High Speed Rail 2 questions

[LE Greys]

Let me go through a few things.

1. Water expands when it warms up, as does everything else. See here
2. The ice caps on land, especially Greenland and Antarctica, would cause significant sea level rise if they melted. Since that is not in the sea, greater runoff from that will lead to more water ending up in the sea (Antarctica holds 75% of the world's fresh water)
3. Sea ice does play a role in oceanic temperature regulation, it acts as a mirror. Take away a small ammount, and the exposed seawater will absorb more heat, creating a feedback cycle that eventually removes all the sea ice.
4. The solar cycle is widely understood (hundreds of years of records help) and is factored into the climate models.
5. Changes in the Earth's orbit are much more significant in climate regulation. Again, these are widely understood, and extrapolating the cycles suggest that global temperatures should be going down, since the three main cycles (100,000 yrs, 40,000 yrs and 22,000 yrs) all peaked around 2,000-3,000 years ago. Why then are temperatures going up?
6. The data for this comes from ice cores in Antarctica, and is confirmed by similar borings in Greenland. Typical data trace from wikipedia, there are more detailed ones out there.

This is just part of the data, you can find much more if you look.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And? Most people didn't own mobile phones until the early 1980s. Few people flew anywhere to take a holiday...

Or are you saying there was a time where everyone who could have a car chose not to and coped fine? If there was a good example of that, I'd maybe agree with your flawed logic.

TBH, I preferred it that way. I have a mobile, but hardly ever use it, and then only for calls and texts, no internet access and I don't want it either. Mobile phones did result in a great loss of phone boxes, but they still exist and people still use them. I do fly to go on holiday sometimes, but generally find that there was really not much point and it was much more interesting to travel on the surface (preferably by rail). What's so good about Lanzarote anyway? Sheringham's much nicer!

Frankly, we have a lot of stuff now that we could cope fine without. I could manage without digital media, or even television. There's more than enough a.m. radio stations for anyone. In general, the improvements have given us more choice, but a lower-quality product. Are they really such a good thing?

Now, if they meant that I could make day returns to Aberdeen without having to book...

 

[The Planner]

But where would all you luddites vent if t'internet hadn't have been invented ??

 

[LE Greys]

Oh yes, and if you look at the Earth in the mid Jurassic (which was about the warmest Earth ever got, known from various sources including data from seafloor cores) then it wasn't such a paradise.

• Land area was about 10% smaller than today
• The climate at our latitude was effectively sub-tropical
• Rainfall was a lot higher (to put this into perspective, there would be paddy fields in Northumberland if the Earth got that hot and wet)
• Hurricane-force storms would have been common (this is a supposition)
• The equatorial band would have been too hot to support rainforests, so were most likely desert

However, the world was richer in oxygen (so it's no coincidence some Dinosaurs were very big)

Oh yes, it's worth mentioning that London, Bristol, Liverpool, Glasgow and Belfast would all be underwater, as would about half of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire.

 

[Zoe]

The days of the private car though are numbered. Even without climate change and peak oil, once driverless cars are introduced there won't be any reason to own one.

 

[LE Greys]

But where would all you luddites vent if t'internet hadn't have been invented ??

The Sunday Times letters page.

I'm not saying the world was better then, I'm just saying it's not better now.

 

[jon0844]

I now make few calls but use email and text a lot, and surf the net. I don't drive anywhere near as much as I used to and prefer to let the train take the strain if possible.

But trains don't always go where I want to, when I want to, or for the money I'd like to pay. That's why I won't give up my car, even though doing less mileage makes it more expensive (technically) to own and insure. Still, I save on fuel at £1.38 a litre I suppose.

Zoe, what does a 1980s death trap have to do with arguing for getting rid of cars?

The days of the private car though are numbered. Even without climate change and peak oil, once driverless cars are introduced there won't be any reason to own one.

Won't a driverless car still need passengers though, or will they just go around empty because they can? Surely someone will still own a vehicle regardless of who drives it, or how it is powered.

Just as I think HS2 will go ahead, I don't believe that we'll get rid of cars. Cars will almost certainly run on electricity, or some other renewable energy source, and so we won't need to worry about the lack of petrol (or expense). The airline industry has a lot more to worry about though, as I think aviation has a long way to go before being able to ditch fossil fuels.

(How we generate the electricity to recharge electric vehicles can be saved for another day/thread).

 

[swt_passenger]

...anyway back on topic

what track tech are they going to employ on HS2?

I would hope some form of ballastless rail for the price quoted. anyone seen anything mooted on this topic by the government?

It's on the DfT website, in the route technical appendix:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....drail/hs2ltd/technicalappendix/pdf/report.pdf

Ballasted track generally with slab track in tunnels.

 

[Zoe]

Won't a driverless car still need passengers though, or will they just go around empty because they can? Surely someone will still own a vehicle regardless of who drives it, or how it is powered.

Driverless cars would be called on demand like with an elevator. They would be a more efficient use of resources as they would be in use most of the time and not sat outside on a drive doing nothing. For example if you wanted to go into town then you'd phone up a number to call the car. It would then arrive, you would get in and select your destination. Once you arrive in the town the car would then be available to be called by other customers.

 

[CarterUSM]

So nobody will own one privately?

 

[Zoe]

So nobody will own one privately?

I expect private companies would own the fleets but it wouldn't be an efficient use of resources for people to indivicually own them.

 

[jon0844]

Driverless cars would be called on demand like with an elevator. They would be a more efficient use of resources as they would be in use most of the time and not sat outside on a drive doing nothing. For example if you wanted to go into town then you'd phone up a number to call the car. It would then arrive, you would get in and select your destination. Once you arrive in the town the car would then be available to be called by other customers.

Like the pods at Heathrow Terminal 5? Or the taxis in Total Recall?

 

[WatcherZero]

Taxis are driverless cars (well your not driving are you?), now imagine if the taxi driver wasnt a human.

 

[jon0844]

Taxis are driverless cars (well your not driving are you?), now imagine if the taxi driver wasnt a human.

I've had a few non-human taxi drivers in my time!

When will we be getting these driverless cars Zoe? And, how do we ensure the safety of others - especially pedestrians and cyclists?

 

[Zoe]

When will we be getting these driverless cars Zoe?

Google have been testing and so far the tests have been very succesful.

 

[jon0844]

Care to put a rough date to it then? Six months, a year, five years, ten years, fifty years?

Airplanes can land themselves, but pilots are still needed to take over or fly manually if required. Do you REALLY think that cars will be totally driverless and you and the kids can just sit in the back playing games, drinking or sleeping? Do you think there will be a day where everyone has to switch over to the new system, as having a computer system mixing with ordinary drivers would be madness.

 

[Zoe]

Care to put a rough date to it then? Six months, a year, five years, ten years, fifty years?

There have been predictions that the system will be available in ten years but I expect it will take much longer to fully introduce it.

 

[jon0844]

Predictions by who?

Anyway, it's late - I'm off to bed.

Maybe you should read the following for some mixed opinions, and I think it might show that ten years is optimistic to say the least.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/04/02/1529237/Googles-Driverless-Car-and-the-Logic-of-Safety

 

[WatcherZero]

Would we have believed 10, 20 years ago that some modern family cars would have three seperate radars?

 

[Rhydgaled]

tbtc is right, population is not an issue to really be discussing on a HSR forum.

I think I'll agree on that now, I'll just take up your point on immigration, I think that while the global population should be reduced (there have been major summits like Copeghagen, all that's needed is for everyone to actually agree, though that is unlikely) there should generally be migration of the population to selected countries, so that these see only a very small reduction in population overall, while other areas are left to nature and native tribes. Making the population of a developed country too small would be counter productive in transport terms, as it makes public transport less viable, but the smaller total number of developed countries should make food stocks more sustainable. There would of course be a need for food imports, but aviation should be reduced as a means of importing. This is a difficult subject as you say.

Two points, you cannot consider London Birmingham on its own as it is just the first stage of a full network. Secondly, well that’s one of the many good points, HS2 will attract modal shift from air from Scotland, that is green, reducing air travel. Why delay construction to make it more ‘green’ that’s a daft idea. So what do we do in the meantime, drive around in our petrol cars until it is built guzzling more fuel, when there is already a capacity issue? It is not going to be finished until 2023 and the capacity issues will be acute then and more people will be in their cars. Plus the green argument is bit of a red a red herring, all transport is going to use energy. The only really green form of transport is walking or cycling so what do you propose we do?

The inital phase of HS2 will not go far enough to tackle air travel. If Manchester and Birmingham are given through stations, then once the Manchester phase is complete then it should start to make an impact. On the government's own admition HS2 is at best Carbon Neutral. Cars guzzle fuel, but most trains in the UK produce less greenhouse emmisions than the equivelent car travel. The main reason I'm against HS2 is that some figures show the planned 350kph plus trains to be just as poluting as the cars removed from the road, a lower top speed (at least until the line has reached Manchester) would help. I also think the intial frequency of over 10 trains per hour may prove a little excessive for a time. On capacity grounds, having read your agruments about the Chiltern line, I think a new passenger line is the answer for London - Birmingham - Manchester capacity issues. If I'm wrong though and you do need over 10tph then having Birmingham as an intermeidate calling point (through station) on route to Manchester should make better use of line capacity.

w1bbl3 said. “renewables are not a base load producer and by their very nature unless a major technological breakthrough is made never will be. Base load for at least the next 50 years will be either A) coal, B) gas C) nuclear fission or a combination of the three.”

Why do you think I was on about wave and tidal stream rather than wind power? These technologies should not experience the same level of fluctuations you get with wind power, so can provide the base load along with nuclear (hopfully more renewables, and possiblly nuclear fusion, will eventually take over from the nuclear fission component when those plants reach end-of-life). and many enlargements to off-shore wind farms Your suggestion of pumped storage would help a bit too.

Why on earth would you electrify Oxford to Hereford? It is not a heavily used line, I am sure the economics would not stack up. Why not the Midland, transpennine or cross country routes as a higher priority if you are making this argument?

Only because not electrfying this would result in new diesel (ok, bi-mode) Intercity trains with end of life not likely to be before 2050 or a reduction in through services to London on the route, neither being particularly acceptable. Midland or Cross Country electrification would be more expensive than Oxford - Hereford, but I think it would actually be a better idea as class 22x units (with a slightly earlier expiry date) could then be used on the Oxford - Hereford with the much debated (on here) pantograph cars.

As for funding for roads, well you are wrong on that, road funding has been slashed. The only major road funding going ahead is the M25 widening which has been criticised by the audit office for being poor value for money.

That's supprising, I hadn't heard about road schemes being cut, all WAG's seem to be going ahead and I haven't heard anything from UK gov. about road cuts. How much for the M25 then? Cut that and keep electrification and HS2 perhaps? Cutting just one of WAG's road schemes (an extra lane on parts of the Heads Of The Valleys road) would, at the rate per mile quoted for Cardiff - Swansea electrifcation, pay for the whole ValleyLines network to be electrfied.

So we don’t move passengers onto a new line, we move the freight. Why would that be economically beneficial, would that be cheaper? I don’t understand the logic. Plus where would the freight line go? That the thing about freight it needs to go to different destinations all over the country. Its needs access to the trunk routes and the branch lines. What increase in emissions? Over what are you comparing the increase with? “Slight increase in capacity”? Massive increase in capacity with High speed rail over trains on classic lines.

Assuming capacity would increase by X amount if freight was removed from the existing lines, there would be an increase of capacity of X plus a small amount if the fast passenger trains where moved off instead. Electric freight trains on new lines would consume the same amount of electricity as electric frieght on old lines, whereas HSR would comsume more electricty than a passenger express traveling at classic speeds, that's the increase in emissions I was refering too. Also any extra freight carried is probablly taking a lorry off the road, whereas taking cars off the road for a HSR might not make any reduction in total emmisions. As for the increase in costs, my agrument is that by building a freight line you can have much sharper curves, which gives you more le-way to avoid areas with lots of particularly expensive engerneering works.

Then there's the question of where to put a new freight line, I admit that's a good argument, and I don't have an answer for you right now. However, you have the much same problem with HSR, where do you put your route? This is another problem I have with HS2, the route to Manchester and Leeds will help with capacity on the southern streches of the WCML and ECML but do nothing to help London - Reading on the GWML or the routes into the southern London terminals (eg. Waterloo). This is why I think provision should be made to allow Euston to be a through station for HS trains, allowing HS2 to be later extended into a proper UK High Speed network, not just a north of England HighSpeed network based on a core of: Reading - Heathrow - Euston - Birmingham - Manchester, plus a spur, maybe along the Great Central, to Leeds. That's assuming you cap the top speed of the trains so they don't emmit more than cars of course.

 

[dalmahoyhill]

stockport1
What is it with global warming deniers? Sun spots, Tudor heat waves etc etc lets carry on as before. Well even if global warming was the biggest scientific cock up in history, it still wouldn’t change the fact something has to change about the way we do things.

There are a number of reasons why our profligate use of energy and resources has to reduce.

Rise of BRIC countries
With so many former third world countries now booming and quickly catching up with us economically, the west no longer has a monopoly on energy and resources. We are competing over a finite level of minerals, this is only going to get more acute. Australia only survived dropping into recession because its economy is built around exporting its mineral wealth to china. Steel and other materials has rocketed in price as China has sucked up a large percentage of the world supply. It is quite happy to do deals with unsavoury countries to secure its supplies.

Potential peak oil approaching.
The press seems to suggest that peak oil means the taps will run out which is rubbish. Its not, there is plenty more oil in the ground but its going to be more and more expensive to extract it at a time when demand is still increasing. Our economy is built around the cheap and plentiful supply of oil this is going to have to change. Unless we adapt we will be backed into a corner. That’s why petrol prices are a red herring, yes they have a reasonable whack of tax built in but its never going to be cheap again no matter what the government does. America is addicted to profligate use of oil, and you can see their economy is heading for a car crash unless they adapt. But by trying to keep prices as low as possible there is no incentive to change until the ***** hits the fan which is too late.

Security of Supply
If our own north sea supplies are slowly starting to dry up where are we going to secure our energy and raw materials from? Mainly unsavoury countries that have us over a barrel. Russia? An Oligarchy run by Putin who doesn’t need to sabre rattle using the military, he just turns the gas off. He happily turned it off to Ukraine and Belarus. Germany has been falling over themselves to do deals. The middle east? Unstable and filled with dodgy regimes that we prop up for their oil. The Arab Emirates are trying to build up Dubai and Abu Dhabi as alternatives for when the oil runs out. In my opinion they will have tumbleweed rolling through them mad max style in 50 years time as the Arabian Peninsula has nothing other than oil.

The upshot of all this is raw materials and energy is only going to get more expensive. The economies that are going to get through it the best are the ones who switch to low carbon the quickest.

I haven’t even mentioned water and food issues.

 

[jon0844]

I think there's a multitude of issues around our resources, and fossil fuels in particular. I think it's a totally separate issue to global warming.

I am not even sure where they got linked, other than the link between burning fuel and the planet heating up.

Taking aside the issue of global warming, we have to address the issues you've raised. We need to become less dependent on oil, especially when it isn't simply the ability to obtain oil, or the cost to the economy, but things like the shift of power as other nations and territories become more powerful and affect global stability.

Now, I'm no expert and could probably wind up going around in circles trying to determine how A gets to B to C to D.. but I do know it's very significant and will shape the future of the world in the next 10, 20, 50, 100 years.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I am not even sure where they got linked, other than the link between burning fuel and the planet heating up.

Many of the measures to mitigate one problem can also help with the other. Also climate change and our extraction/use of resourses both have pontential to damage habitats, which further links the two issues via conservation of biodiversity.

 

[jon0844]

I think that when people were simply asked to use less fuel, or pay more for it, people moaned.

Then it all turned to saving the planet and preventing global warming. Suddenly people felt guilty and it became okay to argue that we should pay about £50 a litre for fuel.

I'm all for cutting energy consumption, but not because it may stop the planet warming up. If it turns out that global warming isn't influenced by man, I'll still seek to cut consumption anyway.

 

[stockport1]

"What is it with global warming deniers? "

exactly that statement

heeee denies.....burn him hes a denier.

holocaust denier
global warming denier

because the truth is self evident and needs no laws to support it.

man made global warming is not self evident.
neither is it truth.
there are people out there that dont want to believe that they have bought a great big fat lie.

"The consensus is"

..the world is flat.

oh and the east anglia uni.....ask where its *green* funds come from
ask why they are looking for evidence to support a theory and discarding all data that contradicts....thats not science. thats a coverup.

 

[Nonsense]

I think I'll agree on that now, I'll just take up your point on immigration, I think that while the global population should be reduced (there have been major summits like Copeghagen, all that's needed is for everyone to actually agree, though that is unlikely) there should generally be migration of the population to selected countries, so that these see only a very small reduction in population overall, while other areas are left to nature and native tribes. Making the population of a developed country too small would be counter productive in transport terms, as it makes public transport less viable, but the smaller total number of developed countries should make food stocks more sustainable. There would of course be a need for food imports, but aviation should be reduced as a means of importing. This is a difficult subject as you say.

hock:

"left to nature and native tribes" Do you actually hold that view? Think about it for just a moment. Really do.

I would also suggest that a smaller population has reduced infrastructure and resource needs, making private transport more viable.

The inital phase of HS2 will not go far enough to tackle air travel. If Manchester and Birmingham are given through stations, then once the Manchester phase is complete then it should start to make an impact. On the government's own admition HS2 is at best Carbon Neutral. Cars guzzle fuel, but most trains in the UK produce less greenhouse emmisions than the equivelent car travel. The main reason I'm against HS2 is that some figures show the planned 350kph plus trains to be just as poluting as the cars removed from the road, a lower top speed (at least until the line has reached Manchester) would help. I also think the intial frequency of over 10 trains per hour may prove a little excessive for a time. On capacity grounds, having read your agruments about the Chiltern line, I think a new passenger line is the answer for London - Birmingham - Manchester capacity issues. If I'm wrong though and you do need over 10tph then having Birmingham as an intermeidate calling point (through station) on route to Manchester should make better use of line capacity.

So your main objection is that, according to some figures, the trains running at full speed is as polluting as the car journeys it hopes to replace, and should therefore run slower, except when the line reaches Manchester and then the additional pollution doesn't bother you.

You also state that you think a new passenger line from London - Birmingham - Manchester is the answer to capacity problems. So what is your objection to HS2?

Assuming capacity would increase by X amount if freight was removed from the existing lines, there would be an increase of capacity of X plus a small amount if the fast passenger trains where moved off instead. Electric freight trains on new lines would consume the same amount of electricity as electric frieght on old lines, whereas HSR would comsume more electricty than a passenger express traveling at classic speeds, that's the increase in emissions I was refering too. Also any extra freight carried is probablly taking a lorry off the road, whereas taking cars off the road for a HSR might not make any reduction in total emmisions. As for the increase in costs, my agrument is that by building a freight line you can have much sharper curves, which gives you more le-way to avoid areas with lots of particularly expensive engerneering works.

What is your argument? You're concerned about power consumption? Is the electric bill reason enough to not build a railway.

Then there's the question of where to put a new freight line, I admit that's a good argument, and I don't have an answer for you right now. However, you have the much same problem with HSR, where do you put your route? This is another problem I have with HS2, the route to Manchester and Leeds will help with capacity on the southern streches of the WCML and ECML but do nothing to help London - Reading on the GWML or the routes into the southern London terminals (eg. Waterloo). This is why I think provision should be made to allow Euston to be a through station for HS trains, allowing HS2 to be later extended into a proper UK High Speed network, not just a north of England HighSpeed network based on a core of: Reading - Heathrow - Euston - Birmingham - Manchester, plus a spur, maybe along the Great Central, to Leeds. That's assuming you cap the top speed of the trains so they don't emmit more than cars of course.

You agree that HS2 will help with capacity problems on the southern WCML, i.e. its very purpose, but object because it will do nothing for a transport corridor it doesn't serve.

My apologies for picking on your post but your arguments are confused and unfounded. What is your real problem with HS2?

 

[brianthegiant]

Regardless of whether you believe the climate change denialists. Its even harder to make a convincing argument against improving the UKs energy security. We now comsume more oil & gas than we produce in the North Sea. So it is imperative to reduce fossil fuel consumption both for economic and moral reasons:

Economically -since imports are bad for our balance of payments

Morally because oil & gas purchasing tends to financially support governments with poor human rights records and lack of democracy / free speech (the 'resource curse' effect, eg Gaddafi/Iran/Saudi Arabia /Russia, Nigeria, etc)

Hence why electric trains and renewable energy are a no-brainer
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Google have been testing and so far the tests have been very succesful.

Erm I think 'very succesful' doesn't stand up to rigorous scrutiny, all trials of driverless cars rely on a driver to take the wheel when the controls dont account for unforseen issues of which there are many, for example in russia, everyone ignores lane markings when its busy ie 3 lanes become 4 lanes, at this point your driverless car loses the plot, there are plenty of other examples. I very much doubt genuinely driverless cars would ever be allowed on public uk roads, too many variables / risks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

(hopefully more renewables, and possiblly nuclear fusion, will eventually take over from the nuclear fission component when those plants reach end-of-life). and many enlargements to off-shore wind farms

I agree about renewables, but nuclear fusion continues to be a pipe dream. Fusion is the only proposed electricity 'generation' technology I can think of which has actually consumed far more energy than it has ever produced. Not to mention the phenomenal research funding that has been spent on fusion research which could have been spent on actually building eg tidal turbines etc.

 

[w1bbl3]

Why do you think I was on about wave and tidal stream rather than wind power?

Current tidal stream systems including those proposed would in a typical river mouth struggle to achieve 10MW of generating capacity let alone the 1GW+ of a typical coal, gas or nuclear plant. The generated capacity per sq ft is vastly lower than traditional non non-renewables. IIRC the London array wind plant requires nearly 90sq miles of land/sea to produce 1GW.

Energy is basically going to get a lot more expensive per W generated in the future.

That's supprising, I hadn't heard about road schemes being cut, all WAG's seem to be going ahead and I haven't heard anything from UK gov. about road cuts. How much for the M25 then?

The contracts where signed back in 2009 and construction is very much underway on M25 widening, the scheme due to finish by Christmas, it was a mere £6.5bn for 70(ish) miles of road after being de-scoped by 20 miles, not a shining example of efficient procurement.

Electric freight trains on new lines would consume the same amount of electricity as electric frieght on old lines, whereas HSR would comsume more electricty than a passenger express traveling at classic speeds, that's the increase in emissions I was refering too. Also any extra freight carried is probablly taking a lorry off the road, whereas taking cars off the road for a HSR might not make any reduction in total emmisions. As for the increase in costs, my agrument is that by building a freight line you can have much sharper curves, which gives you more le-way to avoid areas with lots of particularly expensive engerneering works.

But surely to avoid large scale demolition works, your scheme is still going to require tunnelled elements through cities unless the new freight lines only run to distribution centres outside towns/cities for road haulage to then provide final mile transport... most bulk point to point flows are already by rail.

The market to be captured with new freight is trunking hub and spoke pallets and containers, where new long lines are not significantly additive to capacity and local branches lines moving 5 to 40 tonnes as a single drop can't compete with road, neither would the carbon emissions be any lower.

Network rail need to figure out how to enable high volume guaranteed time freight movement overnight to genuinely serve this market.

Alstom claim that their AGV will offer lower energy consumption per passenger km at 300km than a Pendilino at 200km. This is supposed to be realised by improved traction package, reduced vehicle weights via carbon composites and aluminium, articulation to reduce inter vehicle crumple zones, aero work on the front vehicle profile and aero work on drag reduced bogies... Structural weight reduction is something can't be retrofitted to existing designs but more on that further below.

This is another problem I have with HS2, the route to Manchester and Leeds will help with capacity on the southern streches of the WCML and ECML but do nothing to help London - Reading on the GWML or the routes into the southern London terminals (eg. Waterloo). This is why I think provision should be made to allow Euston to be a through station for HS trains, allowing HS2 to be later extended into a proper UK High Speed network, not just a north of England HighSpeed network based on a core of: Reading - Heathrow - Euston - Birmingham - Manchester, plus a spur, maybe along the Great Central, to Leeds. That's assuming you cap the top speed of the trains so they don't emmit more than cars of course.

HSR demonstrates maximum benefit over extended sectors not short commuter hops a 250mph or 125mph train will spend most of the route accelerating and decelerating on a Reading <> Paddington sector, SWT Waterloo routes wouldn't experience 125mph running let alone 200+ until the trains where out in Hampshire, Sussex and Dorset. Time spent accelerating to line speed is a major factor in overall energy demand for the service.

Gauge enhancement and route clearance to allow European double deck trains would represent a better way forward for SWT and likely for Reading commuter flows.

Cars are relatively short life cycle devices rapidly and readily improved by the manufacturers wishing to sell consumers new models so with your capping idea what happens after say 5 years if low carbon cars emit less than HSR say due to improved traction packages and structural weight reduction? Remember the HSR trainset will likely last 30 years+ against 10 to 15 years for a car. At this point should the HSR route shutdown? or should new trains be procured...

 

[Zoe]

The thing is though that if a fleet of electric self-driving cars was to be introduced then there may not be such a need for passenger rail travel.

 

[Metroland]

How so? The maximum capacity of an A road is about 800 vph, with with 1.5 average people per car this is 1200 people per hour. In theory you could put them all on 1 HSR train and it would be gone in seconds, followed by 29 more in that hour.

Metrolines have capacities that far outstrip motorways and so on.

Even if you automated them, because they are separate vehicles you could only increase capacity by 20% at best.

Then not everyone can afford a car, not everyone wants a car, not everyone wants to travel by car. You can work onboard a train, for instance.

There is uncertain future over how private transport might be fuelled.

With increased urbanisation there is likely to be a need for more public transport (especially rail) and less private.

 

[The Planner]

How so? The maximum capacity of an A road is about 800 vph, with with 1.5 average people per car this is 1200 people per hour. In theory you could put them all on 1 HSR train and it would be gone in seconds, followed by 29 more in that hour.

800vph seems low to me. Is that both ways or one way, and based on a 2 lane road ?? As that works out at 400vph in each direction or just under 7 vehicles a minute. Compare it to a major motorway though and the figures are around 4300vph or 6450 pph or 5 and a bit HS2 trains, but as everyone says, you can make stats say whatever you want.