HS2

[phil-b259]

19 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

With Labour’s £28b flagship Green plans now thrown in the bin, what chance they can rustle up the money for restoring HS2 Phase 2a &b ?

 

 

.

In the short term not a lot….

 

However they could stop selling off the land already purchased and keep the powers for phase 2A intact.That makes things easier in the medium to long term….

 

Besides In any case it’s crystal clear to anyone in the industry that without things like a Stafford by-pass and Colwich junction grace separation there is zero chance that phase 1 will ever be able to deliver the benefits it’s supposed to do for the WCML and hence there is lots of manic work being done behind the scenes by NetworkRail to come up with new infrastructure to fix said issues.

 

Its therefore not beyond’s the bounds of impossibility that a rebranded and tweaked phase 2A could yet emerge in future - but quite obviously with the Tories being desperate and trying all they can to pretend Labour will be worse for the economy (remind me which party did Ms Truss belong to) then it’s only natural for Labour to rule backtrack on some of their previous policies.

[fezza]

I'm always amazed by how much electrification Italy and Germany did after the war - the defeated powers ended up with much more modern railways by the 1970s than Britain. Some of it was Marshall Plan money, but the failure of Britain to go quickly down the electrification route was the greatest post-war sin. And it wasn't just because Italy and German neglected roads - they built those too!

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

4 minutes ago, fezza said:

I'm always amazed by how much electrification Italy and Germany did after the war - the defeated powers ended up with much more modern railways by the 1970s than Britain. Some of it was Marshall Plan money, but the failure of Britain to go quickly down the electrification route was the greatest post-war sin. And it wasn't just because Italy and German neglected roads - they built those too!

 

 

They had to rebuilt a large amount of destroyed infrastructure.

Ours was largely intact and the desire and impetus in a cash strapped economy, tended towards a restoration of a pre-war normal.

We patched up and made do.

The money was needed elsewhere.

A mindset that lasted for a long time.

 

Add in the massive cost of the 1950's and 60's Cold War, the propping up of the remains of Empire and the focus and budget being placed on new technologies, like Nuclear etc.

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

We won't need motorways soon as only unaffordable (for the majority) EV's become the mandated norm......

 

 

4 to 4.5 times as many used cars are sold each year, compared with brand new.

That indicates that "the majority" can't afford (or are not prepared to pay for) new ICE powered cars either.

 

As EV's filter through onto the used market in increasing numbers (as they are already starting to do), they will easily be affordable to anyone contemplating buying a similar used ICE powered vehicle.

Early heavy depreciation in a fledgling and uncertain market, means you can currently (no pun intended)  pick up, almost new, low mileage EV's for bargain prices and benefit from lower running costs, making them "more affordable" in the long run.

 

Back to Choo Choo trains..........

 

 

.

[APOLLO]

9 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

4 to 4.5 times as many used cars are sold each year, compared with brand new.

That indicates that "the majority" can't afford (or are not prepared to pay for) new ICE powered cars either.

 

As EV's filter through onto the used market in increasing numbers (as they are already starting to do), they will easily be affordable to anyone contemplating buying a similar used ICE powered vehicle.

Early heavy depreciation in a fledgling and uncertain market, means you can currently (no pun intended)  pick up, almost new, low mileage EV's for bargain prices and benefit from lower running costs, making them "more affordable" in the long run.

 

EV depreciation, insurance and eventual battery replacement costs are rising issues, as is range and charging anxiety.

 

I do hope that when HS2 eventually opens it gets to Euston, is affordable and not beset by strike actions etc

 

Time will tell.

 

Brit15

[jollysmart]

1 hour ago, 62613 said:

Or electric - powered or pedal assist bicycles and tricycles, for short journeys at least. I'm already seeing cargo bikes in major cities.

 

On 15 - minute cities; can anyone tell me the problem with having all the main requirements for civilised life with 15 minutes, either walking or other active travel means? There are too many cars on the road; too much space in towns and cities is given over to car parks. And so on.

 

The proposed population density for the new build 5 minute cities is 260,000 people per Sq Km the present population density for London is 5, 596 per Sq KM I personally don't really fancy that.

[62613]

9 minutes ago, jollysmart said:

 

The proposed population density for the new build 5 minute cities is 260,000 people per Sq Km the present population density for London is 5, 596 per Sq KM I personally don't really fancy that.

Do you have a (non tinfoil hat conspiraloon) source for that?

[rodent279]

52 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

We patched up and made do.

And we still are.

 

We think small, we think everything should be on the smallest scale possible, we have this bizarre idea that doing it as cheaply as possible up front means getting the best value for money. We haven't learnt any lessons, and I don't hold out much hope for ever learning them. We are condemned to a show spiral of decline into a basket case, and I don't see that changing.

[jollysmart]

1 minute ago, 62613 said:

Do you have a (non tinfoil hat conspiraloon) source for that?

Yes. NEOM the new KSA city that is the forerunner test for all future cities as they consume much less land and the city planners are raving about it.  I didn't actually make it up nor am I a tinfoil hat wearer just someone who actually takes an interest.

[C126]

2 minutes ago, jollysmart said:

Yes. NEOM the new KSA city that is the forerunner test for all future cities as they consume much less land and the city planners are raving about it.  I didn't actually make it up nor am I a tinfoil hat wearer just someone who actually takes an interest.

 

Just found this:

 

https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/why-saudi-arabias-the-line-is-not-a-revolution-in-urban-living/

 

[monkeysarefun]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

How many motorways are "profitable"? 

 

 

M4,  M5,  M7,  M5 East,   M8,  Cross City Tunnel,  Sydney Harbour Bridge, Sydney Harbour tunnel....  that  just opened disaster at Rozelle/Balmain..... Hand back your NSW drivers license at once, young man!

Edited February 9 by monkeysarefun

[Ron Ron Ron]

29 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

EV depreciation, insurance and eventual battery replacement costs are rising issues, as is range and charging anxiety.

 

 

Average ICE lifetime has risen from 11 to 12 years, only just over 10 years ago, to around 16 years today.

 

Average mileage at scrapping has gone up from 110,000 to 130,000, although well maintained, modern ICE cars could last for over 200,000 miles, but they mostly won't because of the lack of spare parts over time and economic viability.

 

EV batteries (discounting early primitive types) are expected to last for between 200,000 and 500,000 miles.

When will you need to replace the battery?

 

Range?

The average daily car mileage in the UK is under 20 miles (140 miles per week or just under 7,000 miles per year).

The average annual company car usage (using the car for business) is under 14,000 miles (= approx. 270 miles per week).

Less than 5% of cars do more than 15,000 miles a year.

 

.

 

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

How many motorways are "profitable"? We need to understand what we are trying to measure here.

Lots actually - just not in the UK where tolling was not implemented from the start of the motorway network.

 

To see the potential look at the Dartford crossing - it generates huge sums for HM Treasury every year even after operation and maintenance costs are taken out. Yes I know it being the only decent river crossing east of London does skew the figures a bit, but even so the sheer volume of traffic wishing to cross the river means even with the proposed lower Thames crossing open I’m sure the toll receipts will be way more than the cost of running / maintaining the crossing is.

 

In France where many motorways are tolled the costs of maintaining them are more than covered by the tolls charged.

 

In other words where motorways are seen to provide value for motorists they will pay to use them!

 

And before anyone highlights the M6 Toll that’s a classic example of the British doing it wrong! Given it is paralleled by the ‘free’ M6 through Birmingham many motorists, and HGVs in particular avoid the Toll road.
 

Given the M6 though Birmingham is carried on lots of concrete viaducts which are becoming increasingly expensive / difficult to maintain as they are now getting beyond their designed lifespan any sane Government would have used the opportunity to make the M6 Toll a free motorway and slapped tolls on the current M6 (between the M5 and M42)  

Edited February 9 by phil-b259

[billbedford]

2 hours ago, 62613 said:

On 15 - minute cities; can anyone tell me the problem with having all the main requirements for civilised life with 15 minutes, either walking or other active travel means? There are too many cars on the road; too much space in towns and cities is given over to car parks

 

What if you were a "Waitrose" person and only had access to a "Lidl" or vice versa?

[62613]

5 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

What if you were a "Waitrose" person and only had access to a "Lidl" or vice versa?

Are there no "Express" - type shops near you?  I have a small Coop, several other shops, a post office, a pharmacy, several fast food outlets, a vet, all four remaining local pubs, the railway station and several beauty salons within about 15 minutes walk, although I don't use the latter😁. The local town centre is only just outside these limits. I have walked to football matches, about 30 minutes on largely traffic - free routes, several times; I would say that not driving there is the norm.

 

For context, I am 71 years old in May, slightly overweight, and with slightly raised blood pressure

[phil-b259]

10 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

What if you were a "Waitrose" person and only had access to a "Lidl" or vice versa?

And that’s where capitalism gets in the way of protecting the planet.

 

Lets be brutally honest the human body doesn’t care what label is on the packaging - all it needs is for healthy food to be available at prices people can afford.

 

So in principle you only need a single shop / supermarket to serve a given area and it is a lot better for the environment if that’s all people use.

 

However that sort of approach pretty much requires a communist style approach to life where retail is organised by the Government, prices are organised by the Government (to prevent the monopoly that has been created to fleece people who have no alternative etc)

 

But, given the experience of the likes of Poland, East Germany, etc with this sort of ‘planned economy’ during the cold we also know that in practice it never works out like socialists pretend it will.

 

 

 

 

[C126]

Having had chance now to skim my ref.

 

https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/why-saudi-arabias-the-line-is-not-a-revolution-in-urban-living/

 

... the article makes quite clear 'The Line' is certainly NOT "the forerunner test for all future cities".  For a start, it says they are quite inefficient for commuters and circular cities are better.  This design appears quite hopeless (and certainly not a '15-min. city').

 

 

[phil-b259]

10 minutes ago, 62613 said:

Are there no "Express" - type shops near you? 

It’s worth noting that ‘Express’ / ‘local’ versions of the supermarkets put a price premium on everything they sell. If you use such establishments as your main food store you are paying a substantial premium over those who can get to a regular supermarket.

 

As ever it’s the low income / car-less / who suffer - just as low income households are far more likely to have pre-payment meters and thus pay over the odds for their energy even though they are the socioeconomic group least able to do so!

[John Tomlinson]

4 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

And that’s where capitalism gets in the way of protecting the planet.

 

Lets be brutally honest the human body doesn’t care what label is on the packaging - all it needs is for healthy food to be available at prices people can afford.

 

So in principle you only need a single shop / supermarket to serve a given area and it is a lot better for the environment if that’s all people use.

 

However that sort of approach pretty much requires a communist style approach to life where retail is organised by the Government, prices are organised by the Government (to prevent the monopoly that has been created to fleece people who have no alternative etc)

 

But, given the experience of the likes of Poland, East Germany, etc with this sort of ‘planned economy’ during the cold we also know that in practice it never works out like socialists pretend it will.

 

 

 

 

 

Given this is a model railway forum, I think you're on thin ice here. Model railways aren't a "need" but a luxury. Think of all the energy in making stuff, and the plastic, then shipping it half way around the world!  Ban them and you'll be doing the planet a favour.

 

Perhaps we should get back to HS2!

 

John.

[phil-b259]

4 minutes ago, C126 said:

Having had chance now to skim my ref.

 

https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/why-saudi-arabias-the-line-is-not-a-revolution-in-urban-living/

 

... the article makes quite clear 'The Line' is certainly NOT "the forerunner test for all future cities".  For a start, it says they are quite inefficient for commuters and circular cities are better.  This design appears quite hopeless (and certainly not a '15-min. city').

 

 

Indeed - it’s essentially a vanity project for the ruling dynasty of Saudi Arabia backed by the immense wealth they get by selling oil (which contributes to climate change in the first place)

[phil-b259]

Just now, John Tomlinson said:

 

Given this is a model railway forum, I think you're on thin ice here. Model railways aren't a "need" but a luxury. Think of all the energy in making stuff, and the plastic, then shipping it half way around the world!  Ban them and you'll be doing the planet a favour.

 

Perhaps we should get back to HS2!

 

John.

 IMPORTANT - I’m not advocating any particular political viewpoint , I was merely trying to highlight there are no simple answers !

 

It’s just when you actually analyse the things in detail which would make a real difference from an environmental perspective they come dangerously close to certain ideologies and are in direct opposition to the economic strategies we currently use

 

 

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, monkeysarefun said:

 

 

M4,  M5,  M7,  M5 East,   M8,  Cross City Tunnel,  Sydney Harbour Bridge, Sydney Harbour tunnel....  that  just opened disaster at Rozelle/Balmain..... Hand back your NSW drivers license at once, young man!

 

46 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Lots actually - just not in the UK where tolling was not implemented from the start of the motorway network.

 

To see the potential look at the Dartford crossing - it generates huge sums for HM Treasury every year even after operation and maintenance costs are taken out. Yes I know it being the only decent river crossing east of London does skew the figures a bit, but even so the sheer volume of traffic wishing to cross the river means even with the proposed lower Thames crossing open I’m sure the toll receipts will be way more than the cost of running / maintaining the crossing is.

 

In France where many motorways are tolled the costs of maintaining them are more than covered by the tolls charged.

 

In other words where motorways are seen to provide value for motorists they will pay to use them!

 

And before anyone highlights the M6 Toll that’s a classic example of the British doing it wrong! Given it is paralleled by the ‘free’ M6 through Birmingham many motorists, and HGVs in particular avoid the Toll road.
 

Given the M6 though Birmingham is carried on lots of concrete viaducts which are becoming increasingly expensive / difficult to maintain as they are now getting beyond their designed lifespan any sane Government would have used the opportunity to make the M6 Toll a free motorway and slapped tolls on the current M6 (between the M5 and M42)  

Given the context of this topic I was referring to the UK. Of course there are many toll roads in the rest of the world and as my compatriot says above Sydney seems to have (more than?) its fair share (you can add to the list M2 and NorthConnex, now the M11, which is my local example).

 

Nevertheless, despite the fact that the tolls make a lot of money for the operators and the State Government, when compared with the construction costs I still wonder how many of them are "profitable" - and are they intended to be? We don't expect other public infrastructure to be "profitable" - schools, hospitals, libraries, police/ambulance/fire stations, etc, - so why should railways (and roads) be different?

[62613]

1 minute ago, St Enodoc said:

 

Given the context of this topic I was referring to the UK. Of course there are many toll roads in the rest of the world and as my compatriot says above Sydney seems to have (more than?) its fair share (you can add to the list M2 and NorthConnex, now the M11, which is my local example).

 

Nevertheless, despite the fact that the tolls make a lot of money for the operators and the State Government, when compared with the construction costs I still wonder how many of them are "profitable" - and are they intended to be? We don't expect other public infrastructure to be "profitable" - schools, hospitals, libraries, police/ambulance/fire stations, etc, - so why should railways (and roads) be different?

Yet!

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

4 to 4.5 times as many used cars are sold each year, compared with brand new.

That indicates that "the majority" can't afford (or are not prepared to pay for) new ICE powered cars either.

 

As EV's filter through onto the used market in increasing numbers (as they are already starting to do), they will easily be affordable to anyone contemplating buying a similar used ICE powered vehicle.

Early heavy depreciation in a fledgling and uncertain market, means you can currently (no pun intended)  pick up, almost new, low mileage EV's for bargain prices and benefit from lower running costs, making them "more affordable" in the long run.

 

Back to Choo Choo trains..........

 

 

.

We won the war, it cost an empire and we lost the economic war.

 

The UK has been on a slide ever since.

 

The country has been feeding off empirical reputation and gradual global retreat since WW2 but that fat has largely burnt off.

Ask Argentina why they cancelled their HS rail project, the answer isnt that distant from ours.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 9 by adb968008

[C126]

7 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Nevertheless, despite the fact that the tolls make a lot of money for the operators and the State Government, when compared with the construction costs I still wonder how many of them are "profitable" - and are they intended to be? We don't expect other public infrastructure to be "profitable" - schools, hospitals, libraries, police/ambulance/fire stations, etc, - so why should railways (and roads) be different?

 

If these are making a true (net of construction, etc., costs) profit, I would love to know.  I think the problem with the nation's attitude to new railway infrastructure is it was shaped by the shambles of the Channel Tunnel and H.S.1.  The former was publicised to be a gold mine, and it both failed to make its money back (if I remember correctly) and never reached the traffic levels promised by its promoters.