Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Proposed new High Speed Rail connection

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
But at least we could all sing "Monorail!" a la Simpsons stylee...
 

jvb1988

War Hero
The fact is our infrastructure here is lagging behind most of the developed world. I would support HS2 as long as it relieves pressure on existing infrastructure, i.e M6/M40/M42 and the other Midlands to London routes. The motorways need some investment and can't we go autobahn style with a higher speed limit and extra routes. If HS2 is linked to the european high speed network then surely that must be good? We need to look at where is worked i.e Japan , France Germany.

Monorails are a nice idea but they only work in cities as they are the only places with a high enough land value to offset the very expensive costs of the pylons, there are added advantages with plyons and raised railways in these circumstance i.e minimal disruption to other transit and utility services , but there is no relevance to running a fully raised line in countryside where land value is still comparitvly low. It may only be as intrusive as electricity cables but you will find those of the NIMBY camp which oppose electricity lines. Also there are weight limitations to monos and maglevs which cannot be compared to standard rail. The avergae size of a freight train can be up to a mile and they tend to be alot heavier than passenger trains, not to mention your avergae intercities are quite long as well thats more weight and strain on the system solely supported by pylons. Inevitably the whole system will have to be made using high tensile materials which will only ramp the price up and it will require much more maintenance than your standard rail, I should also imagine the gauge will be limited as well.

HS2 could be accomodated to accept frieght using converted rolling stock using similar streamlining tactics we have seen introduced onto road haulage. Although I have not seen anything to sugest it will be used in this manner.

As for the environmental angle there are things that can be done to offset damage, Using such things as toad tunnels to allow passage of small animals and small raised segments using more stable methods of rasing to skirt over protected areas. Having lived with a trainline virtually in my backyard , the nosie of it never really bothered me , although now I have to hear a constant sound to get to sleep.
 
The fact is our infrastructure here is lagging behind most of the developed world. I would support HS2 as long as it relieves pressure on existing infrastructure, i.e M6/M40/M42 and the other Midlands to London routes. The motorways need some investment and can't we go autobahn style with a higher speed limit and extra routes. If HS2 is linked to the european high speed network then surely that must be good? We need to look at where is worked i.e Japan , France Germany.

Monorails are a nice idea but they only work in cities as they are the only places with a high enough land value to offset the very expensive costs of the pylons, there are added advantages with plyons and raised railways in these circumstance i.e minimal disruption to other transit and utility services , but there is no relevance to running a fully raised line in countryside where land value is still comparitvly low. It may only be as intrusive as electricity cables but you will find those of the NIMBY camp which oppose electricity lines. Also there are weight limitations to monos and maglevs which cannot be compared to standard rail. The avergae size of a freight train can be up to a mile and they tend to be alot heavier than passenger trains, not to mention your avergae intercities are quite long as well thats more weight and strain on the system solely supported by pylons. Inevitably the whole system will have to be made using high tensile materials which will only ramp the price up and it will require much more maintenance than your standard rail, I should also imagine the gauge will be limited as well.

HS2 could be accomodated to accept frieght using converted rolling stock using similar streamlining tactics we have seen introduced onto road haulage. Although I have not seen anything to sugest it will be used in this manner.

As for the environmental angle there are things that can be done to offset damage, Using such things as toad tunnels to allow passage of small animals and small raised segments using more stable methods of rasing to skirt over protected areas. Having lived with a trainline virtually in my backyard , the nosie of it never really bothered me , although now I have to hear a constant sound to get to sleep.

Stick the trains under the horizon, covered or not. The bods on board can either work whilst commuting or watch a DVD. No problem with the vista then.
 
To my way of thinking someone is being paid off.
I see no economic sense in this New High Speed rail.
17 Billion Now, which will increase could be better spent.

john
 
M

Mr_Logic

Guest
The govt creams off loads of money from these franchises which is why the east coast mainline can't make a profit. If they are serious about public transport invest in it. It says something that we can't travel any quicker than the mallard.

If the Govt take so much, why do companies still bid for the franchises? As is well documented, the amount of public money going into the rail network increased after privatisation. That surely counts as investment?

In regard to you Mallard comment, I believe that we do have 140 mph running on certain parts of the network. Mallard achieved 126 mph in a well orchestrated short distance sprint, over line that were not designed for those sort of speeds. The locomotive was so damaged by this effort that she was unable to continue safely. Even back in the late 1970s when HSTs were introduced there was a scheduled Paddington to Bristol service that averaged 106 mph or so. I haven't been on Eurostar for over a dcecade, but the last time I did the speed on on the French side was breath-taking. 160 mph on a train feels fast. The whole point of the proposed new line is that it will be engineered for TGV type speeds. Not a great comparison really.
 
I think the intent is to replicate the success of the French TGV and German ICE. By laying new lines engineered for the speeds achievable in the 21st century rail can compete with air travel, particularly for city centre to city centre travel. I think there is research that shows that for journeys under three hours within Europe, rail is extremely attractive compared to air. Its not just faster trains, it is newer lines free from freight and commuter traffic. Of course, the UK countryside is somewhat more congested than other countries where high-speed rail have been built. It is not a bad idea, if it is done well.

The effect of the TGV on the East of France have been absolutely incredible. Cities like Metz and Strasbourg have seen a genuine explosion of the numbers of visitors and it has driven economy up in those areas like nothing else.

Train is definitely the way forward for Europe and after years of neglect, more and more nations are now modernizing their networks.
 
M

Mr_Logic

Guest
The govt creams off loads of money from these franchises which is why the east coast mainline can't make a profit. If they are serious about public transport invest in it. It says something that we can't travel any quicker than the mallard.

Further to my previous reply, I have now bothered to do another 5 minutes of internet research. The line speed of High Speed 1 is between 143 and 186 mph (230 to 300 kph). A Eurstar train set a new UK rail speed record of 208 mph (334.7 kph) on this line on 30 July 2003. On 4 September 2007, a train travelled from Paris Gare du Nord to St. Pancras in 2 hours 3 minutes and 39 seconds. On 19 September 2007, a train travelled from Brussels South to St. Pancras in 1 hour 43 minutes. Just remind me, how long do you have to arrive at an airport before an international flight these days?

As to developing traffic, the German operator Deutsche Bahn have applied for access and wish to start rail services between Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Frankfurt. They wish to get these going prior to the 2012 London Olympics. The Spanish operator RENFE have shown in interest in running service to London. Lastly, the town of Calais is trying to re-brand itself as part of the UK during the Olympics to benefit from the revenue, on the basis of proposed rail raffic.

There is a lot of money and financial interest in running traffic on High Speed 1. Why would High Speed 2 not be similar?
 
Further to my previous reply, I have now bothered to do another 5 minutes of internet research. The line speed of High Speed 1 is between 143 and 186 mph (230 to 300 kph). A Eurstar train set a new UK rail speed record of 208 mph (334.7 kph) on this line on 30 July 2003. On 4 September 2007, a train travelled from Paris Gare du Nord to St. Pancras in 2 hours 3 minutes and 39 seconds. On 19 September 2007, a train travelled from Brussels South to St. Pancras in 1 hour 43 minutes. Just remind me, how long do you have to arrive at an airport before an international flight these days?

As to developing traffic, the German operator Deutsche Bahn have applied for access and wish to start rail services between Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Frankfurt. They wish to get these going prior to the 2012 London Olympics. The Spanish operator RENFE have shown in interest in running service to London. Lastly, the town of Calais is trying to re-brand itself as part of the UK during the Olympics to benefit from the revenue, on the basis of proposed rail raffic.

There is a lot of money and financial interest in running traffic on High Speed 1. Why would High Speed 2 not be similar?
Two words. Modern Railways

You can buy it every month... even in the Czech Republic.
High speed is a no brainer, the railways will be at capacity on both East and West coasts within a few years, the problem is that govt are suggesting Birmingham when in fact, and acknowledged, Leeds and

Ultimately

Edinburgh and Glasgow are the targets

Agreed, pricing is a subject, but I did Stansted to Central London return last weekend for ish 10 quid return - I bought a ticket to Clapham Junction. Hmmm, I hear the same is true of other HEADLINE rail journies... buy the cheaper advanced and watch where you travel to.
 
M

Mr_Logic

Guest
In regard to pricing, I suspect that a lot of users will be business travellers. I would ask the general question, who travels 1st class by rail and business/premier class by air? Also, which sort of people of people can afford to buy top end Mercedes, Audis, BMWs, high-spec 4x4s, etc? The point that I am trying to make is that although many of us have average incomes, there is a huge swathe of wealthy or business users who will be attracted by the time, speed and efficiency and not be detered by price. Businessmen who are able to sit in a 1st class on a train working on their laptops, as opposed to the dead time transitting through airports, will pay for that service. There is a lot of money out there.
 
By pushing on with the "vital" high speed rail link, the Government can continue with their current high tax policy on all aspects of car usage.
The road network is creaking, but still remains the cheapest, quickest, cleanest, most efficient way of moving goods and persons around the country. This in spite of the fact that most of the actual costs involved are tax's, we cannot wind the clock back we have been pushed into the car to obtain work far from where we live, but at the same time we are being taxed out of the car under the guise of green policy's. By build HS link this myth can be continued.

It won't even stop where i live, yet passes my back door.
 
...It won't even stop where i live, yet passes my back door.

If it did stop it would not be HS. The whole idea of HS2 is to eventually run up the west side of England to connect Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham to London. HS3 is planned to go up the east side to connect Leeds and other major cities to London. If done well it should free up space on the existing railway.

Roads are no comparison. Do we really want more road traffic in our cities?
 
No one has mentioned yet the fact that HS rail runs on electricity (which can be generated in a myriad of different ways and is essentially an infinite resource). Road and air travel rely on a rapidly diminishing and increasingly expensive, polluting resource - oil. In a few years time we will look pretty silly with all those airports and swathes of tarmac all over the country and nothing moving on them.

Travelling to Europe now is a no-brainer with Eurostar (if you live in the South-East). When hooked up to HS rail throughout the country it becomes a much more attractive proposition from the North. The next problem might be lack of capacity through the Channel Tunnel - but that's for another day...
 
"Road and air travel rely on a rapidly diminishing and increasingly expensive, polluting resource - oil"
Very true.
I would like to think the below is Possible/Probable, Rutherford University Oxford, seems to be taking it serious.

'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8379357/Hydrogen-fuel-for-cars-comes-a-step-nearer.html'

john
 
"In five years' time we shall have a Labour Government. Who will lead it is not yet known"

Not normal that I dispute your views but BALLS to you Sah.

John
 
Top