High Speed Rail 2 questions

[Metroland]

Per direction, with flat junctions and vehicles turning on one lane, motorways are typically 1500-2000. Thus comparing with the same land space as a two track railway, which for the jubilee line, for examples reaches nearly 80,000 people in the two directions. Physically impossible using cars.

The point is, you will never get 1 million people into Central London during the peak hours by car, nor will automatic cars solve any sort of road congestion problems. Due to their diffuse journeys, the costs and practicalities, 20% increase to capacity at best can be expected. This will probably be offset by more people driving, that couldn't drive before.

This is assuming the technology actually works, is cost effective and widely taken up, and we can fuel the things.

 

[Zoe]

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.

No-one would own cars though, they would be called on demand. As they are self-driving you could quite easily work while the car drives itself. You would also be able to run the drivlerless cars at much higher speeds and closer together.

 

[Metroland]

Followed by massive vandalism by maundering chavs. I suspect an impractical pipe dream, fostered from reading too many sci-fi books that ignores real world practicalities. I also don't see how you can run at higher speeds, because a breakdown/vandalism of any of the cars would result in catastrophic crashes. Also more speed means LESS capacity. The optimum speed for a road is about 60-70mph.

 

[Zoe]

The optimin speed for a road is about 60-70mph.

With the current system of roads not everyone travels at the same speed and humans have slow reaction times compared to computers. It wouldn't be safe to runs cars close to each other at high speeds. If you have the cars are all driverless and run at 100 mph then you could safely run them close to each other. As for vandalism, you would most likely need to give your details when you called a car so they'd know who was responsible.

 

[Metroland]

Closer....Most cars are on very separate diffuse journeys, and the capacity is limited by vehicles turning into and out of the road. Even then most optimistic studies suggest doubling lane capacity on a motorway, which is still nowhere near rail, especially high frequency urban metro systems. Increases on urban roads with frequent turning, is far, far less.

You also underestimate how much space is needed for parking, where there is no space in dense urban areas.

I very much doubt there is a safety case for speeds over much more than we have now, also energy consumption would double in a area when fuelling cars is an issue and the carbon they produce.

 

[jon0844]

No-one would own cars though, they would be called on demand. As they are self-driving you could quite easily work while the car drives itself. You would also be able to run the drivlerless cars at much higher speeds and closer together.

Until any one of them has any sort of failure, and stops. The ones behind will then have to immediately stop too - so how close can they run to allow this safely? When one malfunctions and causes a major pile-up (of which the driver is a mere passenger and can't do anything) then you'll suddenly - like airlines - see loads of them, maybe even all of them, 'grounded'.

And how will millions of driverless cars communicate with each other? What happens when the signal is lost on one vehicle? Does everything grind to a halt? And how is it fixed? An automated driverless AA vehicle?

You've been watching too much SciFi. We're already family cars with loads of tech (look at the new Ford Focus) but they still work WITH the driver not instead of.

When a million people come into London and the driverless cars drop people off, where do they go then? Do they park in some huge car park or drive back empty (good for the environment)? And if they're now driving back many miles, they're adding to congestion without even having anyone inside...

 

[Zoe]

You also underestimate how much space is needed for parking, where there is no space in dense urban areas.

I very much doubt there is a safety case for speeds over much more than we have now, also energy consumption would double in a area when fuelling cars is an issue and the carbon they produce.

Well as I said, these would be electric self-driving cars not petrol. You would also not need space for parking as these cars would not be sitting outside offices doing nothing. Once you arrive at your destination the car will then drive itself either to the next customer or back to the depot to wait for the next call. It should also be noted that High Speed 2 though will not be running at London Underground frequencies and like self-driving cars on motorways will not have to deal with many conflicting movements.

 

[Metroland]

Well High speed 2 is still designed for 20,000 people per hour in one direction, which is still far more than an automatic highway - should the technology work/be adapted/so on and so forth. HS2 will also be running at 250mph, far faster too. Your notion of no need for parking assumes 100% utilisation, which is fantasy. Also you will still be flooding cities with additional traffic.

I think your demise of passenger rail is rather fanciful, and is based on a lot of assumptions. I have no doubt technology will play a role in the future on all modes, but I suspect the demise of any one form of transport will be a wrong prediction and each mode will serve different purposes. This assumes rail will not increase its capacity/speed through automation.

Also, those of use that want towns and cities to be kept walkable and for humans would also object. Our cities are generally not designed for cars as it is. There are many town planning and social ramifications too and I suspect it's not quite the perfect solution it might seem.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well as I said, these would be electric self-driving cars not petrol. You would also not need space for parking as these cars would not be sitting outside offices doing nothing. Once you arrive at your destination the car will then drive itself either to the next customer or back to the depot to wait for the next call. It should also be noted that High Speed 2 though will not be running at London Underground frequencies and like self-driving cars on motorways will not have to deal with many conflicting movements.

But there is conflicting movements and congestion problems off the motorways which cars will ultimately have to go. Just because you double capacity on the M1, means you make the congestion problems at each end twice as bad.

 

[Zoe]

But there is conflicting movements and congestion problems off the motorways which cars will ultimately have to go. Just because you double capacity on the M1, means you make the congestion problems at each end twice as bad.

The same goes for High Speed 2, if it does indeed result in more people arriving in Birmingham by rail then there will need to be improvements within Birmingham to get people to their final destination. It should also be noted that I am not saying that driverless cars would be the end of rail, certainly not. I am just saying that there may not be as much need for railways in the future as some people think there is. I certainly would not suggest that we should reduce existing capacity.

 

[Metroland]

The same goes for High Speed 2, if it does indeed result in more people arriving in Birmingham by rail then there will need to be improvements within Birmingham to get people to their final destination.

But the point is people arriving by public transport tend to walk/use other public transport, maybe a taxi at a push.

You are suggesting we get more people to enter already congested cities by car.

It should also be noted that I am not saying that driverless cars would be the end of rail, certainly not. I am just saying that there may not be as much need for railways in the future as some people think there is. I certainly would not suggest that we should reduce existing capacity.

It is impossible to predict the future, but I would suggest it would be unwise to base transport policy now on technology that doesn't exist in any meaningful way. I have noted people mentioning nuclear fusion, which is also not a practical reality, and indeed may never be. We have a few environmental/resource problems right now that are not being solved by technology (at least quick enough) and are more likely mean the shrinkage of mass motoring in the future too. It's actually very hard and unwise to say what transport will look like in 50 years.

 

[Zoe]

Any driverless car system would only be allowed as far as the outer zones of the London Underground. Unlike with the current system where you can't prevent people driving into London, this driverless system would not allow you to select a destination within a city centre without good reason.

 

[Metroland]

Seems like you are making more assumptions which actually makes the journey time much longer, thus transferring to rail, thus needing HS2.

 

[Zoe]

Seems like you are making more assumptions which actually makes the journey time much longer, thus transferring to rail, thus needing HS2.

Unless these driverless cars could be made to run on a network similar to that at Heathrow Terminal 5 within cities. There is currently no infrastructure to support a system like this though. Regardles of this though, is it really that important to get from London to Birmingham faster than currently possible?

 

[Metroland]

It's not just London-Birmingham, its most of the major economic centres north of London. Reducing travel times has lots of economic effects.

One of the chief reasons a lot of business will not locate away from London and the SE is because it's too far from anywhere and it's not easy to get the right skills. This is why the North tends to be poorer compared to the South. It's not because people are more stupid, or are less well educated, it's because of access to markets.

So time is very important.

Even so, there are people absolutely determined to stop any progress in this area though fantasy arguments, claiming the country will be destroyed or we will be bankrupted. The same people that would have had us rely on canals in the 1800s, meaning we would all have stayed a lot poorer because goods and people would be unable to move above horse speed, thus reducing costs, thus opening markets, thus creating jobs, thus creating a standard of living we all now enjoy.

I was reading in Modern Railways earlier: The number of properties affected by high noise levels will be 10, the only bit that will be going through the Chilterns area of natural beauty is 1.2 miles and very few properties will actually be demolished.

This project is the same per year as the free pensioner bus pass, so will hardly bankrupt the country.

 

[Zoe]

If the line is to benefit other cities in the Midlands and the North then why use an environmentally destructive direct route to Birmingham? Why not follow the former GCR and MML corridors with a branch to Birmingham? If you want to go from London to Newcastle then it's quite a diversion to go to Birmingham first. I doubt many people would use the M40, M42, A42, M1, A1 route so the railways should also use a more direct route.

 

[Metroland]

Well it's all about the alignment needed for speed. I suspect there will be some debate over if we drop that maximum operating speed slightly it can go through a less destructive route, but obviously that will make the business case slightly weaker.

 

[Zoe]

The speed may well be higher but if you are going to Newcastle you will lose the benefit of higher speeds due to the extra distance going via Birmingham.

 

[Metroland]

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2011/04/07-hs2-trains-should-be-slower.html

http://www.cpre.org.uk/filegrab/1right-lines-a-charter-for-high-speed-raill.pdf?ref=4643

 

[jon0844]

Any driverless car system would only be allowed as far as the outer zones of the London Underground. Unlike with the current system where you can't prevent people driving into London, this driverless system would not allow you to select a destination within a city centre without good reason.

You're now setting rules for a system that doesn't exist? I think you're simply trolling now, as you can't believe any of the nonsense you're posting.

Just out of interest, how do people get to where they need to go when they get to the outskirts of town. Driverless car gets me to Cockfosters, I take the train to Arnos Grove and now need to visit my mate in Friern Barnet. Do I walk those couple of miles, or call a special fleet of driverless taxis waiting outside that are allowed in town?

 

[Zoe]

you can't believe any of the nonsense you're posting.

I'm sure in the past many current technologies we have today would have been thought of as nonsense.

 

[Metroland]

Yes technology is a wonderful tool, but it can create as many problems as it solves. It also needs to be practical, cost effective, and work within the limits that is trusted and useful in most people's lives.

Most future predictions fail, because they do not appreciate practicalities and the fact that most people are very conservative in their outlook.

In the 1960s people were told by now they would not have to work, electricity would be free, space holidays would be a regular thing. All have which have proven to be extremely wide of the mark.

 

[tbtc]

Just because you double capacity on the M1, means you make the congestion problems at each end twice as bad.

This is one reason for HS2. We could spend millions tackling problems like Welwyn Viaduct, but they'd just push the bottle necks further along the track (to the next section where there aren't four tracks).

Tinkering with one junction/ tunnel/ viaduct/ station may only mean the same problem arriving at the next obstacle. For example, if you double-track the Dore chord then more trains will be able to run from Sheffield to Manchester, but will there be capacity at Sheffield or Manchester for these (or capacity at the single track section outside Hazel Grove)?

The only way we will truly get round these problems is by building long "segregated" lines, not making lots of small improvements.

 

[Zoe]

This is one reason for HS2. We could spend millions tackling problems like Welwyn Viaduct, but they'd just push the bottle necks further along the track (to the next section where there aren't four tracks).

I would four track Welwyn and Huntingdon to Peterborough, this would give four tracks from King's Cross to Stoke Summit. Once north of Peterborough you don't have to share tracks with London commuter services.

 

[jon0844]

I'm sure in the past many current technologies we have today would have been thought of as nonsense.

That's such a vague 'catch-all' comment, as you've failed to give any examples.

Yes, you are right in what you say, but that doesn't mean we'll all be getting around with rocket packs in the future or living on the moon. Both could happen tomorrow, in theory, if you ignored cost, logistics, safety and so on.

I don't want to blow my own trumpet, but having worked in technology since 1990 - including editing a technology magazine and writing for The Guardian and Stuff, I like to think I'm aware of many things that could happen in the future.

But even Wired isn't saying we'll have driverless cars in ten years time, or suggesting they'll ever be used, because they look at the other factors - as raised here - to see that just because you can doesn't mean you should.

 

[Zoe]

just because you can doesn't mean you should.

In the case of driverless cars I would have thought their introduction would be a priority, if nothing else just as it would be much safer.

 

[rb311]

In the 1960s people were told by now they would not have to work, electricity would be free, space holidays would be a regular thing. All have which have proven to be extremely wide of the mark.

And in the 2010s we are being told that a new high speed line between London and Birmingham and onwards is going to improve everyone's lives, not blight the landscape, only cost £17 billion, free up capacity on other lines, be a wonderful green mode of transport and drive all cars and planes out of business.

Different fantasy, same story.

In the case of driverless cars I would have thought their introduction would be a priority, if nothing else just as it would be much safer.

And in my experience of operating equipment that does things automatically, you have to monitor the systems just as closely as you would if you were doing it manually. Nothing is completely fail safe, particularly on a motorway at 70mph.

 

[brianthegiant]

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.

Basically you're saying we shouldn't invest in our (seriously overstretched) rail network, but that we should wait for a technology which doesn't yet exist, and if it ever was introduced would likely require major infrastructure work on our work network.

As a systems engineer I agree with Jon Morris, driverless cars are a pipe dream, alongside nuclear fusion, and all the quack perpetual energy machines people ramble on about on the internet.

If driverless cars have been trialled so succesfully and are imminently ready to be commercialised as vehicles for public roads, then great Zoe, post us a link to a peer-reviewed academic journal paper describing these successful trials (not some vague half baked website with a bunch of concept drawings), and we might take this seriously..

Perhaps also you'd like to explain to all the commuters who have to endure terrible overcrowding every day just to earn a living that we cant expand the rail network, because we are waiting for them to have driverless cars....

I've heard a lot of ill-informed arguments against HS2 but this has to be about the worst...If the anti-crowd are stooping to driverless cars, then I think that basically demonstrates that the argument for HS2 has been won.

 

[Zoe]

Perhaps also you'd like to explain to all the commuters who have to endure terrible overcrowding every day just to earn a living that we cant expand the rail network, because we are waiting for them to have driverless cars....

I am not saying the railway does not need investment but there is a difference between increasing capacity on commuter services and building a high speed line from London to Birmingham, I expect HS2 will be a premium service. There are already a few differnt ways to get from London to Birmingham and driverless car likely in the future be an option. It's also possible that in the future people won't need to travel as much as they do now.

 

[jon0844]

I don't believe for one millisecond that you really believe driverless cars will save the day, or even happen (excluding cars that can take away MOST functions from the driver - but will still need the driver in the 'hot seat' to oversee and take over when required).

I can accept other arguments, whether I agree with them or not, but this is ridiculous.

Even other people who are anti-HS2 aren't likely to be adding this to their list of reasons for not going ahead with it!

 

[Zoe]

I don't believe for one millisecond that you really believe driverless cars will save the day, or even happen

I believe that driverless cars are inevitible in the future and that their availability will transform transport. GM executives are on record as saying the that they plan to have them on the road around 2018. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2008/01/07/driverless-cars.html Don't forget also that with telecommuting a real possibility there may simply not be the same demand for travel there is now.