HS2 protestors were being sentenced for contempt by ignoring injunctions banning them from HS2 sites.  The judge asked one of the protestors what they wanted.  The protestor said he wanted a transport system which would totally eliminate cars but it must not involve construction using machinery and concrete.  Beam me up Scotty.

Edited January 28, 2023 by DY444

[melmerby]

7 minutes ago, DY444 said:

The protestor said he wanted a transport system which would totally eliminate cars but it must not involve construction using machinery and concrete. 

Easy, everybody goes back to horses.

Then the same protesters would be bleating about all the horse poo everywhere.

[Northmoor]

9 minutes ago, DY444 said:

The protestor said he wanted a transport system which would totally eliminate cars but it must not involve construction using machinery and concrete.  Beam me up Scotty.

Here you go:

[frobisher]

46 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

The wind might stop blowing, the sun might stop shining -- but the tide still goes in and out. At known and predictable times. Why aren't we doing more tidal? How many Swanseas would it take to not need nuclear?

 

 https://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/

 

40 roughly. The Swansea scheme is listed as 320MW, your average UK nuclear power station is around 1200MW.  There are much better ways of doing tidal power that doesn't require barrages of course, and I seem to recall there are environmental concerns around the Swansea scheme.  Tidal barrages have an issue of course around slack water.

 

Meanwhile the following scheme is going through planning up here ... West of Orkney Windfarm which is a 2GW scheme where the wind flow is pretty much constantly available.  Now, if you start putting the type of tidal turbines that EMEC have been trialling up here as well in amongst that wind farm you can neatly supplement that...

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

 

The wind might stop blowing, the sun might stop shining -- but the tide still goes in and out. At known and predictable times. Why aren't we doing more tidal? How many Swanseas would it take to not need nuclear?

 

 https://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/

 

Martin.

 

Tidal solutions which require the building of large barrages are proven to wreck the marine life in the vicinity and as such are vehemently opposed by conservation groups. They can generally only be justified if there is a need to prevent the flooding of coastal areas and the 'tidal power' element is a useful spin off.

 

A better way of harnessing sea power are devices which float on top of the waves or are installed on rocky inlets and simply use wave action to generate power without doing any harm to the marine ecosystem they are located in.

[APOLLO]

48 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

So stop work on the project and redesign it from scratch. Good idea. If we keep doing that, then consultants gets pots of money for each reworking of the plan, and we never, ever get the infrastructure the country needs.

 

No, savings ARE needed, but NOT by redesigning the infrastructure. Continue construction as planned 225mph capable, including Euston, but look at other savings, like delaying new 225mph trains (i.e, run Pendolinos / Azumas up to max design speed) FOR A TIME, and introduce new trains as we (as a country) can afford and as actual passenger numbers dictate. Perhaps build Birmingham - Crewe and postpone the Crewe  -Manchester line etc. The Golborne Link is already canned.

 

We also need to sort out the current strike situation PDQ, it is causing our railways immense harm. I moan about our services here, but when running as they should be they are perfectly adequate, or they were before the winter timetable change, but that's (for me) a local (Wigan) Northern Rail problem.

 

Too much rail  investment money is wasted by the £millions. Lengthening platform 3 at Wigan NW to accept longer trains then diverting the service it was built for (hourly Wigan NW to Leeds)  to Wallgate whilst currently electrifying Bolton to Wigan NW line, note Wallgate CANNOT be electrified due to the existing bridge with property built on it, ant there isn't the money to rebuild it.

 

Energy security is FAR more important though than HS2. Add The Severn and Morecambe bay barrages to the list and that would really help us all, clean and green also, but then there will be objectors about changes to local wildlife etc (as mentioned above).

 

You cannot win whatever you do it seems.

 

Brit15

[Phil Parker]

5 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

No, savings ARE needed, but NOT by redesigning the infrastructure. Continue construction as planned 225mph capable, including Euston, but look at other savings, like delaying new 225mph trains (i.e, run Pendolinos / Azumas up to max design speed) FOR A TIME, and introduce new trains as we (as a country) can afford and as actual passenger numbers dictate.

 

So, no new trains, not a massive saving I suspect, but the bigger problem is where are you going to find all those Pendolinos / Azumas kicking around not being used?

 

Perhaps we raid the NRM for the rolling stock for HS2. It would certainly be appropriate for the UK.

[martin_wynne]

18 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

A better way of harnessing sea power are devices which float on top of the waves or are installed on rocky inlets and simply use wave action to generate power without doing any harm to the marine ecosystem they are located in.

 

Is it time to do-it-yourself? The water turbine in this garden generates 14.4kW for local residents:

 

 

Martin.

[phil-b259]

4 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Is it time to do-it-yourself? The water turbine in this garden generates 14.4kW for local residents:

 

 

Martin.

 

Far more sensible - although the weir obviously has an effect on river life its far easier to mitigate the effects on aquatic life than a mega structure on the shoreline.

[APOLLO]

Just now, Phil Parker said:

 

So, no new trains, not a massive saving I suspect, but the bigger problem is where are you going to find all those Pendolinos / Azumas kicking around not being used?

 

Perhaps we raid the NRM for the rolling stock for HS2. It would certainly be appropriate for the UK.

 

No new trains until we can afford them i.e a delay.

 

Existing Birmingham - London Pendolinos to use the new line. This would free up the southern WCML a bit.

 

Mallard can do 126mph - any volunteers for fireman  !!!!!!!

 

Of course what I suggest is just that, a suggestion. I think the government have far, far more severe cuts in many areas other than HS2 planned, as that smiling assassin, The Chancellor suggested in his Autumn budget, and his forthcoming spring one also.

 

He will decide, not you or I.

 

Brit15

[Phil Parker]

Just now, APOLLO said:

No new trains until we can afford them i.e a delay.

 

So spreading the existing stock thinner over the network. Reducing services on non-HS2 lines to cascade stock to HS2. That's going to go down well with those crammed onto existing rolling stock isn't it? Or maybe that doesn't matter. With a lot of trains already running at well over 100% of pre-Covid levels, that makes a bad situation worse.

 

And when will we be able to afford new rolling stock? My guess is never. Might as well raid the NRM. The whole country, at the behest of many people, is going backwards.

[phil-b259]

Just now, APOLLO said:

 

No new trains until we can afford them i.e a delay.

 

Existing Birmingham - London Pendolinos to use the new line. This would free up the southern WCML a bit.

 

Mallard can do 126mph - any volunteers for fireman  !!!!!!!

 

Of course what I suggest is just that, a suggestion. I think the government have far, far more severe cuts in many areas other than HS2 planned, as that smiling assassin, The Chancellor suggested in his Autumn budget, and his forthcoming spring one also.

 

He will decide, not you or I.

 

Brit15

 

But that in turns means less trains for the likes of Wolverhampton Coventry etc. Yes there might be a few old suburban EMUs going spare - but somehow I doubt they will be considered acceptable to passengers or voters!

 

However there are economies that could be made which are far more realistic - using an off the shelf design like the 800s might save a few bob and they can potentially be cascaded later on when dedicated trains are built.

 

So

[griffgriff]

Best put a stop to the scrapping of any more Mk3s!
 

Griff

[class26]

5 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

Great post.

 

If it becomes a choice of HS2 or Sizewell (and more) nuclear power stations, then there is only one choice - or freeze (and during power cuts HS2 won't run !!). Simple.

 

We are getting VERY close to the edge in this country, on many counts, the No 1 being energy, both gas and electricity.

 

HS2's prime reason was to relieve pressure on the WCML. So pare it back to a 140mph Pendolino / Azuma passenger only limited stop line. In todays internet everything age who NEEDS to travel at 225 mph ?.

 

Nuff said, trains are crap again today around Wigan (WCML). Priority ? No chance, anyone north of Crewe can *****

 

Brit15

 

 

Way, way, way too late to pair it back to 140 mph and in any  case it wouldn`t save much . the desing for the part 1 and 2A is all done, shovels in the ground so pair it back means redesiging it and therefore MORE cost. Also 140 mph would possibly cost more as if journeys are longer you need more trains (greater purchase cost) and larger depots  to house this greater number of trains - again more cost.   

Edited January 28, 2023 by class26

[class26]

13 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

But that in turns means less trains for the likes of Wolverhampton Coventry etc. Yes there might be a few old suburban EMUs going spare - but somehow I doubt they will be considered acceptable to passengers or voters!

 

However there are economies that could be made which are far more realistic - using an off the shelf design like the 800s might save a few bob and they can potentially be cascaded later on when dedicated trains are built.

 

So

I don`t consider the seats in the IET`s acceptable, I am also  voter but I don`t expect much will happen.

[frobisher]

28 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

No new trains until we can afford them i.e a delay.

 

Existing Birmingham - London Pendolinos to use the new line. This would free up the southern WCML a bit.

 

But you need new stock to cover the increased services... If you move the Pendolinos off of the route they were designed for, you'll need to put slower existing stock on to replace them,

 

[griffgriff]

10 minutes ago, class26 said:

Way, way, way too late to pair it back to 140 mph and in any  case it wouln`t save much . the desogn for the part 1 and 2A is all done, shovels in the ground so pair it back means redesiging it and therefore MORE cost. Also 140 mph would possibly cost more as if journeys are longer you need more trains (greater purchase cost) and larger depots  to house this greater number of trains - again more cost.   

You don’t need more trains but you can have more of them. Besides, high speed rail is power thirsty …. Maybe we need to consider that as a factor. Slower trains may be more economical and cheaper? 

[Grovenor]

2 hours ago, frobisher said:

Meanwhile the following scheme is going through planning up here ... West of Orkney Windfarm which is a 2GW scheme where the wind flow is pretty much constantly available.  Now, if you start putting the type of tidal turbines that EMEC have been trialling up here as well in amongst that wind farm you can neatly supplement that...

And given the global security situation, should we be relying on offshore wind. Just how long would it take a Russian submarine to cripple an offshore windfarm?