Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

Just to add to my post above this was the inspiration for my comment above.  Construction methods 110 years apart.

canker-lane-2-web.jpg.8eec14a0bec005b55ada2fbeacc9e8a4.jpg

Hopefully we'll have some similar shots of 21st century methods soon.

This was in 1910.

I've resisted putting up the pictures of the steam navvy and the horse drawn MSC wagons.

 

Jamie

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

.....Construction methods 110 years apart....

 

....Hopefully we'll have some similar shots of 21st century methods soon......

 

 

The modern day equivalent are the haul roads that have been and are being constructed, to allow access for heavy equipment and the movement of the vast amounts of earth and spoil.

 

.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

Just to add to my post above this was the inspiration for my comment above.  Construction methods 110 years apart.

canker-lane-2-web.jpg.8eec14a0bec005b55ada2fbeacc9e8a4.jpg

Hopefully we'll have some similar shots of 21st century methods soon.

This was in 1910.

I've resisted putting up the pictures of the steam navvy and the horse drawn MSC wagons.

 

Jamie

Steam Navvy that's a bit modern isn't it..

image.png.d8a7812d35b02f79a9e912b0a9b084a4.png

PS my great Uncle is in there somewhere..

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

HS2 have put up a diagram to illustrate the bore size of the Chilterns tunnels.

 

 

Eo3XRtgXcAI9es3?format=jpg&name=medium

 

 

.

This makes sense since the trains are going to be going rather faster than through any of the other tunnels; the air's got to go somewhere.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

This makes sense since the trains are going to be going rather faster than through any of the other tunnels; the air's got to go somewhere.

Comparing the HS2 diameter with that of the Channel Tunnel, which carries much taller road vehicle shuttles, confirms that the aerodynamics are more important than the train size.  

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
46 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

Comparing the HS2 diameter with that of the Channel Tunnel, which carries much taller road vehicle shuttles, confirms that the aerodynamics are more important than the train size.  

The japanese decided to keep the tunnel size on the Shinkansen as small as practical and concentrate on vehicle aerodynamics, that's how the elongated "duck bill" fronts on the later trains come about.

Without them there is a considerable shockwave in front of the train that noisily exits the tunnels as the train emerges.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

Comparing the HS2 diameter with that of the Channel Tunnel, which carries much taller road vehicle shuttles, confirms that the aerodynamics are more important than the train size.  

Don't forget that the Channel Tunnel has Piston Relief Ducts, at approximately 250m intervals, between the Running Tunnels. When these are closed, maximum speed is limited to 100 kph for all traffic. 

 

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zomboid said:

That decision also necessitates the small windows that Shinkansen trains are fitted with, I believe, and of ultimately a factor in the relatively short service life of the trains.

The trains are sealed with a constant pressure inside the car which means that the bodyshells expand and contract as the pressure outside changes (as it does in a tunnel transit). The smaller windows are better able to withstand the flexing and are less likely to pop out.

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
31 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

But the amount of spoil to be removed is half as much again as for the Channel Tunnel. That comes at a cost. Presumably the calculations have been done.

Jonathan

You don't seriously think they haven't do you?  The design team will know to within a few hundred cubic metres how much spoil will be generated from tunneling, how much is required for constructing embankments, where any excess/deficit will be disposed of or obtained from and the cost of transporting it.  That's how construction projects work and partly why projects like HS2 cost so much before anyone has even picked up a shovel, because of all the prep work done first rather than met with surprise halfway through.

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

As one of Lilian Greenwood's constituents, you'd be forgiven for thinking that she hibernates between elections, occasionally waking to have a carefully worded pop at the Government in the media before disappearing for another couple of months. 

Edited by pete_mcfarlane
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I wasn't meaning that aspect, but the pros and cons of a larger bore tunnel long term in terms of the initial cost versus the long term benefits.. And yes, I sincerely hope they have done the sums too.

But having seen the dithering by politicians that goes on for decades with some of these projects, one begins to wonder (see the above post, for example).

Jonathan

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

There's a lot of pages to wade through, but did this explanation for the requirement of HS2 over other options make it on to the thread? 

 

 

 

I've definitely seen it before & am sure there is a link to it somewhere on here.

The problem is the anti-HS2 lobby won't watch it or accept any of the arguments.

Gareth puts forward a lot of information but I feel he comes across as being overly biased towards it which makes his arguments easier to dismiss as non-factual.

 

I try to imagine what it was like in the 1950s before the motorways were built & feel that in 60 years time, we will accept HS2, HS3 etc in the same way.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
17 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

The problem is the anti-HS2 lobby won't watch it or accept any of the arguments.

 

Because they know that unlike all the planners, engineers, et al that do this thing for a living, they are right.:yes:

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

  • RMweb Premium
27 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

I've definitely seen it before & am sure there is a link to it somewhere on here.

The problem is the anti-HS2 lobby won't watch it or accept any of the arguments.

Gareth puts forward a lot of information but I feel he comes across as being overly biased towards it which makes his arguments easier to dismiss as non-factual.

 

I try to imagine what it was like in the 1950s before the motorways were built & feel that in 60 years time, we will accept HS2, HS3 etc in the same way.

In the late 50's I lived at Giggleswick on the A65 which is the main road between the West Riding  conurbation and the then thriving resort of Morecambe. Every Bank Holiday weekend there used to be traffic jams several miles long caused by the then narrow bridge at Settle. These all disappeared when the M6, 62 and 61 opened. 

 

Jamie

  • Agree 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...