Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

HS2 to be approved?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

HS2 to be approved?

Old 9th Jan 2012, 22:23
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 46
Posts: 1,946
HS2 to be approved?

Apparently an announcement is due after the breast implants debate, from 15:30 onwards.

Looks like it is full stream ahead for 'phase 1' at least.

All those in favour?
jabird is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2012, 22:29
  #2 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 77
Posts: 1,870
I would prefer an increase in the 'loading gauge' of the existing lines to permit double-decker carriages as used in Australia (and East Germany and Czechoslovakia as was).

This would provide greater capacity within existing lengths (apparently they have rejected the idea of longer trains).

I realise that my suggestion would involve disruption and significant cost, but it would bring the UK up to continental standards.

Just saying.
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2012, 22:55
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 1,995
London to Birmingham. Hmm.
That's my definition of a pointless journey.*

* Apolgies to Michael Chapman.

Just been looking at some 'Youtube' footage of Ice3. Amazing stuff! - We're decades behind.
ZOOKER is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2012, 23:40
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 46
Posts: 1,946
East Germany and Czechoslovakia
Where?

I would prefer an increase in the 'loading gauge'
Unfortunately, that really would be expensive as you'd have to allow for more width, and then you'd have to create the extra height on every bridge and tunnel on the route, + raise the wires.

Longer trains provides some extra capacity, my sensing is that they have played down the benefits this would provide in order to bolster the case for the new line.

My feeling with the new line is that going to Birmingham alone is an extrotionate usage of public money. News reports want a simple story, so they often don't mention the triangle junction and the join with the WCML between Rugely and Lichfield. However, this is still pointless, as the join is in the middle of the section betwen where the lines to Manchester and Stafford / beyond join and Rugby, so it actually provides no extra capacity on this section, just relief below Rugby.

Build as far as Manchester and Leeds, and the whole thing becomes better value, as it enables many more passenger miles to be travelled AND the construction cost per mile falls dramatically - except that is of course if one believes the outline figure given, as there is no detail of the route on this phase.

All in all a very poorly made case.
jabird is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2012, 23:53
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Manchester
Age: 71
Posts: 59
Approaching this from the standpoint of £32,000,0000,000 being available to upgrade our railways, to spend that sum on the London Birmingham Manchester & Leeds projects alone is indefensible.

Birmingham is already within ninety minutes of London and Leeds and Manchester just over two hours.

Now spend that money intelligently and recreate a corridor like the old GC alignment putting Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield in alignment. Thence split north west to Manchester and Liverpool, north via Huddersfield and Bradford via Harrogate to Northallerton, and the ECML. and North East, via Leeds and York. Add a Coventry, Birmingham, Derby loop from which so many other journeys could be spurred to connect the South, South West, South Wales, Mid Wales and Shrewsbury, South Western Scotland, Hawick and Galashiels to Edinburgh and you would have a network covering the country - at speed and making many car and internal plane journeys totally redundant.

This option - laughed out of court by the contractors and consultants with their snouts pressed firmly to the trough - They know a good thing when they see it!

The losers - all of us!
TBirdFrank is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2012, 05:27
  #6 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,165
Very much against the construction.

The posts by jabird and TBF are clearly based on reality and in the case of the latter ( apologies to jabird here, as you might well have a similar background ) his workiing knowledge of railways.

The costs, as we all know, will escalate and I wonder how the "benefits" in terms of financial returns have been calculated....same for the other inevitable red herring..."number of jobs created".

As somebody who uses the rail network, in preference to the car ( when possible) I would much rather see the money invested in the development of the current system for the benefit of all rail users.

The target market is limited after all and you can bet the fares will negate any cattle class travellers from using the route....to add to which, you only have to see the number of empty seats in First class between Euston / New St / Man Picc to wonder if the market really exists.

As for the NIMBY faction, well yes, to an extent they have a point..the route does cross some scenic areas ,,,,,but you have to wonder how many have blissfully used HS1 en route to "the place in France" etc with scant or no thought as to what was involved in the construction of that line..

As Zooker says, a pointless and expensive journey.....from one dump to another ( the last bit is a personal sentiment )

Last edited by Krystal n chips; 10th Jan 2012 at 05:47.
Krystal n chips is online now  
Old 10th Jan 2012, 07:14
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: EGNX country
Age: 66
Posts: 215
Having just spent 15 minutes posting a reply which on submission received "Database Error" I can't be @rsed to type it all in again.

In a nutshell, I agree with TBF.
The GCR was built to continental gauge as it was designed to open up Manchester and Sheffield to the markets of continental Europe (complete with a Channel Tunnel). A man of vision was Edward Watkin.
handsfree is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2012, 07:19
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 70
Posts: 927
Given the governments record on calculating the costs of infrastructure projects, does anyone seriously believe the figures being quoted? As a rule of thumb, I would double them.
sitigeltfel is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2012, 07:44
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: There and here
Posts: 2,445
I'm another naysayer, not because of the cost, not because of the irreparable damage to the countryside, but because of the simple reason that no-one needs to get to Birmingham/London and vice-versa so much that an already short (1hr 24min) journey is shortened by approximately 30mins. I've always been an admirer of the French and German HS train systems, poetry in motion, but somehow I doubt that the UK will be so successful, especially if the HS trains half introduced on the Ashford (Kent) to London route last summer is anything to go by....

As regards 'double-deckers' I've always wondered why they haven't been introduced on the commuting routes into big UK cities. As far as I'm aware they sit much lower down so even with the double height are still able to pass under the majority of bridges. The weight loading issue can't be such an issue (?) as the wheel bogeys must spread the load proportionally to the size. Perhaps our train buffs/pro could enlighten ?

How about investing in high speed broadband for the whole country instead ? That might just improve business prospects, and might even reduce the need for so many journeys!



SHJ
SpringHeeledJack is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2012, 07:50
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chez Sprog
Posts: 493
Not being a rail expert or anything...but with regard to the double decker thing, why not dig down rather than build up? Run the whole thing in a cutting.
Sprogget is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2012, 07:52
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
It's just blatent pay back to Tory party bankrollers who will make millions from this pointless project.
vee-tail-1 is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2012, 07:57
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
another naysayer..all the above points are relevent.

apart from vee-tail's:

As pointed out by the BBC: It was Labour who announced the original plans for a second high-speed rail line a couple of months before the last general election.

Given the governments record on calculating the costs of infrastructure projects, does anyone seriously believe the figures being quoted? As a rule of thumb, I would double them.
oh at least double.. triple maybe, and when it's done, it will be discovered that there were problems with the specification that renders the whole project either useless or needing upgrads and will likely be obselete when completed anyway.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2012, 08:10
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chez Sprog
Posts: 493
It was Labour who announced the original plans for a second high-speed rail line a couple of months before the last general election.
This is true, yet still a petty point scoring exercise since all opposition parties supported the proposal in principle and in the intervening period, the debate has been around the route and its impact not the project itself.
Sprogget is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2012, 08:51
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: on the beach
Age: 66
Posts: 2,026
It's all well and good building new lines but consumers will reach a point where the railway prices itself out of the market.

A recent price check on a rail ticket between Stevenage and Birmingham International revealed the corresponding fuel costs would have allowed me to do the journey four times. Also it's worth noting that, with train changes, I could also save myself nearly two hours of my life going by road.

To me, it's a no brainer!
Evanelpus is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2012, 09:04
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
This is true, yet still a petty point scoring exercise since
Good to see you are back on message sprogget, that no critique of labour or indeed correcting false statements made regarding tories/labour can be tolerated.

Can the thread get back to the subject matter now or is there more partisan diatribe you would like to add ?
stuckgear is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2012, 09:05
  #16 (permalink)  

More than just an ATCO
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 73
Posts: 1,768
I would prefer an increase in the 'loading gauge' of the existing lines
If it's an system independent of exisiting lines why be restricted by the present guage?

Have Camerloon & Co (independent Traders, Balham, Brampton and places West) accepted Scottish Independance as a fait accompli and therefore decided not to continue the line to the North?
Lon More is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2012, 09:12
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chez Sprog
Posts: 493
SG, I merely corrected your own politically motivated falsehood, as I will do each time I spot one (which may be everything you ever write, but hey ho).

I see nothing partisan in that, particularly as I am not a supporter of any political party.

Now, back to the thread.
Sprogget is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2012, 09:37
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
SG, I merely corrected your own politically motivated falsehood,
Negative. If you re-read above, vee-tail made a politically motivated falsehood, which i was correcting, which you felt the need to leap on and make some issue out of it.

as I will do each time I spot one
So it's justifiable for you to do it, but no-one else. Right on. See the M.O. 'Do as i say, not as i do'.

I am not a supporter of any political party.
Neither am I.

yet, I note Lon above made a politically motivated comment, are you going to leap on that too, or do you just feel the need to stalk my posts ?

can we get back to the thread now or do as usual want to get the last word in with some further derogatory comment ?
stuckgear is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2012, 10:01
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chez Sprog
Posts: 493
So what about this idea of a cutting? Presumably it's a non starter as I guess it would have been proposed by now?
Sprogget is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2012, 10:12
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
So what about this idea of a cutting? Presumably it's a non starter as I guess it would have been proposed by now?
It seems you're not that far off the mark with that idea sprogget..

Double-deck trains for busy rail routes - Telegraph

Trains could be made longer but that would require an extensive and expensive platform lengthening programme, unless the rolling stock was overhauled to allow only certain doors to be opened at smaller stations.
Alistair Darling, the former transport secretary, supports double-deckers as a way of providing more capacity. But it would require bridges and tunnels to be lifted or track to be lowered which, again, would be expensive.
It is this which has led officials in the DfT to ask manufacturers if it would be possible to make a shorter version of the double-decker trains as a means of reducing the cost of any potential track work.
for HS2, Emma Boon of TPA makes a valid point..

We canít afford £32 billion for this project right now. The business case is fundamentally flawed and the Government have vastly inflated the benefits of HSR to the regional economy while hiding the true costs of the project.í
'HSR is a white elephant that won't help the millions of commuters stuck on overcrowded trains up and down Britain.'
wouldnt the money be better spent increasing the efficiency of the network already in place rather than adding a new link, that doesnt deal with the fundamental problems of the existing network and does nothing for the majority of current users. ?

and for Lon:

stuckgear is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.