All nice in theory, but I'd be pretty sure it's quite different in practice. These theoretical figures might just account for some of the delays, because they don't take a lot of practicalities into account. How do you get pass times for BHI or COV when all trains stop at these stations? Just theory?
No, none of that is theory. Those numbers are what are used to build a schedule.
Thanks, I appreciate your time explaining this. I have yet to be fully convinced by practical experience, and unfortunately I don't do so much rail travel in retirement, but I do understand what you say. If only I had access to the rail travel bargains that many on this forum doubtless do! As and when I can offer further comment I will, suffice to say for now that the station dwell times I've experienced in recent years have very often been well over two minutes, even when the train has been running a few minutes late. Also, the decelerations and accelerations have often been less enthusiastic than your figures would suggest, but hey-ho, I guess there may well be reasons, perhaps I must have a jinx that often puts late running slow trains in front of the fast ones that I happen to be on!
Given the topic of this thread, it's important to note that the stopping penalty for a very high speed train would be much greater than this. According to the HS2 train specification, at normal service braking, stopping from 360km/h will take 220s, during which time it will have travelled 12km. Allowing 2 minutes dwell and if the rate of acceleration were the same, the train would get back to line speed after 220+220+120s = 560secs, after a further 12km.
If dwell times and running times are not sufficient, then it soon gets flagged via performance processes and delay attribution. Are you suggssting the running times and dwells are unachievable? Just because you are running late doesnt mean a dwell can be quicker.
Unachievable? Not at all, but are they always achieved? I mean, a great many trains in the UK run late, and for a huge variety of reasons, some of which include longer than expected dwell times in stations. Once again there are many reasons for longer dwell times, but if the train hadn't stopped there, then that extra dwell time wouldn't have been able to happen.
Try hereI have a question which is relevant to this thread, but I have to admit to not being able to find the information I'm interested in. I wonder where I might be able to find how many journeys are made by rail between any town and city pairs, eg. London to Sheffield, or Birmingham to Manchester. I know this information must be available, but how could I find it?
If I could look at this, it might help me to reduce the numbers of questions I ask, which others with much more of a rail background than myself, quite possibly (and rightly!) despair of from time to time!
That looks excellent, I'll have a closer look later but this appears to be just what I'm looking for. Many thanks
Some stations seem very much better than others at dwell times. Acceleration times from stops not on loops do seem to be highly predictable. But stopping times seem to shew very much more variation—occasionally very Teutonic swiftly in and to a stand, but rather more frequently a crawl along the platform as the seconds tick by. And are there different start allowances for stations like Crewe, for example, where the distance at 20 for an up train out of 1 is much longer than the distance at 20 out of 5?
Not at Crewe no, unless the detriment is more than 30 seconds it won't have requirement for an adjustment. If there is a requirement, it sits in the TPRs.
Worth noting that 360kph operation is not proving to be particularly popular abroad.
Interesting to note this response to the comment by @Nottingham59 who said that HS2 takes 535s to reach 360kph. I remember visiting the Shanghai Maglev in 2006 and noted that it reached 430kph in just 180s. This technology was (and still is) rubbished by many (most members of this forum I suspect, please correct me if I'm wrong
) who said that heavy rail was the only way to go, but it's still interesting to note Maglev's capabilities. Maglev for the UK (instead of HS2) was of course dismissed a long time ago as too expensive, "untried", impractical etc, and of course the Transrapid accident was the final nail in its coffin even though Shanghai's own Maglev has a superb safety record.
Interesting to note this response to the comment by @Nottingham59 who said that HS2 takes 535s to reach 360kph. I remember visiting the Shanghai Maglev in 2006 and noted that it reached 430kph in just 180s. This technology was (and still is) rubbished by many (most members of this forum I suspect, please correct me if I'm wrong
Purely out of interest then, Maglev's tremendous acceleration to 430kph in just 180s was accomplished so smoothly that people could stand throughout, without any hint of discomfort or safety risk. The only thing that caused people to stumble a little was a deliberate thing to show off the technology which was when the train reached 430kph. At this point there was a sudden lurch forwards, which made passengers think the brakes had been applied - we all looked at the speed reading which was displayed at the ends of every carriage, and yet it was constant at 430kph. The truth was just that the acceleration had been cut, the brakes hadn't been applied at all, it was quite something to realise how much power was still left at this speed!
Okay, I know that people could bombard me with all sorts of reasons for not having Maglev, but given the modern habit of stopping trains more frequently than they used to, it does highlight just how useful this superb acceleration would have been. I used to wonder about using renewable technology to generate the necessary power, but never mind, it's all about our decimated HS2 now. Oh what a cynic I must be!
It's hard to defend any anti-Maglev stance by using HS2. Yes, it was "supposed to deliver" all sorts, until Sunak trashed it, but even then, how can we complain about Maglev not being flexible enough when HS2 never was going to serve Birmingham New Street, only a different station at Curzon Street? Maglev could have easily done that, and now HS2 is being built around a new station at Old Oak Common, which again Maglev could easily have done. I know Maglev had it's limitations, but the present HS2 project really does pale by comparison.
you kind of skipped the key bit. The biggest disadvantage of maglev is that services can't continue on existing infrastructure, whereas that is possible with high speed rail. For example, you could build a Liverpool-Leeds line, and then have some services continue to York and Newcastle over existing infrastructure, and some services continuing to Hull over existing infrastructure, whereas with a Maglev line you can only serve places directly connected - so the places that have stations on your Liverpool-Leeds line.
Don't forget that the Maglev proposal in the mid 2000s was to have a reverse S-shaped route that would run London-Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle-Edinburgh-Glasgow. Liverpool would have been on a Maglev spur from Manchester Airport, and thus all of these primary conurbations of the UK would have been served without any need to run on existing rails. Here is a drawing of the route, the full proposals were all well documented at the time.
and you think this would have actually been built in full, instead of having gotten the same treatment as HS2?
In stages there should be no reason why not. London to Birmingham by 2020, Birmingham to Manchester by 2025-30, then to Leeds 2030-35, and Newcastle/Edinburgh/Glasgow by 2035-40, but all depending on how the first stage performs, and the availability of finance. People in heavy rail are always quick to dismiss this, but how do you know that the London-Birmingham section wouldn't have generated a great deal of success by attracting passengers from both roads and existing railways, and of course with the great benefits of freeing up space on WCML? Maglev should have been seen as a potential transport asset to the UK, a complement to heavy rail, but people were too quick to see it as the enemy.
The UK Ultraspeed was "cancelled" because it would have cost £60 billion (£98 billion in today's prices) in 2007 prices (Based on the costs of the cancelled Munich system.), maglev was an unproven technology especially in the context in which UK Ultraspeed was hoping to use it, and most of the stations would have been far from the city centre. If it got past being an unproven technology it would likely be cancelled sooner than HS2 as that high starting cost would give a lot less room for cost overruns and would have been unlikely to survive the pandemic in any form. It is also worth noting that the only Transrapid system in operation has since been slowed to top speeds less than that of Eurostar on HS1.
I'm assuming there's an order of magnitude error in there?
so, you build your first section, have very fast London-Birmingham service only, no services continuing beyond there because you can't continue on existing tracks. That's a really big disadvantage, because it means you either:
Yeah is it meant to say billion, I must have forgotten to change the m to a b after choosing to refer to the total price instead of price per kilometre. It is meant to say £60 billion (£98 billion in today's prices).
These are all great points.
£98 billion for a route that runs from London to Glasgow serving Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh on the way sounds like an absolute bargain compare to the costs of HS2. As for the slowing of the Shanghai Maglev, what is the point of keeping it running at 430kph? It can achieve its present purpose of serving Pudong Airport perfectly well at 300kph, and on a route of just 19 miles that's not much of a penalty. It's already proved everything it needed to in almost 20 years of service, it's hardly the fault of Maglev if so many people chose to dismiss it without trying it.
You're looking at this the wrong way. The split and transfer would be no different or catching the Eurostar from Paris or Brussels into St.Pancras and then having to change trains there. And don't forget that all those who wanted HS1 linked into HS2 were shouted down on the basis that not enough people would want to make the through trip to other parts of the UK, so how can you suggest that a transfer is a problem?
In 2011 the cost of the full HS2 Y implementation was £50bn, including 30% contingency. What makes you think the Maglev proposal wouldn't have suffered the same cost overruns that HS2 has? It's starting off 20% more expensive.
That £60 billion was only accounting for known/predicted cost overruns so could have easily increased at a much greater rate and was only the construction costs (HS2 costs estimates at the time also did not include rolling stock and land.).
I'm not particularly an expert, I'm just interested. However for the 20% extra expense that you quoted, you'd have been getting a route serving Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow (plus Liverpool if you look at the map in my earlier post), AND a link between Manchester and Leeds which HS2 certainly didn't have. So for what you'd have got for your money, Maglev looked superior.
The HS2 cost over runs are somewhat exaggerated and involve a known and trusted technology - Maglev is basically an unknown technology at the intercity scale and would almost certainly have cost far more. God knows what the Chiltern NIMBYS would make of an entire railway built on stilts for its entire length.
