High Speed 2 - do we really need it?

[Failed Unit]

Actually, no new plants are being built. Plans have been drawn up that is all. As to windmills, Im afraid you are simply wrong. When a high pressure system sits over the UK next time, then you can count the amount of them turning on one hand. And, as I said, oil prices will affect power generation much more in the future.

Are the gas prices not directly linked to the oil prices anyway? So as we depend on gas so much we should be very concerned about oil prices.

I suspect in 20 years time the demand for travel on ALL forms of transport will be greatly reduced as it gets more expensive.

On concern for rail as a whole is the traction is actually getting less efficent. I know we have regen braking and the MTU engines on the HST's are better than the old engines, but we all know that the EMU's needed power upgrades on 3rd rail land. Likewise a 185DMU user a lot more diesel than a 158 it replaced. One that I have not seen verified but often quoted is that a 9 car voyager use less fuel than a 9 car HST set - can't be right!

 

[gordonthemoron]

I was under the impression that Voyagers & Meridians use a lot more diesel than HSTs, which is one of the reasons that XC got the HSTs back

 

[Failed Unit]

I was under the impression that Voyagers & Meridians use a lot more diesel than HSTs, which is one of the reasons that XC got the HSTs back

Yes but then people say they don't use them because the voyagers are cheaper, which I could understand if they are just talking about a 4 car voyager -v- HST but not a double voyager -v- HST

 

[Respite]

You just answered your own question there.

WCML is NOT well sorted. There were merely a few junction improvements. 140mph was descoped because it was too expensive, and we all know how much it cost anyway.

So in your view, we should upgrade lines from Castleford, Wrexham, Holyhead etc to 140mph?

So how does the business case stack up for these towns? answer, it doesn't.

I honestly wonder if there are any brains on here at all sometimes :roll:

Well I guess you missed my point totally there as well as being rather rude. I did not say I would like to see 140mph from everywhere, I said that if they gave us incab signalling on the WCML so we could have 140mph running as the Pendos in derated power form will give us then I don't see why we need HS2 at all. My point was that money needs investing in secondary lines not in another London to the midlands/north high speed affair. The infrastructure on most secondary lines is appalling. As for business case, well I guess you have missed the point there. I'm sorry but I'm more interested in public service than business cases. See the Welsh assemblys current plan to see that somewhere people are starting to realise that things in the modern railway are seriously wrong.

 

[Metroland]

Nevertheless the rail system is not historically dependent on oil, nor given decent energy policy should it be in the future.

Given in an energy crisis the government would prioritise fuel for more effecient users of energy and public tranport would be given priority over private, plus energy is a relatively small cost for the railways it isn't as big issue as some would like to paint it.

Certainly aviation and road frieght are far more dependent on oil prices and that's an undisputed fact. Peak oil is not peak energy, but it does cause problems for transport that is a heavy user of liquid fuels.

 

[YesToHS2]

I have read a lot of comments about the benefits (or lack of) of connecting London to Birmingham but I haven't seen "classic compatible" stock mentioned. Even before the line is extended past Birmingham people from Liverpool, Manchester and Scotland will benefit from a journey saving. Saving without Manchester extension as follows
Manchester 28 minutes, Liverpool 18 minutes, Glasgow 31 minutes. With an further extension to Manchester the times are slashed still further. See Journey times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2.

Not only will people North of Birmingham enjoy faster journeys they will benefit from the capacity increase that will come from the new line an new rolling stock. Not forgetting better more comfortable rolling stock.

I have also read a lot about aviation. I believe this is a redundant argument. People are forgetting that HS2 will not be open until 2025 by then fuel prices would have doubled meaning the average person will not be able afford to fly to commute as they do at the moment. That is one of the reasons the government project such a large increase in rail demand. No matter what happens electrically powered vehicles will always be more efficient than aircraft and petrol powered cars.

 

[Failed Unit]

Nevertheless the rail system is not historically dependent on oil, nor given decent energy policy should it be in the future.

Given in an energy crisis the government would prioritise fuel for more effecient users of energy and public tranport would be given priority over private, plus energy is a relatively small cost for the railways it isn't as big issue as some would like to paint it.

Certainly aviation and road frieght are far more dependent on oil prices and that's an undisputed fact. Peak oil is not peak energy, but it does cause problems for transport that is a heavy user of liquid fuels.

I think that is the whole point about electrified railways, at least it is simple to change the source of the electricity as technology changes. Who knows what we could be generating electric from in 50 years time, we may not have even developed the technology. I know likewise we could all be in electric cars / lorries / buses (trams) by then as well as battery technology may have improved. When I was younger everyone thought that oil would have ran out by now - glad they were wrong with that but I can see $100 back again as the economy picks up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have read a lot of comments about the benefits (or lack of) of connecting London to Birmingham but I haven't seen "classic compatible" stock mentioned. Even before the line is extended past Birmingham people from Liverpool, Manchester and Scotland will benefit from a journey saving. Saving without Manchester extension as follows
Manchester 28 minutes, Liverpool 18 minutes, Glasgow 31 minutes. With an further extension to Manchester the times are slashed still further. See Journey times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2.

Not only will people North of Birmingham enjoy faster journeys they will benefit from the capacity increase that will come from the new line an new rolling stock. Not forgetting better more comfortable rolling stock.

I have also read a lot about aviation. I believe this is a redundant argument. People are forgetting that HS2 will not be open until 2025 by then fuel prices would have doubled meaning the average person will not be able afford to fly to commute as they do at the moment. That is one of the reasons the government project such a large increase in rail demand. No matter what happens electrically powered vehicles will always be more efficient than aircraft and petrol powered cars.

I guess that date is also significant in the sense that the classic lines will be very full by then should demand continue to rise. What we don't know is if it will from the business point of view. I personally don't need to go into an office everyday as I can work from home just as well. I am sure that many people are the same, culture may change that video conferencing is just as acceptable as face-to-face so transport will only be for leisure.

One of the biggest reason London - Newcastle is not 2h30 every hour is other trains getting in the way, it could be achieved today. But that is another debate. I can't see the growth continuing as it is, I can see working patterns changing, 10 years ago you were on a dial up modem, today you are probably as quick at home as you are in the office so why go in if you are just a cube farm person?

 

[YesToHS2]

If we are going to talk about electricity. It's not as bad as people make out. People forget that we still have millions upon millions of tonnes of coal of our very own, it will be ironic (if the conservatives are still in power) that when the times comes we will have to send miners back down to keep the lights on. If this happens electricity prices should remain stables as oil prices rocket. Coal will be a temporary stop gap until the new generation of nuclear plants come on-line over the next 20 years. Not forgetting that hopefully at least 20% of our electricity will come from renewables.

I say build the Severn barrage what's more important climate change or a few birds? One barrage could produce the same electricity output as a nuclear power plant.

 

[Zoe]

New coal fired planes would be a big no-no though due to CO2 emissions.

 

[Respite]

New coal fired planes would be a big no-no though due to CO2 emissions.

Funny enough I was looking at pictures of an actual steam powered plane the other day....so you never know.

 

[gordonthemoron]

New coal fired planes would be a big no-no though due to CO2 emissions.

not if they can perfect Carbon Capture and Storage. There is a test plant run by Vattenfall in east germany. Don't know how successful it's been though

 

[YesToHS2]

It isn't a question of CO2, it a question of keeping the lights on. When push comes to shove the government will stop at nothing to keep the grid going, even going back to good old coal. And you never know carbon capture and storage might work on an industrial scale by then.

 

[Zoe]

It isn't a question of CO2, it a question of keeping the lights on.

If it's about keeping the lights on or saving the planet though it's an interesting question.

 

[YesToHS2]

Don't get me wrong I don't want to see more CO2 pumped into the atmosphere but when you know when it comes to keeping the lights on the government and big business will always win the argument.

 

[Greenback]

Perhaps it;s more realistic to say that government will always dow aht big business tells it to do!

 

[imagination]

Err...
Maybe if you read what i said further on you might not post what you did. Let me remind you....




The point being that the oil price will affect electricity generation more in the future than it does now....

Sorry, I made that post as I was looking through the thread then forgot to edit it later.

Incidentally, while we may be currently importing almost all our coal, there's no reason why this has to be done - the UK has large reserves of some of the highest quality coal in the world. It's just that labour costs are so much cheaper in, say, China, owing largely to the fact that they don't care about the thousands of people that die in the coal mines...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So in your view, we should upgrade lines from Castleford, Wrexham, Holyhead etc to 140mph?

Maybe just upgrade the holyhead line a BIT... not to 140 MPH - 100 would do
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Actually, no new plants are being built. Plans have been drawn up that is all. As to windmills, Im afraid you are simply wrong. When a high pressure system sits over the UK next time, then you can count the amount of them turning on one hand. And, as I said, oil prices will affect power generation much more in the future.

While you are correct in saying that wind farms need back up, the wind farms are generating energy a large part of the time, and during this time the back up is using a negligible amount of fuel.

Plus wind isnt all of the renewables section (although it is a large part of it in the UK because we have such a lot of it). Hydro-electric power needs no such backup.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I say build the Severn barrage what's more important climate change or a few birds? One barrage could produce the same electricity output as a nuclear power plant.

And I say build the tidal lagoons proposed by Friends of the Earth - which would generate as much electricity for about the same cost and actually BENEFIT the birds - the only down side being it would take up a bit more land.

 

[YesToHS2]

And I say build the tidal lagoons proposed by Friends of the Earth - which would generate as much electricity for about the same cost and actually BENEFIT the birds - the only down side being it would take up a bit more land.

Lets get on with it then. Though I can see it turning into another HS2. People not wanting it built for on reason or another and then complaining about cost and an unsightly structure. I assume some sort of concrete barrage would still need to be built?

When will people in the UK learn that we need to build this thing in order to retain our way of life. We rely on electricity and we rely on rail. We can not just go around saying that we want it but not in my back yard. Nuclear, wind, hydro, motorways, rail. All the same we need them but nobody wants to look at them.

 

[imagination]

There is a trial of the lagoon version being run near Swansea at the moment. And yes it would actually need more concrete barrage than the barrage itself.

 

[brianthegiant]

ah you've got me on my specialist subject now...

the arguments against wind on the basis of fluctuation are usually exagerated for a number of reasons, 1) highest wind resource coincides with highest electricity demand (very windy weather is also very cold (its in the winter). 2) you need enough reserve capacity on the grid to allow for failure of your largest station (sellafield-2GW). most anti wind groups claim you need 1:1 thermal backup for wind thats just guff, like saying you need a different fire engine for road accidents from the one you use for flooding for example.

The point with our future low carbon energy policy is there is no silver bullet, we need a mix of sources - wind, hydro, biomass, wave, tidal, solar, coupled with hard headed energy efficiency and demand side management. that is the future, prices of oil, gas, uranium and coal will only rise above inflation going forwards.

even large scale solar pv has now crossed over & is cheaper than nuclear, nuclear gets more expensive (stricter H&S) solar pv gets cheaper (new technology - steep curve). onshore wind however is now way cheaper than nuclear per kWh, and is competitive with oil, gas & coal, (despite the availability constraint)

carbon capture & storage (CCS) is VERY costly per kWh and far from commercially proven, it is by and large a political trick for getting off the hook like other energy policy red herrings (hydrogen for example).

anyway to bring this back to topic, in terms of climate, change and energy security there is a strong argument for new electric rail lines, rather than increased airport & road capacity (which is the real argument not HS vs Classic)

 

[imagination]

carbon capture & storage (CCS) is VERY costly per kWh and far from commercially proven, it is by and large a political trick for getting off the hook like other energy policy red herrings (hydrogen for example).

On the other hand it could do what solar power has done and get a lot cheaper very rapidly. It's still a technology in its infancy at the moment, which tends to mean it is far more expensive than it will be once the technology gets a bit more advanced. Combine that with the fact that coal is generally the cheapest power source and you could well see CC&S power stations being commercially viable. Especially considering that energy prices are going to go up.

 

[YesToHS2]

Has there been no argument for more pump storage power plants to be built. Surely when the wind is blowing at night they electricity could be used to store power for peak times. That would keep the critics quiet.

I'm still not quiet convinced about wind turbines, a lot of people say they are not yet producing the power to offset CO2 caused during construction and installation. I don't care what the nimbys think of them, I think they are graceful and much more attractive than say Fiddlers Ferry power plant. but the CO2 figures must stack up.

If anyone gets the chance visit Dinorwig pump storage plant, it's like being driven into a James Bond set.

 

[142094]

Contrary to what a lot of people think, it is hard to store electricity per se. The only real thing is as you point out is HEP plants such as Dinorwig and the ones in the Highlands which use leccy when it is cheaper at night to pump water into a eservoir and then use the water to generate electricity at peak demand.

 

[LE Greys]

From my point of view, the eventual best answer is fusion. If we ever build a plant that can (A) breed its own fuel from seawater/lithium and (B) generate more electricity than required to do this, we will have essentially an inexhaustible, low-carbon power supply. It would have a few additional benefits, like producing very large quantities of hydrogen as a waste product.

Still, before we get there, I agree that we need to do something. A series of new fission reactors, replacing the magnox reactors and AGRs, would be able to keep on providing the baseline generation capacity for another forty years or so. Assuming that they're PWRs, then that would almost certainly increase production by 20% without any increase in fuel usage of numbers of sites. I've also wondered whether former oil platforms could be used for power generation, perhaps by mounting wind turbines on the structure, or attaching those "sea snake" machines to the platform legs. If they are a long way out, it would increase the length of cable required, but might save on setup costs overall. Apart from that, if the tidal lagoon project does mitigate damage to bird habitat, the Severn Barrage sounds like a good idea.

anyway to bring this back to topic, in terms of climate, change and energy security there is a strong argument for new electric rail lines, rather than increased airport & road capacity (which is the real argument not HS vs Classic)

That's certainly true. Even if we continue to debate, for instance, electrifying the GWML vs say "HS3" from Paddington/Old Oak to Bristol/Cardiff via Heathrow and Reading, I don't think there are many people here who would disagree with your point.

On another point, I wonder if it's possible to extend some of the HS1 domestic services right through to the other side of London. This might require four tracks in places, but (say) Dover - Folkstone - Ashford - Ebbsfleet - Stratford - St Pancras (reverse) - Old Oak - Aylesbury (maybe) - Brackley (maybe) - Banbury - Leamington Spa - Warwick - Stratford-upon-Avon. Of if that's too ambitious, Dover - Folkstone - Ashford - Ebbsfleet - Stratford - St Pancras (reverse) - Old Oak - Bicester - Oxford.

 

[RichW1]

It seems people of the anti-progress lobby in this country will find any argument why Britain should stand alone in not having high-speed rail because it NEEDS to increase capacity badly. High speed shouldn't be seen as something special anymore; just intercity travel default setting. Intercity=high speed rail.

How do these people that enjoy the views set-up by entrepreneurial Victorians and Georgians answer the fact that Britain was built on getting on with things and grand ideas building the country!! Not to mention 10% public sector (yes that's 10% public sector!!) allowing entrpreneurialism to flourish which is exactly what is happening in China. They are using our economic model from the 19th century to build their 21st!

We cans till do this too like Korea now for example but there is no room for NIMBYISM and socialist barriers to progress based in ill educated understanding of what built the original things these very people now seek to protect!

Guess what...we have a larger state than China! UK=60% China=23% Do your economics and any history lesson will tell you there's a correlation between low tax low public sector economies and prosperity which actually means governments take MORE tax revenues meaning we get better railways and more high speed rail! Rant over.

 

[Greenback]

It seems people of the anti-progress lobby in this country will find any argument why Britain should stand alone in not having high-speed rail because it NEEDS to increase capacity badly. High speed shouldn't be seen as something special anymore; just intercity travel default setting. Intercity=high speed rail.

How do these people that enjoy the views set-up by entrepreneurial Victorians and Georgians answer the fact that Britain was built on getting on with things and grand ideas building the country!! Not to mention 10% public sector (yes that's 10% public sector!!) allowing entrpreneurialism to flourish which is exactly what is happening in China. They are using our economic model from the 19th century to build their 21st!

We cans till do this too like Korea now for example but there is no room for NIMBYISM and socialist barriers to progress based in ill educated understanding of what built the original things these very people now seek to protect!

Guess what...we have a larger state than China! UK=60% China=23% Do your economics and any history lesson will tell you there's a correlation between low tax low public sector economies and prosperity which actually means governments take MORE tax revenues meaning we get better railways and more high speed rail! Rant over.

Do you have any sources for the facts and percentages you mention? I'd be interested in having a look!

 

[RichW1]

Do you have any sources for the facts and percentages you mention? I'd be interested in having a look!

These will help!

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/38744
http://info.hktdc.com/econforum/sc/sc021001.htm
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...act-of-government-spending-on-economic-growth
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-trillion-pound-horror-story/4od#3139408

 

[YesToHS2]

From my point of view, the eventual best answer is fusion. If we ever build a plant that can (A) breed its own fuel from seawater/lithium and (B) generate more electricity than required to do this, we will have essentially an inexhaustible, low-carbon power supply. It would have a few additional benefits, like producing very large quantities of hydrogen as a waste product.

Fusion is the only answer for the survival of our way of life. When ever I mention it in conversations it gets laughed off so I don't bring it up much any more. Fusion is getting better and Europe will be at the forefront with the impressive work they are doing at Cambridge and the experimental plant being built in France. It's still about 50 years off but we will get there one day.

It seems people of the anti-progress lobby in this country will find any argument why Britain should stand alone in not having high-speed rail because it NEEDS to increase capacity badly. High speed shouldn't be seen as something special anymore; just intercity travel default setting. Intercity=high speed rail.

Thank you, that is what I've been trying to tell people. The difference in price between building "conventional speed" and a "high speed line" is only about £2bn across the entire HS2 project. The difference being HSR has the potential to bring real and far reaching benefits.

 

[Zoe]

One issue that seems to be overlooked is that of self-drivng cars. Google have recently been testing a driverless car all over California and so far these tests have been successful. Some people predict they could be on our streets by 2018 and driving could be banned shortly after that time. If this were to be the case then no-one would need to own a car and you'd order one just like you order a taxi now. It could almost overnight reduce the number of vehicles needed as you wouldn't have car sitting in drives most of the time doing nothing. This could somewhat negate the need for public transport. Since a driverless car would remove the human element, higher speeds would be possible and so faster journey times.

 

[YorkshireBear]

One issue that seems to be overlooked is that of self-drivng cars. Google have recently been testing a driverless car all over California and so far these tests have been successful. Some people predict they could be on our streets by 2018 and driving could be banned shortly after that time. If this were to be the case then no-one would need to own a car and you'd order one just like you order a taxi now. It could almost overnight reduce the number of vehicles needed as you wouldn't have car sitting in drives most of the time doing nothing. This could somewhat negate the need for public transport. Since a driverless car would remove the human element, higher speeds would be possible and so faster journey times.

While clever youd need loads in the peaks and you wouldnt have one at your will... therefore it becomes like pulic transport... you have to wait for it

 

[tbtc]

Some people predict they could be on our streets by 2018 and driving could be banned shortly after that time

They may be on the streets in small numbers in eight years time, I don't know, but the idea that driving would be "banned" is a little far fetched, surely?

Its politically sensitive enough for the Government to tell people they need to throw out their AM/FM analogue radios and switch to DAB digital ones - look at the pussy-footing around something like this - so the idea of any Government banning people from driving (forcing them all to buy brand new cars???) is a strange one...

Even if such cars were commonplace, there'd still need to be public transport to shift large number of people, as individuals sitting in a car each on a road/ motorway are no substitute for a train/ coach/ tram/ bus