phil-b259

HS2, from a passengers point of view will be part of the national rail network - it will have some through services from the 'classic' network, through ticketing will be maintained for all services, etc However as regards the infrastructure - because the Government regards competition as the holy grail for all things and is inherently distrustful of Network rail (believing their costs are far too high and far too much like a 'nationalised' industry for their liking), as with HS1 I'm sure it will be flogged off to some overseas pension fund / venture capitalist with no engineering knowledge who will then sub contract out the operation and maintenance to someone else - and that doesn't necessarily mean Network Rail As regards the service provider then that will again be franchised off as with all rail operations although what happens with services going beyond HS2 onto the 'classic' network remains to be seen. Do they become part of the HS2 franchise thus simplifying operating arrangements i.e. one operator one terminus idea (note that a rebuilt Euston will function much like Victoria does today with a 'Kent' and 'Sussex' side) or do they keep such services with the current WCML franchise and having two operators on HS2 (which would please those in the conservative party who think competition is the be all and end all of everything even if it does cost more in the long run)

No The control systems fitted to the DEMUs were different to those fitted to the 1950s/60s EMUs (despite the various pipes on the ends looking the same) so the two could not be combined. Later in their life there was one DEMU unit modified so it could in theory work in multiple with an EMU but I believe this was never actually done in service.

Just a point to consider, we need to be careful when using the terms 'neutral' 'grounded' and 'earthed' in the railway context because as several qualified electricians have discovered over the years the way the railway does some things, especially with regard traction and signalling goes against everything a domestic electrician is taught must be done.

The traction motors only care about the total potential difference they are exposed to, thus a 630V rated traction motor will work quite happyily on -420V & +210V or -100V & +530V or +200V & +830V, etc. as the total difference never exceeds 630V Thus on shared sections, underground trains see +630V & -0V (as do those running on the 3rd rail principle) which is still exactly the same potential difference as +420 & -210V will give. What you obviously cannot do however is connect the two systems together so before underground trains get to a shared section they pass through a section with out con rails long to ensure the two systems don't get connected by the train

It is worth noting that the Southern Railways electrification schemes also used 630V (like the underground - but using the 3rd rail setup). Later, in BR years, the withdrawal of the Southern's Sussex coast stock in favour of the GIG / VEP units allowed a modest increase in the 3rd rail voltage to 750V but they were unable to do he same in the London suburban area until the last of the 4 SUB units were scrapped in the early 80s. Why is this important? well given the power needed to move a train, the lower the voltage the higher the current has to be to give the same power output. Thus it is to the advantage of the engineer to get the voltage as high as possible because that lowers the current required and it is far easier / cheaper to design electric components to work with high voltages than high currents.

I don't mind that, as you say its a fundamental part of living in a democracy for you to give your opinion and to draw your own conclusions about the project. As regards noise levels, I accept that the noise will travel some distance in certain locations, thats unavoidable. However there have been quite a few studies into noise over the years (be it from motorways, railways or airports) and what they have found is actually out of all of them, train noise is the least disruptive - something to do with it not being a constant din (like the M40 is through the Chilterns), or excessively loud like an aircraft, but rising and falling in a gentle arc which is a lot easier on the ear. As for the roadshow, no I haven't been and given my location I don't expect to be able to. What I have done is read all the published reports which give all the same information (although not in such a 'packaged' way I admit)

You are sounding like a broken record (1) Parkway stations : - We have been through this before, they reduce capacity unless everything stops and consume far more land than a plain bit of railway will. Aditionally the Chilterns are far to close to London, In France the 1st parkeway station on the TGV Sud-est line (160mph max) is Gare du Creusot TGV 370Km (270miles) from Paris while the 1st parkway station on the TGV Nord (186mph max) is Gare TGV Haute-Picardie at 126Km (78 miles). In the UK you have already got to Birmingham by that stage where a parkway station is indeed being provided. (2) Incremental upgrades to the WCML :- Again we have been through this before and there are many reports out there which show that whatever tinkering you do to the existing infrastructure it will not be enough in 20 years or so. Yes it will buy you a few more years and I don't think anybody has said that it won't, but such an approach is not sustainable in the long term where the costs of upgrading the WCML to cope are not that much different to the cost of HS2 (once you factor in the disruption, compensation and additional engineering costs that come from rebuilding a live railway). As for the MR article, I will check it out.

Precisely In fact, as a generalisation I have far more respect for an anti HS2 person who is honest and says "I don't want it because it will spoil the view from my house" or "my house price / land value will go down" or even somebody who says "It won't benefit me so why should my taxes be spent on it" than someone who tries to hide behind half truths, myths and uses emotional language. At the end of the day all humans are pretty selfish really (me included) - just in different ways and there is no shame in admitting it.

Firstly if the Chiltern route were to be upgraded instead you STILL wouldn't get any benefits. If we go back to basics here the primary reason for any form of new line is a serious increase in capacity and by that I mean the equivalent of two additional and continuous tracks - passing loops are not enough, between London and the west Midlands area). So lets assume fast London - West Midlands trains are taken off the WCML and put on a completely 4 tracked 140mph Chiltern line so as to free up capacity for more London - North West trains and freight. Those trains will not stop anywhere in the Chilterns - if you did the whole point of upgrading the route to provide serious relief to the WCML would nullify the whole reason for doing it in the first place. Moreover the frequency required combined with a high linespeed would preclude local services from using the fast lines at most times of the day including the peaks where presumably overcrowding on current Chiltern services is at its worst. The upshot of all this is that actually even in the case of an upgrade the towns through which the existing line would still not get any benefit yet still face serious disruption during construction. Secondly you seem to assume the new service will be a premium fare - another myth being perpetuated by those opposed. If you examine all statements on the mater by both ministers and the promoters they are on record as saying the fare structure will broadly be similar to that in place on the conventional rail network now. I.e. peak services may well be fairly expensive off peak less so and if you book in advance very low. The exact levels will of course depend on how inflation etc goes - you don't seriously expect a utility company to tell you what your energy bill will be in 15 years time do you, so why is it any different for HS2 I also take issue with you choice of the word destroy - Yes HS2 will alter / change / impact the Chilterns but we are actually talking about a relatively narrow feature here not a six lane motorway here or a 'new town' being plonked there. Finally yes I have been to the area around Great Missenden and while it is attractive, to be frank it is hardly unique. Yes its nice countryside, but so for that matter in the North Downs or the Wield of Kent so I have a suggestion for the anti people. I suggest you go to Kent, in particular the area around the villages of Charing, Lenham & Harrietsham to see just how much HS1 has 'destroyed' the area. I think you might be pleasantly surprised on how the world hasn't ended even though HS1 provides 'no benefit to the communities in Kent it passes through until it gets to Ashford.

Why? If you object to the whole principle of the scheme as the "Stop HS2" lot do no amount of compensation / mitigation will be acceptable only complete and utter cancellation will do. Ironically I bet if the proposal was to rebuild the Chiltern line to a 4 track 140mph operation we would still end up with howls of protest from the inhabitants of the Chilterns (admitadly a different lot than the current HS2 group) Having looked through the detailed plans it is obvious that much work has gone into mitigating the downsides that HS2 construction and operation but that is still not enough for the opposition. Even the evidence of HS1 and the pretty non exsistant adverse effects on the places it passes through have been ignored because they go against everything the "Stop HS2" group want. You have to understand that in spite of the evidence presented by Network Rail and the industry the "Stop HS2" alliance are absolutely convinced it can all be handled by further upgrades of the WCML / MML / ECML (all of which are a piece of cake to do and won't cause much disruption to anyone apparently).

Its a shame Bachmann have gone for this variant rather than the more attractive lined LMS black passenger locos got pre WW2 (assuming the tank was rated as a passenger loco and thus entitled to it of course). Hopefully in time this will be addressed, with the more colourful pre grouping liveries being popular a L&Y liveried or even an early LMS lined maroon liveried variant would surely go down well.

Orange wombles, I like it - though I'm not sure what my colleagues at Barnham might make of the term.

From other posts on this forum I believe a few of the postwar 'porthole' design got Blue and Grey - though I don't believe they lasted long

Upon completion of the Kent coast electrification scheme (1959 - LCDR lines / 1963 SER lines) large quantities of Maunsell and Builled stock became redundant overnight, As this was still in the BR green era none carried blue and grey. A similar situation occurred 5 years later when the Bournemouth scheme went live because although blue and grey was being introduced, the remaining loco hauled Maunsell / Builled stock was all scheduled for scrapping upon completion of the scheme. Meanwhile the introduction of DEMUs and later Beaching mandated branch line cuts for those lines not being 'juiced' quickly removed the rest.

Its gradually slipping away as the old hands retire. The term 'signalman' will eventually go the same way. All the rules and regs now use the term 'signaller', all staff be they the latest batch of NR apprentices or a new train driver are taught to refer to the person at the signal box / ASC / IECC / ROC as a signaller. Furthermore as all phone calls re recorded its an easy thing to pick somebody up on if somebody wants to be picky (admittedly more likely to happen to a fresh recruit than a seasoned member of staff). Then there is the issue that what with the plans to do away with all these signal boxes, the amount of rail staff who actually meet a signalman face to face (and can therefore use traditional terms more freely) is only going to decline

One think that surprises me is that they presumably are just going to reinstate the ballast without putting down any membrane style material or dig down then lay a bed of course stone first (unless that is what the pile of larger stone in the pic is for)

Problem is an underground station or even sidings at Euston would be massively expensive and the nearest place you could build them on the surface would be the Wembley area (involving a resdesign of the tunnels to provide a spur). In some respects the situation is even worse than HS1 which at the moment (thanks to the recession) could build additional stabling at Dagenham, HS2 heading out into the Chiltern's simply doesn't pass through any large brownfield sites. Also why not just say 9 platforms - As far as I am aware none of our major terminals have this distinction anymore, especially since unit operation has become the norm. Trains simply leave from whichever platform they arrive at.

They may not empty bins however if you employ enough people there is no reason why basic cleaning even of a 400m train cannot be performed quickly. Whether the UK is prepared to pay for this - and perhaps more importantly actually pay the staff doing the cleaning a liveable wage remains to be seen - current experience suggests not).

How exactly was it un-workable? Demolished villages: If Heathrow is expanded What remains of the villages of Sipson and Handsworth (north of the A4 would go) Lots of road building: If Heathrow expands any more road capacity enhancements would be required to the M4 & M25 to support it (plus the diversion of the A4) OK they may not be new but in terms of pollutants noise plus building costs they are just as expensive. Connectivity : If Heathrow gets a link to HS2 it will be a spur where as being on the mainline enables a more frequent service to be provided. Note Un-workable is not the same thing as 'politically un-acceptable'. Now Boris island, that I would suggest is un-workable

At present all 3 main political parties support HS2 so whoever wins the next election, it still has a good chance of proceeding. If anything its the conservatives stance on this that is the most surprising given the routes passage through true blue electoral areas but the cynic in me sees their support more as a way of getting airport expansion, particularly Heathrow under way again (on the basis that they can say "look even though we have built HS2 - demand for air travel is still going up and we promise to plug the expanded Heathrow into phase 2)

Under the plan a rebuilt Euston will have 11 high speed platforms. If you assume a 3 minute headway though then that still is two more than the 9 required for such a pattern. Of course if you assume that when the full network is constructed Heathrow (currently envisioned to be 2 out of the 18 - 1x Manchester and 1x Leeds), and possibly Europe gets a frequent train then that cuts down the number of Euston arrivals slightly. On the other hand if signalling technologies continue to advance and the trains travel faster then the headway could be reduced further giving more than 18 TPH. The following documents may be of interest when considering these factors Headway:- http://www.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/hs2%20minimum%20headway%20august2011%20v3%201%20final.pdf#overlay-context=news-resources/engineering-documents Proposed service patterns:- https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69743/updated-economic-case-for-hs2-_august-2012_-explanation-of-the-service-patterns.pdf

IIRC there was only a single high sided tender (which got swapped between locos in late BR days due to a painting mix up). I don't know when it was extended but I believe it was after Maunsell had left the SR. Repton's high sided tender is a preservation era creation - it never ran like that under SR or BR ownership. In late BR days there are reports of some locos receiving boogie tenders off withdrawn Nelson's / Arthur's but this was not common practice

Indeed this though did cross my mind but in the context of the residents of the likes of Wendover, etc it would be too far away to be usefull and thus is unlikely to do anything about their complaints that HS2 will do nothing for them. The only other issue is that while a station in the vacinity of Calvert would be very good from a rail connections point of view, it is some way from the key road network (M40 , A43, A34 axis) and would need quite a lot of new road construction to rectify that. Of course some would say road connections are unecessary but in todays enviroment we cannot ignore the fact that quite a lot of people find it conveient to drive to a railhead. On the other hand purely from a transport planning point of view I happen to think the Calvert area would make a good place for a replacement London airport . Its located in the right direction for the bult of the population (i.e. northwest of London) and with the rebuilt east west rail line, services southwards to Aylesbury and HS2 it would have good rail conectivity. Roads would still be a problem but if you are going to build such a large transport interchange they can be much easier to justify than for a HS2 station. As for the lack of usage at some LGV stations, its worth noting that some (including the Picardy one) were only built as a concession to towns that complained they were being ignored by the LGV and that it should really be route via them instead of somewhere else. In the case of Picardy I believe its inclusion was an atempt to compensate the town of Ameins who were a bit peaved that the LGV nord was routed via Lille. In the overal scheme of things this decision was done because as well as serving the Channel tunnel the LGV also had to handle traffic bound for Belgium and beyond for which the Lille routing was the best option. Having said that I do believe there is a plan knocking around the transport ministery in Paris to actually construct a LGV vi Amiens to the Tunnel at some stage, mainly because the LGV nord is now running at full capacity. if this does ever end up being built then I would imagine there would be a case for closing the Picardy station on the exsisting LGV to increase capacity on the current LGV nord

What station would this be then? As far as I'm awere the only stations proposed on HS2 are Old Oak common, Birmingham Parkway (carn't recall its propper name), Manchester Airport, East Midlands Parkway (Totton) & Sheffield Parkway (Medowhall) all these stations are designed to act as masive hubs with good motorway / rail connections into signifficant urban areas or to provide connections to key airports. Respectfully there is nowhere within the Chilterns that forfills this criteria - (Aylesbury,the most signifficant generator only having good road connections with London). Yes places like Stafford, Crewe and Stoke might get HS2 services but this will be via the connections to classic lines (though I believe Crewe are lobbying for a station where the route runs alongside Basford Hall yard)

Could that be because fitting headights to the large EMU fleet was considered more of a priority?