High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Chris125]

So as an example, if only 5% of arriving pax at Euston are for a destination a short walk away, it would seem sensible to find out where the other 95% are destined. If, say, it was discovered that the vast majority were destined for the City (I have no idea, I repeat, what the data are, which is why I posed the question) then on the face of it, one is putting a lot of people to the trouble of a further journey and unnecessarily clogging the tube /buses / taxis.

It doesn't make any difference - extending HS2 into the City would still be a massively expensive way to benefit a relatively small number of people, whereas increasing tube capacity (through an extension of the DLR for example) would likely be both a lot cheaper yet benefit far more people.

Chris

 

[HowardGWR]

It doesn't make any difference - extending HS2 into the City would still be a massively expensive way to benefit a relatively small number of people, whereas increasing tube capacity (through an extension of the DLR for example) would likely be both a lot cheaper yet benefit far more people.

Chris

The point I was making (sigh) is that we don't know. I didn't say HS2 should be extended into the City, because apart from anything else I don't have the data to be able to opine as you have done without the data. For all I know Paddington might have been better or OOC or Victoria or Docklands or Stratford or Clapham, etc, etc. (Sigh again). I'm out on this one, but thanks for reading my post anyway.

Not quite perhaps. It seems to me that to condemn the Two Lords proposal, for instance, out of hand, without those surveys, is just bluster. Mind you, so is their proposal possibly bluster, without those data. We need a little less 'Dr Dionysius Lardner' and more genuine transport expertise on these issues. :roll:

 

[joeykins82]

I think as someone else pointed out it's a simple issue of practicality: Euston is the only existing terminus which has the space for expansion. It's also on the correct side of London for where HS2 is heading, and it's also the existing principal station for all of the services that will operate over HS2 phase 1 (captive and classic-compatible). It's also just up the road from the 2 stations that serve destinations that will be accessible over HS2 phase 2's eastern branch, and it's conveniently sited for access to international services from St Pancras.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The only way to provide for potentially 41% more passengers than at present in 10 years time (based on a 3.5% growth figure) is to start looking at building new lines. These line may not need to start being built until such time as the growth figures have been confirmed for 8 years or so, but there is a strong chance that could be a time when projects will need to be started quickly because of stronger than predicted passenger growth.

Although it’s a slight change of topic from what you were replying to, this post actually crystallizes the doubts I have about HS2:

I completely accept the argument that we need new lines to improve capacity. However, if building the line is about *capacity* then why does it need to be *high speed*? Building it to run trains at about the same speed as the existing WCML would provide just as much new capacity, allowing all the improvements to the WCML that have been argued about to death on this thread.

Making it high speed will give the additional environmental benefit of pulling some traffic away from airlines. But set against that, I would suggest that making it high speed means:

1. The trains will consume far more energy per mile travelled.
2. It’ll incentivise people to start commuting greater distances. People will suddenly discover that the faster journey times allow them for example to live in Manchester and Commute to London every day – and doubtless some people who have no need to do so will therefore choose to do that just because they can. This is *not* serving any existing need, but encouraging changes of lifestyle that are not environmentally sustainable.
3. The greater speed differences with existing lines will cause people to make other journeys with more circuitous routes than at present. (For example, Coventry to London or Warwick to London may turn out to be quicker by travelling to Birmingham first – again with bad consequences for energy use).

All this to provide a supposed convenience of shorter journeys that is somewhat questionable given the ease that people can do productive stuff on trains these days (laptops, reading, etc.)

Making our transport system more environmentally sustainable is extremely important, and encouraging people to use trains instead of cars is an important part of that. I think however that needs to be done in the context of satisfying existing (and predicted future) demand appropriately. Artificially generating new demand by unnecessarily speeding up long distance travel doesn’t strike me as a sensible transport policy.

Because of all this, I would be 100% backing HS2 if it was being built to provide extra capacity at roughly existing speeds. But the high speed aspect of it makes me very doubtful.

 

[joeykins82]

It'd cost roughly the same amount to build a new conventional speed line as a new high-speed line. So, surely the question is "why not build it high speed?" Going high speed will hopefully result in a further shift from air to rail for journeys north of Manchester to and from London, which will still have a net environmental benefit even with the increased energy consumption of high speed services.

 

[Chris125]

The point I was making (sigh) is that we don't know. I didn't say HS2 should be extended into the City, because apart from anything else I don't have the data to be able to opine as you have done without the data. For all I know Paddington might have been better or OOC or Victoria or Docklands or Stratford or Clapham, etc, etc. (Sigh again). I'm out on this one, but thanks for reading my post anyway.

I was simply making the point that data showing x% of HS2 passengers going onto the City or Canary Wharf does not change the fundamental economics that favour a station on the surface to one underground - especially given the extra demands of a station serving Intercity and International services.

Such data also has little obvious relevance to the Euston Cross proposal, as the station remains at Euston - the real issues are cost and operational implications, the risk and disruption involved, the engineering feasibility and frankly whether they've really thought it through fully though at least more details have now appeared in RTM

On the cost side, the vague statement that it will be 'largely cost-neutral' does not inspire confidence given we are talking about exchanging a single track tunnel from Old Oak Common to Primrose Hill and the western extension to Euston with

- a pair of tunnels from OOC to Stratford International via Queen's Park and Euston
- a OOC to WCML link for Crossrail
- a possible relocation of London Overground away from Euston
- a connection from OOC to the WCML to allow access to the existing Euston for HS2 services, and a possible one to allow WCML services into Euston Cross both in the Queens Park/Kensal Green area
- at least 4 underground platforms, possible more.
- reconstruction of Euston (they appear to to think the platforms can simply be extended south to cater for 400m trains)

I could go on, but with the need to rebuild the whole station in one go now avoided there's just no need for such a risky and disruptive scheme.

I completely accept the argument that we need new lines to improve capacity. However, if building the line is about *capacity* then why does it need to be *high speed*? Building it to run trains at about the same speed as the existing WCML would provide just as much new capacity, allowing all the improvements to the WCML that have been argued about to death on this thread.

Reducing journey times increases the economic benefits, attracts more passengers, makes more efficient use of rolling stock and onboard staff, allows the proposed Y network to offer competitive journey times to both Leeds and Manchester, attracts non-stop passengers away from existing mainlines allowing better use of capacity and compensates for the less conveniently sited stations at Meadowhall and Toton.

Basically while the new and released capacity justifies the need for a new line, it's the reduced journey times that give it the positive business case.

Chris

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Whether it's needed is irrelevant. The question is whether it's part of the current NW electrification plan. LNW-GW Joint claims inside knowledge and thinks it isn't. You've only found one phrase in one 4-year old document that says it is. There's independent evidence that that part of that document is badly worded. I think it's reasonable to assume it's not in the current plan unless more evidence is found to the contrary.

My only "inside knowledge" is from attending a public meeting in Liverpool last year, mainly for stakeholders to discuss the "Atlantic Gateway" plans of Peel Ports (with local MPs, Merseytravel, NR, Northern and a freight company (I forget which)).
It followed the usual pattern of presenting great visions which are entirely unfunded.
The Bootle branch has been upgraded for W10 gauge and with the Olive Mount chord, but there is no funding for more.
It's a catch-22 between the railway, who will do anything as long as somebody else pays, and the developer who wants public funding to kick-start and derisk his fancy scheme.
And don't bother asking a FOC to support an electric freight line.
He's quite happy with his go-anywhere 66s.

For the avoidance of doubt, there is no provision in the CP5 plan for anything in Liverpool other than electrification east of Edge Hill - whatever Wikipedia says.
Paragraphs in a 2009 DfT strategy paper don't count for much in 2013.

 

[eps200]

The key point with the euston cross plan is this

A second connection east of Euston Cross might be relevant if the Davies Commission identifies an airport hub location east or north-East of London. In that case the Euston Cross route would have a major role as an airport connector from much of England as well as from the Home Counties.

That would be a big plus, it's also good future proofing and is better for dispersing passengers between Euston cross and Stratford.

 

[Ironside]

Although it’s a slight change of topic from what you were replying to, this post actually crystallizes the doubts I have about HS2:

I completely accept the argument that we need new lines to improve capacity. However, if building the line is about *capacity* then why does it need to be *high speed*? Building it to run trains at about the same speed as the existing WCML would provide just as much new capacity, allowing all the improvements to the WCML that have been argued about to death on this thread.

Making it high speed will give the additional environmental benefit of pulling some traffic away from airlines. But set against that, I would suggest that making it high speed means:

1. The trains will consume far more energy per mile travelled.
2. It’ll incentivise people to start commuting greater distances. People will suddenly discover that the faster journey times allow them for example to live in Manchester and Commute to London every day – and doubtless some people who have no need to do so will therefore choose to do that just because they can. This is *not* serving any existing need, but encouraging changes of lifestyle that are not environmentally sustainable.
3. The greater speed differences with existing lines will cause people to make other journeys with more circuitous routes than at present. (For example, Coventry to London or Warwick to London may turn out to be quicker by travelling to Birmingham first – again with bad consequences for energy use).

All this to provide a supposed convenience of shorter journeys that is somewhat questionable given the ease that people can do productive stuff on trains these days (laptops, reading, etc.)

Making our transport system more environmentally sustainable is extremely important, and encouraging people to use trains instead of cars is an important part of that. I think however that needs to be done in the context of satisfying existing (and predicted future) demand appropriately. Artificially generating new demand by unnecessarily speeding up long distance travel doesn’t strike me as a sensible transport policy.

Because of all this, I would be 100% backing HS2 if it was being built to provide extra capacity at roughly existing speeds. But the high speed aspect of it makes me very doubtful.

I agree with joeykins, plus consider that the train will be running for say 18 hours a day so making it high speed will require less trains to be constructed, maintained, crewed and stored, thereby saving energy. Energy also saved by having less trains running per day so fewer air conditioning units being run. Next point is that the faster the train runs the more car journeys it can compete with, if the new line is fast enough then jouneys that require changes of train and a tube journey can compete with taking the car.

 

[HSTEd]

The argument that speeding up long distance travel is bad because of environmental reasons is very dodgy... if you want to cut energy use you could extrapolate from that argument to requiring all people remain close to home at all times.
Why is 125mph neccesary? Axe it and replace it with 75mph for lower energy use....


Energy use per seat kilometre for HSR is so much better than Pendolinos that TGV Duplex does not use significantly more energy than those Cl390s....

Also if the "Environmentalists" are serious they would drop opposition to nuclear power, at which point electricity use has effectively zero environmental cost....

 

[Chris125]

On the issue of High Speed vs Conventional, there's a brief analysis on page 53 of the Review of HS2 London to West Midlands route selection and speed

To summarise, based on their modelling if phase 1 was built for 125mph it would reduce the cost by around 9% yet attract 19% fewer passengers, reduce revenue by a quarter and overall benefits by a third.

I think it's safe to assume that the negative effect on phase 2 would be considerably greater especially for the eastern leg whose viability would be in question - with a longer route it's hard to see journey times being remotely competitive with existing services on the ECML and MML, especially for passengers having to change at Toton and Meadowhall.

Chris

 

[The Ham]

In very basic terms it is cheaper to build and maintain a straight railway than one with bends on it (less land required, less track, etc.), so therefore the extra cost of increasing the maximum possible speed is not that significant in the great scheme of things.

Also given that the speed of our existing intercity lines keeps being discussed as being possible to run 140mph trains on, and it was never designed from the outset to reach speeds of anywhere near that amount, it is likely that any new intercity line would at least want to be designed from the outset to run that fast (without the need for tilting trains) and therefore the track alignment would have to be fairly straight anyway, which would limit the choice of route almost as much as a true HS line.

The other thing that is oftern overlooked is that to build alongside an existing transport coridor is that they run through quite a lot of development, so the land costs would be significiantly higher and so would the NIMBY'isum.

 

[brianthegiant]

The argument that speeding up long distance travel is bad because of environmental reasons is very dodgy... if you want to cut energy use you could extrapolate from that argument to requiring all people remain close to home at all times.
Why is 125mph neccesary? Axe it and replace it with 75mph for lower energy use....


Energy use per seat kilometre for HSR is so much better than Pendolinos that TGV Duplex does not use significantly more energy than those Cl390s....

Also if the "Environmentalists" are serious they would drop opposition to nuclear power, at which point electricity use has effectively zero environmental cost....

Erm, at risk of taking this discussion off into the energy debate which crops up in various threads...To be clear Nuclear is not carbon neutral, there are very significant carbon emissions in the uranium extraction, transportation, Processing, also in the construction of nuclear power stations containing very large amounts of steel and concrete, both which are very carbon intensive to produce. But I think still lower carbon than Gas, and obviously coal. But anyway, yes increasing lower carbon generation rather than the current short term pan for more gas would strengthen the argument for more high speed rail.

Overall I agree with your post. I take a more pragmatic view on HS2 than DynamicSpirits view which is similar to the Green Party/Friends of the Earth position. I think building HS2 weakens the arguments for building more runways and motorways, which would facilitate growth in the road/air sector with considerably higher emissions.

I suspect more could be done to reduce carbon emissions of high speed trains, by specifying stricter standards for weight and aerodynamics.

 

[gordonthemoron]

there was a reasonable article in the otherwise dreadful South Northants against HS2 website. Apparently, if Virgin set down ex-Euston passengers at MK in the evening peak (the trains are only about half full and stop to pick up), it would relieve serious overcrowding on LM services. Bearing in mind that Virgin must be getting some share of season ticket revenue on this route without providing a decent service, I think that's a reasonable idea.

 

[NSEFAN]

I suspect more could be done to reduce carbon emissions of high speed trains, by specifying stricter standards for weight and aerodynamics.

You would think that the train manufacturers would be doing this anyway. A more efficient train is cheaper to run, giving it an advantage over competing designs.

there was a reasonable article in the otherwise dreadful South Northants against HS2 website. Apparently, if Virgin set down ex-Euston passengers at MK in the evening peak (the trains are only about half full and stop to pick up), it would relieve serious overcrowding on LM services. Bearing in mind that Virgin must be getting some share of season ticket revenue on this route without providing a decent service, I think that's a reasonable idea.

May you link to the article? It sounds like a good short-term solution to peak-time capacity problems, but I doubt it's a long-term solution like HS2 is supposed to be.

The long-term aspect of HS2 is something that is often missed out on, I feel. Some people seem to be happy with make-do-and-mend attitudes to national infrastructure, even though this isn't sustainable.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Virgin not stopping to set down at MK in evening peak

I agree that it is not a long term solution, I would prefer a much expanded LM service on WCML which only HS2 can provide for

 

[swt_passenger]

So, on the day Virgin start setting down at MK, will the thousands of passengers that cram into LM's 350s share themselves out neatly so that both TOCs have optimum loadings, or will they all attempt to cram into the 390s, leaving the 350s relatively empty beyond Bletchley?

If as I suspect, the overcrowding problem is just transferred to the Virgin services, presumably people will start complaining about them being standing room only as far as MK?

(I don't know the solution, just the possible pitfalls...)

 

[gordonthemoron]

Virgin get paid for a service they don't provide

 

[joeykins82]

It does seem rather silly especially in light of the LM speed increases and c390 lengthening; I understand why the restriction was first applied but the situation has changed somewhat since then.

MK passengers will get the first available service. Leighton Buzzard passengers don't get a choice but to take the LM services and Northampton passengers are unlikely to benefit from taking VT as far as MKC so yeah I'd say there'd be a more even loading. There'll be some MKC pax who'll hang around for a VT service but presumably LM's "look we go at 110mph now" advertising should keep that number to a minimum.

 

[Ironside]

So, on the day Virgin start setting down at MK, will the thousands of passengers that cram into LM's 350s share themselves out neatly so that both TOCs have optimum loadings, or will they all attempt to cram into the 390s, leaving the 350s relatively empty beyond Bletchley?

If as I suspect, the overcrowding problem is just transferred to the Virgin services, presumably people will start complaining about them being standing room only as far as MK?

(I don't know the solution, just the possible pitfalls...)

How about let the passengers use the virgin service but at a premium price so that just enough people move to the virgin service that LM passengers usually get a seat but virgin customers get more room.

Would the reason virgin is not allowed to have passengers get off due to dwell times, ie there is not time in the timetable for the virgin train to sit at the station for the extra few minutes, or is it due to the details of the franchise giving LM a monopoly on that service?

 

[joeykins82]

Single & day return tickets from MKC are available as VT only or LM only but the season tickets are only available as "any permitted"; the evening peak restrictions mean that it's mostly season ticket holders who make up the traffic flow on these services

VT ceased to call at MKC during the evening peak because of chronic overcrowding preventing pax from boarding at Euston, many of whom wanted to reach destinations north of MKC. Many MK commuters would wait for a VT service because they were ~25 minutes faster than the LM service.

Since this change was applied though the majority of the c390s have had 2 more standard class coaches added and the LM services have had their speed increased to 110mph which has cut the journey time to be similar to that of the VT services.

 

[swt_passenger]

Virgin get paid for a service they don't provide

Doesn't ORCATS understand set down restrictions though?

I'm sure people have pointed out in the past that VWC get almost nothing from Euston - Watford Jn fares because of their set down only restrictions ( and vice versa).

 

[gordonthemoron]

However, AIUI there are only 3 LM trains an hour ex-Euston which run at 110mph:

xx.13 - first stop Leighton Buzzard
xx.46 - first stop MK
xx.49 - Watford, then MK

and currently they only run at 110mph if they are formed of 4 coaches, although LM want to extend that to 8/12 coaches at some time in the future

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I agree with joeykins, plus consider that the train will be running for say 18 hours a day so making it high speed will require less trains to be constructed, maintained, crewed and stored, thereby saving energy.

Whether that's a significant factor would depend on whether the energy to build and maintain a train is large compared to the energy it uses running over its lifetime. Anyone have any knowledge of that? My unscientific gut feeling is that since the trains will be built to last several decades, the energy to build them would likely be insignificant in comparison to the energy to run them.

Energy also saved by having less trains running per day so fewer air conditioning units being run. Next point is that the faster the train runs the more car journeys it can compete with, if the new line is fast enough then jouneys that require changes of train and a tube journey can compete with taking the car.

Air conditioning surely consumes a very small proportion of the energy to move the trains? As for competing with the car - that's a fair point. But - unless the trains do really use less energy per passenger mile than cars, there's no environmental benefit to competing better [1]. Again, does anyone have any likely figures on that?

[1] Well not quite true. There is also a benefit in terms of reducing congestion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The argument that speeding up long distance travel is bad because of environmental reasons is very dodgy... if you want to cut energy use you could extrapolate from that argument to requiring all people remain close to home at all times.
Why is 125mph neccesary? Axe it and replace it with 75mph for lower energy use....

I think one difference there is whether you're impacting existing travel requirements or creating new ones. Once people have got used to travelling at 125mph and made living, social, and working arrangements that depend on being able to do so then really you've got to support that. Noone is seriously suggesting introducing a maximum 75mph speed because the affect on many people's lives would be be very bad.

But at the present time we don't have 180mph trains and therefore basically noone in the UK has a life that depends on needing to travel at 180mph by train. So not introducing 180mph trains isn't really going to harm anyone. Of course if we do introduce them then lots of people will find them convenient and then adjust their lifestyles so that within a few years they have come to depend on being able to travel on 180mph trains. More convenience is always nice, but in this case: Is the environmental cost worth i?

Also if the "Environmentalists" are serious they would drop opposition to nuclear power, at which point electricity use has effectively zero environmental cost....

As brianthegiant has pointed out, the environmental cost of nuclear power is not zero, but I'd agree with you to the extent that it is much less than for burning fossil fuels. The anti-nuclear stance of many environmentalists does puzzle me.

 

[JamesRowden]

I calculated the energy required for High Speed Rail in January (but did not consider electric motor efficiency but I think I recall electric motors to generally be very efficient (~between 80% and 90%)).

I have found a document with data for a 9-car pendolino at http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollection.../T712_anxE.pdf.

The formula is:

Resistance (N) = 5311 + 21.696 v + 0.9097 v2

Resistance in N, V in km/h

This means that to run at a constant speed of 200 km/h (~125mph) the output energy per km would need to be: 46.0 MJ/km (12.8 kWh/km)

At 400 km/h (~250mph) it would be: 160 MJ/km (44.4 kWh/km)

If I use an 18 car pendolino to model your 400m train, I guess that the linear and constant forces will be directly proportional to the train length while the square component will remain constant (since it represents the air resistance, although in reality it would incresase a vary small amount because their is a square component to friction force (High speeds are required to make it signinicant).

Using the 18-car pendolino model:

200 km/h (~125mph): 55.7 MJ/km (15.5 kWh/km)
400 km/h (~250mph): 174 MJ/km(48.2 kWh/km)

I could not find the price per kWh that the rail industry gets but I saw that the Manufacturing industry has to pay about 8p/kwh.

This means that for the distance from London to Birmingham (163km), ignroing acceleration and deccaleration, the energy costs are:

200 km/h (~125mph): £202 (881 seats and so 22.9p per passenger, assuming all seats used) (ignores motor inefficieny)
400 km/h (~250mph): £629 (881 seats and so 71.4p per passenger, assuming all seats used) (ignores motor inefficiency

People are welcome to check my figures to see if I have made a mistake somewhere. But figures appear to confirm that energy usage is not presently a financial issue with high speed rail (I have not included electric motor and electrical tranmission losses, these will increase the required energy). Attracting people out of their cars would probably save more energy than the additional energy that the line would use. An issue left is how much will the 250mph stock cost?

 

[HSTEd]

Air conditioning surely consumes a very small proportion of the energy to move the trains? As for competing with the car - that's a fair point. But - unless the trains do really use less energy per passenger mile than cars, there's no environmental benefit to competing better [1]. Again, does anyone have any likely figures on that?

[1] Well not quite true. There is also a benefit in terms of reducing congestion.

I would argue that since it appears that for the forseable future electric cars
will not be able to match ICE powered cars for convenience purposes, energy consumed by road vehicles will be in the form of liquid fuels.
Meanwhile energy consumed by high speed rail will be in the form of electricity and is thus less damaging since we can get electricity from numerous sources.

But at the present time we don't have 180mph trains and therefore basically noone in the UK has a life that depends on needing to travel at 180mph by train. So not introducing 180mph trains isn't really going to harm anyone. Of course if we do introduce them then lots of people will find them convenient and then adjust their lifestyles so that within a few years they have come to depend on being able to travel on 180mph trains. More convenience is always nice, but in this case: Is the environmental cost worth i?

In my own opinion the answer is emphatically yes. It will reduce the insane house price gradient from north to south, allow tighter economic integration of the whole country and assist in repairing our colossal balance of payments deficit by reducing the consumption of incredibly valuable liquid fuels. That will have to be imported for the forseable future.

As brianthegiant has pointed out, the environmental cost of nuclear power is not zero, but I'd agree with you to the extent that it is much less than for burning fossil fuels. The anti-nuclear stance of many environmentalists does puzzle me.

For most reasonable analyses, like those not written by anti nuclear campaigners, nuclear comes out comparable or better than onshore wind, with significantly reduced steel and concrete consumption.
(They tend to use tricks like assuming uranium is enriched in a coal electricity powered gasseous diffusion plant, rather than a modern nuclear powered centrifuge enrichment plant, and that is even before we start to consider emergent technologies like laser enrichment).

Additionally seawater extraction of uranium has come a long way recently, with reported prices of ~$660/kg at lab scale, which translates to roughly 0.75p/kWh on the price of the electricity, before you even consider the use of uranium saving techniques that are not currently economically feasible like reenrichment of reprocessed uranium and use of MOX fuel that could potentially cut uranium use by 30-40%. (it is highly likely that that price will fall precipitously in the future... meaning the days of uranium mining may be numbered)

Really the environmentalists seem to be more interested in dismantling industrial civilisation and forcing a pseudo regression to some sort of romanticised agrarian society.
I think I prefer my own vision of Britain as a Quasi-City state where you can travel from Aberdeen to Penzance in 4hr (with something approaching 8-9 stops)

 

[brianthegiant]

For most reasonable analyses, like those not written by anti nuclear campaigners, nuclear comes out comparable or better than onshore wind, with significantly reduced steel and concrete consumption.
(They tend to use tricks like assuming uranium is enriched in a coal electricity powered gasseous diffusion plant, rather than a modern nuclear powered centrifuge enrichment plant, and that is even before we start to consider emergent technologies like laser enrichment).

Hmm but where exactly are these enrichment plant located, do they not benefit from reliable electricity source by virtue of being connected to the National Grid, and therefore the electricity is neither 100% Nuclear nor 100% Coal.

I agree emissions from Nuclear are much lower than fossil fuels, and that there are major statistical uncertainties depending how you gather data, which can be manipulated by anyone pushing a particular argument. Nonetheless, Carbon emissions from Nuclear are significantly higher than for hydro or onshore wind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions

Really the environmentalists seem to be more interested in dismantling industrial civilisation and forcing a pseudo regression to some sort of romanticised agrarian society.
I think I prefer my own vision of Britain as a Quasi-City state where you can travel from Aberdeen to Penzance in 4hr (with something approaching 8-9 stops)

Actually, I think most environmentalists now accept that Nuclear is a lesser evil than Coal, hence why there have been much bigger protests against new coal plant in recent years than against new nuclear.

I think you might be in a minority if you wish to concrete over the whole of the UK & turn it into a city, but maybe you're not being entirely serious?

 

[HSTEd]

Hmm but where exactly are these enrichment plant located, do they not benefit from reliable electricity source by virtue of being connected to the National Grid, and therefore the electricity is neither 100% Nuclear nor 100% Coal.

Well actually the old diffusion plant at Tricastin (in France) is directly coupled to the local nuclear power plant and currently consumes almost all of its electricity (it comes out at several gigawatts). It apparently taps directly from the outlet transformers without going through the grid proper.
But the new centrifuge plant they are building is going to do the same seperation work with 50MW (instead of ~2700MWe).

Greenpeace et al often cite a Tennesse Valley Authority coal power plant that was close coupled to a Gasseous Diffusion Plant, assigning its carbon emissions to nuclear power.

I agree emissions from Nuclear are much lower than fossil fuels, and that there are major statistical uncertainties depending how you gather data, which can be manipulated by anyone pushing a particular argument. Nonetheless, Carbon emissions from Nuclear are significantly higher than for hydro or onshore wind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions

Well there is that Yale study that spits out values for renewables... but frankly these figures are all so small compared to all fossil fuels that it essentially doesn't matter.... they are effectively negligible, and will be cut further as improving technologies reduce the concrete/steel inputs per kilowatt and make shipping uranium ore around significantly less neccesary.

Actually, I think most environmentalists now accept that Nuclear is a lesser evil than Coal, hence why there have been much bigger protests against new coal plant in recent years than against new nuclear.

The environmentalist movement still hates nuclear power with a passion, anyone who questions this hatred is decried as "losing the plot", as George Monbiot was by the Right Honourable Caroline Lucas on a Radio 4 discussion programme.

They hate coal as well, since it doesn't require the insane cuts in energy use they always assume in those 100% renewable models.

I think you might be in a minority if you wish to concrete over the whole of the UK & turn it into a city, but maybe you're not being entirely serious?

I did say "Quasi City state", rather than a literal city state.
What I mean is that the UK is sufficiently small that widespread deployment of High Speed Rail could allow commutes, and especially day trips, to cover a significant fraction of the entire length of the UK.
Ie. It will be reasonabel to live somewhere in South Manchester and commute to work in London or even vice versa.
You would be able to go to the Cornish Riviera or even the Scottish Highlands on a day or weekend jaunt at short notice.
(Indeed you might even be able to commute from the Plymouth area to London)

HSR cuts the effective distances in the UK in half, sometimes more than that, the profound social change that enables is clear.

Essentially it makes the intervening Green Spaces something like the Groene Hart in Holland, something that people traverse very quickly almost without noticing.

And as for population growth and concreting over the countryside, I am very interested in the idea of using all that slate waste that people say is in Wales and often propose for massive tidal lagoons, to reclaim significant amounts of land in the Severn and Thames Estuaries.
Could easily get a thousand square miles of polders, if not more.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I would argue that since it appears that for the forseable future electric cars
will not be able to match ICE powered cars for convenience purposes, energy consumed by road vehicles will be in the form of liquid fuels.
Meanwhile energy consumed by high speed rail will be in the form of electricity and is thus less damaging since we can get electricity from numerous sources.

What matters is not where the energy *can* theoretically be got from but where the energy *will* be got from. I've done some googling but haven't been able to find a definitive source that indicates how electricity is currently generated for the railways or what plans there are in that regard. Do you have any reason to believe that the energy to power HS2 will come mostly from renewable sources?

In my own opinion the answer is emphatically yes. It will reduce the insane house price gradient from north to south, allow tighter economic integration of the whole country and assist in repairing our colossal balance of payments deficit by reducing the consumption of incredibly valuable liquid fuels. That will have to be imported for the forseable future.

I fear there are quite a few unfounded assumptions and inaccuracies in that.

1. House prices vary across the country. It's much more complex than a North-South gradient. Prices are mouthwateringly high in parts of London and nearby, but there are also very expensive places in the North and relatively cheap areas near London. Overall the reason for high average prices is simple: There aren't enough houses. The only way that is going to change is if more houses are built. Allowing people to travel faster may make prices go up or down in individual areas but will not change the basic problem that there are not enough houses. I don't therefore think that is a sensible argument for HS2.

2. Further, you don't have to look hard to find places where house prices vary by as much as a factor of 2 in places that are less than an hour's travel apart, or where areas of affluence are situated well under an hour's travel from very deprived places (say: Kensington to parts of Newham?) That appears to prove that providing fast transport links does not necessarily remove the kinds of inequalities you're alluding to. To push that point further, today it's possible to travel from London to most of the North of England far more conveniently (and although I'm guessing, I suspect vastly more cheaply compared to average wages) than was the case 100 years ago. Doesn't seem to have reduced economic differences between those areas though. I'd suggest this whole idea that providing faster travel automatically causes economic integration etc. is little more than wishful thinking.

3. Liquid fuels account for a relatively small part of our balance of payments deficit. Besides you haven't yet demonstrated that building HS2 is likely to substantially reduce fuel consumption.

Really the environmentalists seem to be more interested in dismantling industrial civilisation and forcing a pseudo regression to some sort of romanticised agrarian society.

I think that's a little unfair, especially as 'environmentalists' isn't really a single cohesive group.

I think I prefer my own vision of Britain as a Quasi-City state where you can travel from Aberdeen to Penzance in 4hr (with something approaching 8-9 stops)

Sounds like that would be a rather an unpleasant place to live to me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I calculated the energy required for High Speed Rail in January (but did not consider electric motor efficiency but I think I recall electric motors to generally be very efficient (~between 80% and 90%)).

Thanks JamesRowden. Unfortunately I don't have any expertise with which to verify your figures, or to compare the figures with typical consumption in a car.

I thought I recall reading somewhere that air resistance is largely along the length of a train - if true that would imply your v-squared term remains important.

 

[edwin_m]

Seems Network Rail is buying from nuclear sources, at least via some offsetting with the French!

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/news/2...tains-biggest-rail-electrification-programme/