Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Kris said:

If, as is looking likely, the Eastern branch is cancelled, I hope that they at least build the first few hundred meters of the track bed to enable a much less disruptive build in the future if/when it is reinstated. 

If rumours are true it seems they are to build the first 40 miles as far as East Mind parkway so your wish will probably be granted. 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

And you think HS2 has problems !!!

 

 

Brit15

About that Youtube channel:

"The content on this channel is produced by a team, independent of any government or legacy media, including former Chinese national television reporters, veteran journalists and editors of North American Chinese media. We are second-generation Chinese families raised in North America, and long-time experts on China. We are committed to showing our audience what China, an ancient and vast country, has to offer the world by exploring its past and its present".

Considering the strength of the right-wing media attitude to HS rail in the USA (varying between it costs too much and state railroads are a communist idea), I wouldn't be surprised if this is produced to discredit the concept.

But it also shows what your country can do when money is no object when international status is concerned, normal rules of national debt don't apply and you have a colossal trade surplus.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

I'm surprised that Talgo are/were in there. Or do they offer a full fat high speed train, as well as their traditional lightweight articulated things? 

 

 

 

Yes, the Spanish AVE, the Talgo 350.

Currently operating at 330kph

Edited by melmerby
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

I'm surprised that Talgo are/were in there. Or do they offer a full fat high speed train, as well as their traditional lightweight articulated things? 

 

Talgo have been building different versions HS trains for various world markets.

A CGI image was released, depicting the nose of the proposed train design submitted in their bid for the HS2 initial fleet contract.

They are obviously not in the running anymore.

 

 

talgohs2trains-e1624616144353.jpg

 

 

 

.

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
23 hours ago, Dava said:


Benefits to Chesterfield Sheffield & Leeds in reduced travel time will be reduced. Leeds little better than currently via KX & ECML. This approach will just cost more in the long run, take longer & deliver less.

 

People in East Midlands & on the Transpennine route have been let down & lied to so often by Tory politicians about electrification, HS2 & NPR we have no reason to trust this lot to  deliver what is announced.

 

Shameful.

 

Dava


A Benefit is still a benefit!

 

You still don’t seem to grasp the simple fact there is no room for ANY more trains from Sheffield to London via the MML (nor anywhere to terminate them when they get there.

 

HS2 will by-pass that constraint so even if journey times are not significantly less more seats and more trains will still be positive gains.

 

Leeds also has significant issues with platform and the approaches being full that can only be fixed by significant property demolition to widen the existing railway footprint - the provision of an HS2 station and associated lines towards Sheffield and York sorts that problem.

 

The debit* not incurred by missing out the East Midlands to Sheffield section can then be reallocated to Transpennine electrification.

 

 

* Note the Government is BORROWING to fund HS2. Cancelling any aspect of HS2 does not release any extra cash to spend on anything else. It merely allows a proportion of the borrowing to reallocated IF THE TREASURY DECIDE TO DO SO (instead of simply reducing the amount borrowed).

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, phil-b259 said:


A Benefit is still a benefit!

 

You still don’t seem to grasp the simple fact there is no room for ANY more trains from Sheffield to London via the MML (nor anywhere to terminate them when they get there.

 

HS2 will by-pass that constraint so even if journey times are not significantly less more seats and more trains will still be positive gains.

 

Leeds also has significant issues with platform and the approaches being full that can only be fixed by significant property demolition to widen the existing railway footprint - the provision of an HS2 station and associated lines towards Sheffield and York sorts that problem.

 

The debit* not incurred by missing out the East Midlands to Sheffield section can then be reallocated to Transpennine electrification.

 

 

* Note the Government is BORROWING to fund HS2. Cancelling any aspect of HS2 does not release any extra cash to spend on anything else. It merely allows a proportion of the borrowing to reallocated IF THE TREASURY DECIDE TO DO SO (instead of simply reducing the amount borrowed).

 

 

Why, exactly, in these changing times of WFH do we NEED more passenger trains from Sheffield to London? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Is the western leg to Manchester / Wigan (to join the WCML there) still on the cards ?

 

Brit15

Given all the leaks about the eastern leg, I would thinkt the western leg looks fairly safe - there's not really much they can do to avoid it - Birmingham to Crewe is congested, Crewe to Wigan is congested and Crewe to Manchester has enough pinch points to ensure a new route is required from Birmingham to Manchester/Wigan where it can join with HS3 or whatever that becomes.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

Why, exactly, in these changing times of WFH do we NEED more passenger trains from Sheffield to London? 

Leisure travel - commuting may be down, but leisure is getting back to where it was - people need weekends in London - see a show, drink a pint, eat a meal etc

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

Why, exactly, in these changing times of WFH do we NEED more passenger trains from Sheffield to London? 

Electric cars won't solve the climate crisis or traffic congestion - there would still be significant issues even if all internal combustion engines disappeared.  So it's still necessary to provide alternatives to driving.  

 

About 80% of passenger-miles travelled in 2019 was by private vehicles, with rail accounting for about 10%.  So even a fairly small transfer from car to rail would lead to a significant increase in rail use (say 80:10 going to 70:20, rail use is doubled).  This illustrates why we need more rail capacity even if the travel consequences of Covid turn out to be long-lasting.  We also need better local transport options to make rail more accessible for the main leg of a long journey, but that's another story.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
45 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

Why, exactly, in these changing times of WFH do we NEED more passenger trains from Sheffield to London? 

 

Because:-

 

(1) we are talking about predicted demand over the next 40 years, NOT the next 5 years, let alone the next 12 -24 months!

 

(2) The UK Government has signed up to some very demanding CO2 reduction targets in coming decades. Getting more folk using rail is going to be a key component of that - and as rail investment has a 40+ year payback schemes being put forward now need to take that into account.

 

(3) Rail travel is (contrary to Governmental / ministerial expectations) rebounding quite well. Commuting travel is around 50% of pre pandemic levels but leisure travel has come back stronger at around 70 - 80% of pre pandemic levels. Both indicate that in time raw passenger usage will come back to and probably exceed pre-pandemic levels - though the distribution in terms of reasons for making the trip may well be permanently adjusted.

 

(4) HS2 is a fact in the ground and will be built as far as Crewe at least, complete with an east Midlands pointing spur. Making use of that spur to link in with the MML is relatively cheap yet unlocks plenty of opportunities while also maximising the potential of the already under construction HS2 trunk.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Because:-

 

(1) we are talking about predicted demand over the next 40 years, NOT the next 5 years, let alone the next 12 -24 months!

 

(2) The UK Government has signed up to some very demanding CO2 reduction targets in coming decades. Getting more folk using rail is going to be a key component of that - and as rail investment has a 40+ year payback schemes being put forward now need to take that into account.

 

These are key points, and unusually it involves politicians from all parties looking beyond the next election. 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

I'm not sure that I follow this. I don't see people rushing to use the trains if they have electric cars.

 

Yours,  Mike.

Congestion and parking issues will drive a move from cars. I also suspect that we will see road pricing coming in over the coming years to replace petrol and diesel duty. 

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

For me, the logic of having high speed trains is clear. I've used them in many countries now and the UK needs them just as much as France, Germany, Spain, Japan, South Korea, etc. It is sad that the UK has such limited vision - we should be aiming at a comprehensive HS network covering the whole country.

 

At the moment, rail travel does not make much sense for longer journeys like London - Glasgow: it's usually better to fly. Contrast with Seoul - Busan in South Korea (about as far as you can go in that country), where the train service is so fast and frequent, there are very few flights between those cities.

 

Yours,  Mike.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kris said:

Congestion and parking issues will drive a move from cars.

Hmm, those issues have existed for many years and have not so far persuaded many folk out of their cars.

 

Road pricing may indeed have to be employed to replace fuel duty, but if a government tries to rachet that up to the point where drivers are dissuaded from driving, I suspect a revolt on the side of the drivers may send the politicians running for cover - it already happened over fuel duty. 

 

Frankly, there are quite a lot of journeys where a car is currently way better than a rag-bag of public transport, especially with our heavily pruned railways. I live in Hampshire and we have a group of relatives in rural north Northumberland. Yes, we can take a train from Winchester to Alnmouth (say), but what the *&!£** do we do after we step off the platform there? Even that journey involves crossing London - and I can tell you that Waterloo to Kings Cross is miserable if you have luggage, having done it numerous times.

 

Yours,  Mike.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, KingEdwardII said:

For me, the logic of having high speed trains is clear. I've used them in many countries now and the UK needs them just as much as France, Germany, Spain, Japan, South Korea, etc. It is sad that the UK has such limited vision - we should be aiming at a comprehensive HS network covering the whole country.

 

At the moment, rail travel does not make much sense for longer journeys like London - Glasgow: it's usually better to fly. Contrast with Seoul - Busan in South Korea (about as far as you can go in that country), where the train service is so fast and frequent, there are very few flights between those cities.

 

Yours,  Mike.

 

Even post HS2 flying between Scotland and London / the South East) will still be significantly quicker.

 

As I have cited many times the laws of physics / aerodynamics mean that the practical limit of high speed rail before energy usage starts rising exponentially with every increment in speed is 200mph. Thats why France still diagrams its TGV services at 186mph even where the infrastructure is built to a higher standard and the distances between cities served is grater than will be the case with HS2!

 

However even at 200mph the time taken to go between London and Scotland still exceeds the magic 3hr journey time that many decades of experience has shown to be the tipping point before the quicker air journey becomes less popular than the train.

 

Also the amount of travellers wanting to solely make the London to Scotland journey will probably not fill the train - so operators will want to add other stops e.g. Carlisle, Preston, etc which slows the journey further.

 

Therefore the real gains to be made by HS2 is London (and the SE) to the northern cities of Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield where a combination of shorter journey times and extra capacity has far more potential for modal shift due to the '3hrs or less' rule but still not going above 200mph

 

(Note I have not included Leeds because to get there via HS2 faster than the current ECML needs energy sapping 250mph speeds.  Thats not to say Leeds needs faster / more services but the usage of ECTS and upgrades to the ECML to 140mph running, plus extra infrastructure to bypass / address pinch points (or even a new HS line along the A1 corridor) is the optimum way of achieving that aim.

 

 

 

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting people onto public transport has probably also been impacted by Covid, if you have the choice, do you get into a vehicle with lots of strangers at close proximity or use your own private transport.

 

I've a 7 hour round trip coming up, I have decided to go by car, I simply don't want to spend 4 hours in a Cross Country train or travel in an out of Wales on a train when I can simply drive and not have to face others.  In the past the train was first choice for me, I am even contemplating if I do the same to visit Model Rail Scotland in February and I do not like the drive once you're past the M6.

 

Locally, Andy Burnham is promising a London style public transport solution, if he pulls it off then perhaps Manchester will again have an attractive method of getting about rather than drive, but that is a few years away from being a complete reality and assumes it is seen through to completion.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, phil-b259 said:

However even at 200mph the time taken to go between London and Scotland still exceeds the magic 3hr

That may be true, but I can contrast this with my own experiences of travel from home (rural Hampshire near Winchester) to/from Brussels and Paris. Even with the time taken for the train from Winchester to Waterloo and the need to cross London to St Pancras, I still prefer the Eurostar to the flights. In the case of Brussels, I'd have to get to Heathrow. In the case of Paris, I can go from Southampton airport but you end up at Orly or CDG and have to trog your way in to central Paris.

 

Contrast with home to Manchester: 4 hours on the train. Flight 1 hour plus hassle of getting to/from/through the airports - in this case, the plane usually wins. A high speed train might well tempt me. (OK, current plans have nothing for the south, as usual, but a proper HS train plan should cover the whole country.)

 

Yours, Mike,

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

Even that journey involves crossing London - and I can tell you that Waterloo to Kings Cross is miserable if you have luggage, having done it numerous times.

 

 

 

Waterloo - Kings Cross is one of the few 'gaps' in tube coverage and has been cited as a major reason why Eurostar lots a large chunk of its user base after the move to St Pancras.

 

Had history turned out differently and the Great Northern & Strand tube proposal not been amalgamated with the Piccadilly and Brompton tube proposal then you may well have got a Waterloo - Kings Cross direct link. (Extending the Aldwich shuttle to Waterloo wouldn't have helped those with luggage etc as the need to change at Holborn would still have been an issue and no better than the current options).

 

The proposed Crossrail 2 would have addressed it to a degree for Suburban passengers though you would need far more mainline services to have stopped at Clapham Junction to have made it an attractive option for those from Hampshire.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Getting people onto public transport has probably also been impacted by Covid, if you have the choice, do you get into a vehicle with lots of strangers at close proximity or use your own private transport.

 

Yes and no.

 

If the fear of catching Covid from public transport was still a significant issue then why has leisure travel rebounded by 70% - 80%?

 

Logically if people are only using public transport because they have to then you would expect leisure travel to be lagging commuter travel, but thats not happened.

 

Thats not to say the 'I won't use public transport in case I catch Covid' attitude doesn't exsist (or that the their fears are not without reason) but the statistics don't show it as quite the problem the doom-mongers would have us believe.

 

In truth suspect that with the success of the vaccination programme many folk are not as fussed about taking public transport so provided we keep bucking the European trend and the prospect of Lockdowns etc is remote, usage of public transport will continue to rise.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, phil-b259 said:

Crossrail 2 would have addressed it to a degree for Suburban passengers though you would need far more mainline services to have stopped at Clapham Junction

Forget Crossrail 2 - there is in fact a rail line direct from Clapham Junction to St Pancras (via Loughborough Junction) that could already provide the necessary link. There are loads of services between St Pancras and South and South-East London, but none to South-West London.

 

Even a once-an-hour service between Clapham Junction and St Pancras would maker a huge difference. I agree that more mainline services need to stop at Clapham Junction - the current operators (DfT??) have a myopic focus on services to/from Waterloo. Waterloo must be one of the worst places to arrive/depart in London, since it is only good for getting to places in the very centre. Clapham Junction let's you get to a much wider area easily. I used to travel regularly to Gunnersbury in West London - hopeless via Waterloo (unless you take a train that takes you back via - guess where - Clapham Junction!).

 

Yours,  Mike.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 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...