HS2

[martin_wynne]

4 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Have you not yet understood that the purpose of electrification of road travel, is to reduce it substantially? 

 

What possible reason is there, to believe that electric road vehicles  and their associated support structure will ever be generally affordable, or capable of the sustained use hydrocarbon ones are capable of? 

 

Where I live every house has at least one car. Many have more than one.

 

The underground mains supply cables have been in place for 75 years.

 

Do they have sufficient capacity for every car to be charged overnight? 

 

Does the grid have sufficient generating and distribution capacity to keep every vehicle running if they are all electric? How much will it cost to upgrade it?

 

Martin.

 

[Pete the Elaner]

51 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Where I live every house has at least one car. Many have more than one.

 

The underground mains supply cables have been in place for 75 years.

 

Do they have sufficient capacity for every car to be charged overnight? 

 

Does the grid have sufficient generating and distribution capacity to keep every vehicle running if they are all electric? How much will it cost to upgrade it?

 

Martin.

 

 

When thinking about the feasability of EVs, we need to consider the future, not now.

Supply will meet demand.

I don't have anywhere to charge an EV right now, but in 10 years time, who knows?

As the demand for electricity will increase, the infrastructure to supply it will increase too. It is not cost effective to install massive supplies too far in advance of them being needed.

We saw the same with internet connections. 25 years ago: Dial-up was all everybody had except for larger companies.

Dedicated lines were installed to meet demand & new technology was introduced. It does not seem like so long ago that a 256Kb ADSL link was considered fast. What we demanded from it increased & the supply incrementally increased to meet that.

100Mb is now normal. That would have been unaffordable 10 years ago. Web sites have got way more complex & files much larger. A 256kb link would be poor & a 56k dial-up completely useless now.

 

Another analogy closer to home:

Railways have moved from steam to diesel to electric. Installation/upgrades were required to allow the consumers (in this case the locomotives) to function.

[Richard E]

Whilst we are straying a bit off topic it has been said many times by the power companies and National Grid that there is adequate supply for a 100% electric car environment right now. Others have suggested that the cable network cannot cope if we all require fast charging at home. I have yet to see concrete proof of either sides claim.

 

As regards viability of electric vehicle there isn't one out there that currently meets my needs nor are there those that I would consider affordable. And those are the hurdles that need to be overcome, the fact that the majority of car owners cannot afford to purchase an electric car will see ICE vehicles around for many years to come.

 

A sea change from ownership to short term affordable hire at ones destination is needed, that again has issues when looking at current car hire costs and, indeed, insurance matters.

[martin_wynne]

20 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

We saw the same with internet connections. 25 years ago: Dial-up was all everybody had except for larger companies.

Dedicated lines were installed to meet demand & new technology was introduced. It does not seem like so long ago that a 256Kb ADSL link was considered fast. What we demanded from it increased & the supply incrementally increased to meet that.

 

Well yes. But the internet is about distributing information. Thin wires, low voltages, radio, fibre optics. Electric vehicles require a distribution of energy. Thick wires and high voltages:

 

 

Martin.

[icn]

14 minutes ago, Richard E said:

Whilst we are straying a bit off topic it has been said many times by the power companies and National Grid that there is adequate supply for a 100% electric car environment right now. Others have suggested that the cable network cannot cope if we all require fast charging at home. I have yet to see concrete proof of either sides claim.

 

 

But do we all need fast charging at home? I suspect that 99% of the population don't, and the 1% can pay for it on demand when they need it. That said, I haven't even felt the need to get a driver's licence yet, never mind a car, so I may be being naive.

 

Most people would presumably need to charge overnight and can do so slowly - and overnight is also when demand is already lowest. I can imagine it working out all right.

 

Mind you I live in a town where they installed new glass fibres (underground) to every household a decade ago - so I have no doubts they could upgrade our electricity supply if needed.

Edited June 6, 2022 by icn

[Mike Storey]

3 hours ago, Gordon Connell said:

 

Since the British Nationality Act of 1981 we are nearly all British citizens. The term subjects is now restricted to a small set of people.

 

Well, you could have argued that from the 1948 British Nationality Act, but both Acts merely defined the immigration boundaries. They did not seek to determine what citizenship actually meant. Because we have a monarchy, we are all still subjects, as parliament and the armed forces swear allegiance to the Monarch, not to the country, and enact "her" laws, technically.

 

Without any written constitution, we are subject to the whims of any government, in terms of our rights.

 

[Mark Saunders]

7 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Without any written constitution, we are subject to the whims of any government, in terms of our rights.

 

With a written consultation you can have even more problems.

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, Richard E said:

Whilst we are straying a bit off topic it has been said many times by the power companies and National Grid that there is adequate supply for a 100% electric car environment right now.

Others have suggested that the cable network cannot cope if we all require fast charging at home.

I have yet to see concrete proof of either sides claim.......

 

One lot are the experts who are responsible for planning for and delivering the nations needs.

The other lot are blokes down the pub, sure of their own opinions, without any actual knowledge to back them up.

 

Home charging isn't fast charging.

The National grid has more than enough capacity overnight.

The problems lie with local distribution networks, many of which will have to be upgraded.

 

May I humbly suggest we move this particular subject the the dedicated threads that exist in the Wheeltappers.

It has very little relevance to HS2.

 

 

.

.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Ron Ron Ron

[KingEdwardII]

5 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Supply will meet demand.

That shows touching faith when we're talking about goverment planning. Even in a market economy, it can take some time for this to be so, even if there are no restrictions or planning regulations getting in the way of expanding the supply. For electricity, there is now no such market, but a system planned by the government and regulated from birth to death.

 

I don't think that the government has even remotely got its head around the implications of banning the use of gas for home heating. This affects the daily winter peak load and so is of critical importance to the electricity supply.

 

Equally, the production, storage and delivery of Hydrogen for railway use is another topic that has yet to come into focus with the government. All that diesel to replace. We know that replacing diesel with OHL can take decades to bring to fruition. Hydrogen ain't going to happen overnight either.

 

Yours, Mike

[rockershovel]

8 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

While that seems logical and has been the prediction for quite a long time, there should b a note of caution.

The demographers have a worst track record than economists, when it comes to forward predictions.

They've got almost everything wrong for the last 30 or 40 years.

 

In the UK, they didn't foresee the large surge in incoming migration from mainland Europe, during the 'noughties" and later.

 

.

That simply doesn't bear scrutiny... the British government was a primary driver of Eastern European accession, much faster than the EU wanted it. The EU, particularly Germsny and Netherlands were well aware of the likely consequences of having a "failed state" literally within walking distance, and introduced a system of controls regulating immigration, residence and rights to work and benefits over a period of 7 years. Their predicted total numbers would prove to be quite accurate - after all, they already had the experience of German reunification, and the populations of the Visegrad countries were well known. 

 

The German view was that this would allow a relatively orderly dispersal of the migrant population, and the cost of funding the social costs would have been widely dispersed also. 

 

The Blair administration, alone among EU nations, chose not to implement these controls, which (having been issued from Brussels) were there for the taking. The consequences are a matter of record. 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

39 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

That simply doesn't bear scrutiny...... 

 

 

I'm not sure what you're disputing?

Your account is accurate, but nothing to do with the UK population projections prior to those events, which hadn't anticipated what effectively had been unknown to the demographers a few years earlier.

Yes, the Blair administration....more likely the civil servants of the Home Office..... messed up; but that's something else.

 

Even years after the event, government considered that the high numbers were transitory and population predictions assumed a gradual reduction. Which turned out, didn't happen.....that is, until Covid arrived.

 

The point being, the best predictions cannot factor in unforeseen circumstances.

 

 

.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Ron Ron Ron

[Northmoor]

Demographers got their predictions for world population wrong because they badly underestimated how much birth rates would drop in some developing countries; I remember a stat that the number of children per family in Bangladesh had dropped from nearly 10 to about 3 in a single generation.  

What does all this have to do with HS2?  Well to predict future traffic levels 20-30 years ahead, you need not only a reasonable idea of the UK population but also where they will live and their age profile, which is quite a reliable indicator of their likelihood of travelling and how often. 

[KingEdwardII]

The more I look at Old Oak Common HS2 station, the more it seems like a major lost opportunity.

 

The site of the station is literally surrounded by rail and tube lines, yet makes connection with only one of them - the GWR main line, including the Elizabeth line. I suspect that the major connection here is the Elizabeth line to Heathrow, although the connection to the City and Canary Wharf is also better than that available at Euston.

 

The other lines, which seem to be ignored in the current plans are:

- Line from Clapham Junction to Willesden Junction

- Line from Richmond to Willesden Junction

- Central Line tube

 

Of these 3, probably the most significant is the Clapham Junction to Willesden Junction line. A connection to this line would provide easy access to trains to the south west and south suburbs of London, plus the North London line and the line through Wembley to Watford.

 

Claims are being made that the Oad Oak Station will be a major transport hub - the current connections planned seem very limited for such a claim, but could be made so much better.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Ron Ron Ron]

5 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

The more I look at Old Oak Common HS2 station, the more it seems like a major lost opportunity………….

 

Absolutely Mike.

The problem has been the division of various remits, with no overarching grand plan.

HS2’s remit and budget excludes those potential connections.

TfL  would have to create another budget for additional stations and links and require the government to fund them.

NR - it's not their project (even though they’ve been responsible for the western and eastern branch, Elizabeth Line station upgrades)

Wormwood Scrubs cannot be built on, so a proposed diversion of the WLL, was off the cards.

 

The government would have difficulty in providing the funding and providing the political will to address this issue, set against a background of the "levelling up" agenda and the massive amount of government debt being piled up, as a result of Covid and the knock-on effects of the war in Ukraine.

 

There are new station proposals on both the WLL and NLL, but a new station on the Central Line was ruled out, due to the proximity of North Acton station.

 

The closest of the proposed stations, is across the road from the new OOC station entrance, on Old Oak Common Lane, serving the NLL..

It’s been put on ice because London wants the national Government to provide the money.

The West London Orbital scheme would deliver additional services on this line.

 

The proposed station on the WLL (Hythe Road Station) would involve a long walkway being built to the OOC station.

Not ideal.

Diverting the line was ruled out at the onset, due to the scale of the work and the restriction on developing on Wormwood Scrubs land.

Again, London requires government funding to pursue this project.

 

Hopefully one or both of these links will follow on at some later date.

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed Old Oak Common Lane station.......

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed Hythe Road station.......

 

 

 

See these links.....

 

 

Old Oak Common Lane railway station

 

Hythe Road railway station

 

West London Orbital

 

Proposed stations.  (Rail Technology Magazine - October 2017)

 

 

 

 

.

Edited June 7, 2022 by Ron Ron Ron

[woodenhead]

Golborne link axed - used cover of Boris's vote for the press release.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/business/rail-firms-slam-hugely-disappointing-decision-to-axe-ps3bn-hs2-golborne-link-b2095726.html

[corneliuslundie]

What a surprise!

Jonathan

[Flittersnoop]

46 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Golborne link axed - used cover of Boris's vote for the press release.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/business/rail-firms-slam-hugely-disappointing-decision-to-axe-ps3bn-hs2-golborne-link-b2095726.html

Reducing the number of platforms at Euston looks less controversial now...

[APOLLO]

Golborne link out, alternatives still to be looked at.

 

Sir Peter’s final report, in November 2021, set out that the Golborne Link would not resolve all the rail capacity constraints on the WCML between Crewe and Preston. He recommended that the government should reduce journey times and increase rail capacity between England and Scotland by upgrading the WCML north of Crewe and by doing more work on options for alternative northerly connections between HS2 and the WCML.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/removing-the-golborne-link-from-the-hs2-bill

 

Interesting.

 

Brit15

[woodenhead]

I am guessing they may attempt 4 track as much of the route as they can in Cheshire - there is space, though the stations are all two track so a bit of work there.

 

Perhaps the argument may go, all Pendolino services would be replaced by HS2 trains so a partial uplift in capacity will make space for slightly increased speeds and negate the new tracks.

 

Wonder what this means for a HS2 station interfacing with HS3 Trans Pennine in Warrington.

[APOLLO]

Said many times, the WCML bottleneck starts at Wigan, 2 tracks from here up to Euxton Jcn & very busy. Also the double reverse curve through Wigan NW has a lowish speed limit (60mph or thereabouts), this even WITH the Golborne spur.

 

The 1 in 105 ascent up Boars Head & Standish starts here - some diesel powered freights literally crawl up here, several every day.- - I live Lineside near Boars Head.

 

Brit15

[phil-b259]

18 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

Reducing the number of platforms at Euston looks less controversial now...

Not really - all the cancellation will mean is trains for Scotland rejoin the WCML north of Crewe. They will still start / end their journey on HS2 platforms at Euston.

[Flittersnoop]

1 minute ago, phil-b259 said:

Not really - all the cancellation will mean is trains for Scotland rejoin the WCML north of Crewe. They will still start / end their journey on HS2 platforms at Euston.

So if it has little effect, cancelling the Golborne Link would seem to be a sensible move.

[phil-b259]

13 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I am guessing they may attempt 4 track as much of the route as they can in Cheshire - there is space, though the stations are all two track so a bit of work there.

 

Perhaps the argument may go, all Pendolino services would be replaced by HS2 trains so a partial uplift in capacity will make space for slightly increased speeds and negate the new tracks.

 

Wonder what this means for a HS2 station interfacing with HS3 Trans Pennine in Warrington.

It strengths the case for HS3 (or whatever the Government are calling it these days) via Bank Quay plus if they still keep in a east to south link / chord then some London - Liverpool trains can be sent that way rather than via Runcorn easing pressure on the WCML.

 

[woodenhead]

3 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

So if it has little effect, cancelling the Golborne Link would seem to be a sensible move.

Or it shows how much the original decisions made with regards the Eastern Leg and north of Crewe were political decisions to gain votes over sensibly costed proposals to benefit the population.

 

What we are seeing is a retrenchment to a London to Birmingham and Manchester premier line, they might as well call the operating company London and North Western Railway.

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, Flittersnoop said:

So if it has little effect, cancelling the Golborne Link would seem to be a sensible move.

Well it all depends on how much it would have aided extra trains over and above those the WCML

 

You also need to remember that a proportion of trains will start from Birmingham - not Euston (this providing paths for East Midlands - London HS2 trains).

 

As such although cancelling the link may have no effect on London it could have significant effects on HS2 service provision.

 

Of course if we had a sensible Government then HS2 would extend to the outskirts of Preston proper and not give up half way along.
 

As such it’s not a surprise it’s been found to be poor value for money, but what SHOULD have happened is the link be extended northwards - not scrapped!

Edited June 7, 2022 by phil-b259