High Speed Rail 2 questions

[Metroland]

I'm not the one who works for the airline industry that has already confessed they have no interest in the railways. Indeed, keep shoving it down our throats..

For the record I couldn't care less if it's built or not, I have no financial interest, nor am a member of any lobby group. I support it, but it doesn't matter in the end either way if the UK wants to rely on Victorian infrastructure and Middle East oil.

Whether it's built or not is pure speculation, at this stage.

More people travel out of the UK than travel in (by quite some margin) so actually the international airports represent something of an economic drain, especially when they help the disbalance between north and south by perpetuating business activity in the SE.

 

[LE Greys]

More people travel out of the UK than travel in (by quite some margin) so actually the international airports represent something of an economic drain, especially when they help the disbalance between north and south by perpetuating business activity in the SE.

Sorry, can't resist this. Does that mean that our population is going down because of emigration?

 

[Metroland]

Nope, according to the office of national statistics in 2004 foreign visitors spent £11 billion in the UK, while UK residents spent £26 billion abroad - a loss to the UK economy of £15 billion. No wonder UK seaside towns are benefit claimant backwaters.

Most business has no need for aviation (even the ones where it does, there has been a steady export of jobs as deals are done abroad instead of here). Even my business does 1/3 of its trade abroad and I've never set foot aboard a plane.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and you can apply exactly the same arguments to other forms of transport and 'do we really need them?'.

The UKs future may be no transport growth, and restricting travel by price.

 

[Zoe]

It may well be that in the future the average person won't be able to afford to have a car and they will be the domain of the rich. I remember a few years back when it was suggested that road pricing would force a lot of people out of cars that train fares may have to be increased to prevent overcrowding due to any modal shift.

 

[rb311]

For the record I couldn't care less if it's built or not, I have no financial interest, nor am a member of any lobby group. I support it, but it doesn't matter in the end either way if the UK wants to rely on Victorian infrastructure and Middle East oil.

You couldn't care less but think that unless we do build HS2 our transport infrastructure would remain Victorian??? I sense a little hysteria creeping in.

The fact is that the only part of the UK's infrastructure that is victorian, or perhaps better described as sub victorian is the railway network. Sub victorian because it has been systematically de-constructed over the years, a policy I presume, Metroland (with a sentimental name like that), you disagree with.

But by supporting a scheme proffered by the same people who presided over this destruction, you seem to think everything will suddenly be fine.

Building HS2 is like putting a new engine in the SS Great Britain, and sending her out into service again, never-minding the state of the hull, the decks, indeed all the other systems required.

As to you never having stepped aboard an aircraft, and regarding your view of the value of international travel and trade, I am not surprised you haven't been sent abroad.

 

[LE Greys]

It may well be that in the future the average person won't be able to afford to have a car and they will be the domain of the rich. I remember a few years back when it was suggested that road pricing would force a lot of people out of cars that train fares may have to be increased to prevent overcrowding due to any modal shift.

The thing is we already have a very effective form of road pricing, called fuel duty. If you drive more, you pay more for fuel. If this continues to go up, motoring will become the domain of the rich and train fares will rise because of the cost of diesel. Does that mean that fewer people will want to move around? Unlikely, except perhaps on local lines where subsidy might have to be increased. The best reason for building new lines is to transport more people and goods. Not sure if it will keep prices down, but it will keep things moving.

 

[Zoe]

Some people believe that the cost of fuel alone won't be enough to force people out of cars and onto public transport though and that an additional price lever is needed for this. If people do get forced out of cars then without extra rail capacity train fares will have to significantly rise to prevent overcrowding.

 

[Christopher125]

Building HS2 is like putting a new engine in the SS Great Britain, and sending her out into service again, never-minding the state of the hull, the decks, indeed all the other systems required.

Not building it would be like a tree growing its branches without strengthening its trunk - capacity constraints on our mainline's have a massive knock-on effect across the network, they have the greatest economic impact and cost the most money to sort out. The whole rail network needs to keep in step with demand, including the WCML.

Chris

 

[Zoe]

Not building it would be like a tree growing its branches without strengthening its trunk

But they are not building the trunk in the correct location. They are ploughing through the Chilterns to get to Birmingham. They could opt for a more central route with a branch to Birmingham.

 

[LE Greys]

But they are not building the trunk in the correct location. They are ploughing through the Chilterns to get to Birmingham. They could opt for a more central route with a branch to Birmingham.

Or put in a "collector" station at Brackley (the same function as Ebbsfleet) and widen the service to provide fast suburban trains as an extension of the Southeastern high-speed service. The Chilterns are on a direct line to Birmingham, especially if you want to put in a loop via Heathrow (which they don't for some reason). However, they are more difficult to build through and don't offer quite such good options for construction. Heathrow might form a junction for a new line to Bristol, another line through Watford Gap might provide an option for following the GC towards the East Midlands.

I've said before that it's not perfect, but surely it's better to press on rather than go back to the drawing board and wait another ten years.

 

[Zoe]

The Chilterns are on a direct line to Birmingham, especially if you want to put in a loop via Heathrow (which they don't for some reason).

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. On one hand you are stating that the Chilterns are on a direct line to Birmingham and that is correct but then you seem to be supporting ploughing a new line to Birmingham through them.

 

[60163]

I can't be arsed to read this whole thread - tl:dr and all that - so what do people think about the possibilty of bi-modal locos: electric trains carrying diesel engines inside, or, as Lord Berkeley suggested, make usage of under-used locos such as the 67s to drag new electric locos through the non-electrified parts?

 

[Zoe]

what do people think about the possibilty of bi-modal locos

Bi-mode locos would be pointless when you can just have EMUs with underfloor engines.

 

[Metroland]

You couldn't care less but think that unless we do build HS2 our transport infrastructure would remain Victorian??? I sense a little hysteria creeping in.

The fact is that the only part of the UK's infrastructure that is victorian, or perhaps better described as sub victorian is the railway network. Sub victorian because it has been systematically de-constructed over the years, a policy I presume, Metroland (with a sentimental name like that), you disagree with.

But by supporting a scheme proffered by the same people who presided over this destruction, you seem to think everything will suddenly be fine.

Building HS2 is like putting a new engine in the SS Great Britain, and sending her out into service again, never-minding the state of the hull, the decks, indeed all the other systems required.

As to you never having stepped aboard an aircraft, and regarding your view of the value of international travel and trade, I am not surprised you haven't been sent abroad.

Been abroad plenty of times. I've never said everything would be fine after HS2, but the demand is along this line of route. The only other option is to upgrade Victorian routes which has it's own problems. We could have easily of said, when the motorways were built, we could have dualled the old roads - many of which date back long before the Victorians. But we built something that was fit for the time instead.

 

[rb311]

The point about demand is that it is always changing. If, as many of the doomsayers predict, travelling becomes prohibitively expensive, and localisation begins to re-emerge as a way of life, then long distance travel will wilt considerably.

What would happen then to HS2, or the relived capacity it has created? I'm afraid that the predictions this potential development are based on are pretty speculative at best, and that the answer, ie High speed Rail, is favoured because it is seen by vote fancying politicians as the only major transport mode that is environmentally acceptable.

How ironic is that, when you consider how much virgin countryside will be destroyed, as a result of some pretty shaky crystal ball gazing?

As to motorways, they were built to a design that was seen in the 60s as a 60s solution, and now 30 years hence they are proving inadequate to the task in hand, that, surely is the same with HS2.

If it were to be truly revolutionary, truly visionary, then why is it being built to be used in 20 years hence using current technology. It is a stand alone route with virtually no interchange, and no link to HS1, so why not adopt technology of the future, like maglev for example?. Then perhaps it would capture more imagination and support, most importantly from businesses who might invest and ease the burden off the back of the creaking taxpayer.

 

[Geezertronic]

It is a stand alone route with virtually no interchange, and no link to HS1, so why not adopt technology of the future, like maglev for example?. Then perhaps it would capture more imagination and support, most importantly from businesses who might invest and ease the burden off the back of the creaking taxpayer.

In the docs I have read, there is a link to HS1 and also a link to the WCML at Lichfield. Also, in the initial London to Birmingham link, you can interchange at International and Birmingham City Centre with legacy line running north of Birmingham so what is so stand alone about that?

 

[rb311]

In the docs I have read, there is a link to HS1 and also a link to the WCML at Lichfield. Also, in the initial London to Birmingham link, you can interchange at International and Birmingham City Centre with legacy line running north of Birmingham so what is so stand alone about that?

Typical response.. Ignore the main thrust... Perhaps a bit more constructive criticisim of my point might be useful.


As i undestand there certainly won't be a connection with HS1, at least not for a great while. As to interchanges... are parkway stations not interchanges, but we don't see trains heading off down the road do we?

 

[Geezertronic]

Typical response.. Ignore the main thrust... Perhaps a bit more constructive criticisim of my point might be useful.


As i undestand there certainly won't be a connection with HS1, at least not for a great while. As to interchanges... are parkway stations not interchanges, but we don't see trains heading off down the road do we?

Typical angry response from you to be honest... ignore the facts as readily available on the internet in favour of the deny all rule

A direct link to HS1 would also run from the main high speed line at Old Oak Common.

 

[jon0844]

Is mentioning maglev similar to Godwin's Law?

 

[rb311]

I think a better example of Godwin's Law is that HS2 will provide spare capacity on other lines....

 

[Geezertronic]

I think a better example of Godwin's Law is that HS2 will provide spare capacity on other lines....

Or maybe a better example would be if you hope for long enough they might actually cancel HS2 since you seem to be so intent on it not being built in the first place...

 

[jon0844]

How can HS2 not release capacity on other lines?

Trains will either move over, or they'll run trains on HS2 and keep the ones they run on the classic lines.

If they release capacity by moving, that gives the opportunity to run slower/stopping services more often.

If the existing services run as they are, in addition to those on HS2, there's going to be so much capacity that fares would plummet. Of course, that can't be true as fares are going to be hundreds of pounds a time.

So what is it to be? Which argument are you trying to win? You can't win them all!

 

[Nonsense]

The point about demand is that it is always changing. If, as many of the doomsayers predict, travelling becomes prohibitively expensive, and localisation begins to re-emerge as a way of life, then long distance travel will wilt considerably.

Or, as I'm sure the same "doomsayers" will tell you. Personal/private transport will be out of reach for masses, pushing more people to the alternatives, the most viable being the railway. And localisation is a myth. Global trade isn't a new thing.

What would happen then to HS2, or the relived capacity it has created? I'm afraid that the predictions this potential development are based on are pretty speculative at best, and that the answer, ie High speed Rail, is favoured because it is seen by vote fancying politicians as the only major transport mode that is environmentally acceptable.

Maybe I'm tired. But what are you trying to say here?

How ironic is that, when you consider how much virgin countryside will be destroyed, as a result of some pretty shaky crystal ball gazing?

Again. What? You have your own crystal ball?

Say you're right. And HS2 rusty rails are torn up. Have you ever visited a disused railway? How long does it take for 'vigin countryside' take to grow back? Check your ball.

As to motorways, they were built to a design that was seen in the 60s as a 60s solution, and now 30 years hence they are proving inadequate to the task in hand, that, surely is the same with HS2.

Back to your crystal ball. What would adequately move an immense number of road vehicles? Even hovercars get stuck in traffic. Motorways weren't build to a 1960s design, they were built to meet the capacity believed necessary at the time. Massive difference.

If it were to be truly revolutionary, truly visionary, then why is it being built to be used in 20 years hence using current technology. It is a stand alone route with virtually no interchange, and no link to HS1, so why not adopt technology of the future, like maglev for example?. Then perhaps it would capture more imagination and support, most importantly from businesses who might invest and ease the burden off the back of the creaking taxpayer.

Got any other examples of visionary or revolutionary technology of the future? Or are you just peddling maglev? If you truly believe HS2 is a fools errand, that demand will never materialise and nobody will ever leave their hometown in this future of localised living, then surely, Maglev is a technological cul de sac.

And you are wrong about HS2. The Glasgow Underground is a standalone system. Being narrow gauge and underground. HS2 is standard gauge 25kv OHL mainline and will carry passenger and freight trains from North of Birmingham onward to London, until additional lines go north. Not sure maglev works on the existing network.

 

[jon0844]

I can't wait until we have maglev trains and driverless cars! And all within the next ten years or so too! WooHoo!

Far more likely than building a new railway line, just like we managed to do with HS1.

 

[rb311]

NOnsense by name.... what an apt name...

I'm not going to write in words of one syllable...

I have no desire to see any more pointless rail lines, steam, or magLev ripped through our precious country side. As to returning back to nature, I fly over the UK all the time and can see lines that were closed years ago....

 

[Metroland]

I have no desire to see any more pointless rail lines, steam, or magLev ripped through our precious country side. As to returning back to nature, I fly over the UK all the time and can see lines that were closed years ago....

Yep, we get that impression loud and clear, only nobody is listening. Mainly as you clearly don't have anything good say, few facts or much else.
A few facts for you:

A new 200km line (London-Birmingham) is 200,000 x 22 meters wide = 4,400,000 sq meters or 4.4 sq km, the size of a large village, this excludes many parts in tunnels, which a good proportion would be.

As a comparison, Heathrow is 12 sq km, nearly 3 times the size, a motorway is 2-3 times the width of the railway. (40-52 meters)

The total land take for railways in the UK is about 230km2, for roads is 2600km2, this is out of a country with 244820 sq km, so the rail take is 0.01%

 

[CarterUSM]

Yep, we get that impression loud and clear, only nobody is listening. Mainly as you clearly don't have anything good say, few facts or much else.
A few facts for you:

A new 200km line (London-Birmingham) is 200,000 x 22 meters wide = 4,400,000 sq meters or 4.4 sq km, the size of a large village, this excludes many parts in tunnels, which a good proportion would be.

As a comparison, Heathrow is 12 sq km, nearly 3 times the size, a motorway is 2-3 times the width of the railway. (40-52 meters)

The total land take for railways in the UK is about 230km2, for roads is 2600km2, this is out of a country with 244820 sq km, so the rail take is 0.01%

Wow! Now that is an interesting stat! I Ilike it!

 

[Nym]

If it were to be truly revolutionary, truly visionary, then why is it being built to be used in 20 years hence using current technology. It is a stand alone route with virtually no interchange, and no link to HS1, so why not adopt technology of the future, like maglev for example?. Then perhaps it would capture more imagination and support, most importantly from businesses who might invest and ease the burden off the back of the creaking taxpayer.

Last time I checked it wasn't standalone, it was being intergrated into the WCML at Rugley TV and XC Route north of Tamworth or Lichfeild to link into the E Midlands. And connected (via an alignment on the NLL) to HS1 at St Pancras.

And if it where segrigated, it would mean passengers from for example Liverpool changing at Birmingham or Manchester, rather than sitting on one train that joins HS2 at Winsford or Newton Jcns.

Before you start trying to make massive arguments like this, do your homework on the proposals!

Also: A link to heathrow is being considered in origional plans, but doesn't provide a good BCR or modal shift until HS2 is completed to Manchester Airport, then the CBR is much better, as it would result (if codeshared with BA, BD and VS), a 100% modal shift from Air to Rail for Manchester - Heathrow, as journey times would be in the range of 1hour, the same as a flight, it may also be quite helpful if these could be processed as full transfers, where baggage would be checked in at Manchester to their final destination via Heathrow (or vice versa), with the Railway Stations at MAN and LHR both linked into the baggage systems and airline reservation systems, codeshared within the three major alliances via. say. BA, BD or VS and AF / KL.

Would also be nice to see Heathrow as a through station, not for London, but for Gatwick, thus ending all domestic flights from MAN (about 25ppd) to LHR and LGW

 

[tbtc]

I'd have thought the air fans would like HS2 as it'd free up space at busy UK airports on short haul flights, and create more spare slots for longer distance services?

 

[jon0844]

HS2 linking cities, and airports, would also make flying more convenient too.

I often shell out a fortune to use HEX for the convenience. Do people wish that link didn't exist* and we all had to use the Piccadilly Line instead?

* Mind you, I wish BAA didn't have total control over it!