An alternative to HS2 route, follow the M40?

[dalmahoyhill]

I have checked your posts and I am struggling to twig which project you are talking about.

high speed 1 was delivered to time and budget

 

[caliwag]

Interesting demolition of HS2 from the Torygraph, who only a fortnight ago published an editorial praising the project...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...rail-running-rapidly-right-off-the-rails.html

 

[jon0844]

Andrew Gilligan?

..Update: So I've read the arguments that it will be a waste of money and charge premium rates for passengers.

How can this argument be used over and over when it can't be true? Sure, there will be premium tickets and no doubt a decent first class offering, but if you could run a train every 2 or 3 minutes then there's a HUGE amount of capacity and so there will be cheap advanced/discounted tickets to prevent the trains carrying nothing but fresh air. HS2 will still compete with the legacy/classic routes after all.

Comments also say that big business is not showing much interest, yet if the argument is true that tickets will cost hundreds of pounds then surely they'd be incredibly keen? Seems like a bit of a contradiction to me.

Personally, I'd say that big business isn't rushing to invest as they've either not been approached with accurate costings and details, or they're simply hoping that it will be funded by the Government and tax payer (or at least underwritten). I think it's too early to say that it has no support.

And the tired argument that we simply upgrade the other lines. All that work on the WCML.. let's do it again! Let's have 5 to 10 years of disruptions, diversions and weekend shutdowns. The public will love that, knowing they're getting value for money as half the money (or more) goes on trying to work around a live railway. Then, even when we get the new signalling, someone will ask 'but how do we run these fast trains when so many of them are stopping along the way'?

Labour (and its former cronies) should be backing HS2. In fact, given the environmental benefits, I am amazed everyone isn't supporting it. Has anyone seen that BP petrol station near Gillingham selling unleaded for £1.40 a litre? An exceptional case today, but in 5 or 10 years? £2 a litre for fuel or more? Quite probable (a safer bet than assuming HS2 will overspend by hundreds of billions of pounds) so there won't just be more leisure travellers wanting to use the WCML, but a lot of motorists priced off the roads. We need more capacity, and the current lines won't be able to deliver that.

 

[bf2142]

Overall, I’m in favour of HS2 and applaud the gov for promoting the project. But they can’t seem to win as everyone allegedly wants greener travel yet as soon as we get down to the route details, the good old wealthy English NIMBY is on the phone to his MP.

That said, for those of us that are unlikely to be using it, it is a little irksome that billions were spent on the recent WCML upgrade and now tens of billions more are to be made available to build a HS route that serves the same cities.

 

[jon0844]

I can only think that while the WCML upgrade was disappointing for not going far enough, just as the ECML wiring on the cheap has left us with all sorts of problems, it will still help in the long run - as these lines will have the pressure taken off them a bit, but still work in conjunction with HS2.

HS2 isn't, after all, replacing the WCML, MML or ECML (or any other lines along the way).

Travel by rail is going to sky rocket in the next ten years as people will struggle to afford to use their car for all but essential journeys that can't be done by other means. Even buses and taxis will get more and more expensive, yet I don't think it's true that everyone will simply stay at home. I can always see myself with a car, but I'm already using it less regularly - and gone are the days (albeit partly due to getting older) that I just take the car out for a spin for the sake of driving, with nowhere to actually go. Admittedly, driving a car that does around 25mpg and runs on super-unleaded does mean I'm paying more than I have to!

People may travel less, but I doubt they'll all want to live like a prisoner in their own home. The problem with the Internet and things like Facebook and social media is that people will actually want to travel more, not for business but to meet friends.

Cars will get greener, and planes may one day run on a renewable energy sources, but we can't just sit back and hope that everyone switches to a car that does 70mpg or the airline industry can enjoy cheap, tax-free, fuel forever. Ryanair will continue to play games to try and keep the headline figures down, but the EU seem to be on their case and things like charging £5 per person, per flight as a booking fee will soon be stopped - and they'll have to find new ways to make money.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Travel by rail is going to sky rocket in the next ten years as people will struggle to afford to use their car for all but essential journeys that can't be done by other means. Even buses and taxis will get more and more expensive, yet I don't think it's true that everyone will simply stay at home

You've made a massive contradiction there Jon - rail fares have increased far beyond motoring costs. If cars and buses are too expensive to use then how are people going to get to the station? The number of people of who live within walking distance of Euston and Curzon Park is pathetically small. HS2 is utterly reliant on the car - the one fact about HS2 that cannot be denied is that the number of people who will choose a car free lifestyle is precisely zero. 50% of all journeys are under 2 miles and 80% under five.

If you actually read the article you will have noticed that the non-Birmingham stations produce more passengers than Birmingham going to London on the EBW route. However, the current circa 1,400 seats per hour will be reduced to just 600 an hour and Birmingham will go up to 4,400 seats per hour.

 

[The Planner]

If cars and buses are too expensive to use then how are people going to get to the station? The number of people of who live within walking distance of Euston and Curzon Park is pathetically small. HS2 is utterly reliant on the car - the one fact about HS2 that cannot be denied is that the number of people who will choose a car free lifestyle is precisely zero. 50% of all journeys are under 2 miles and 80% under five.

I'd imagine that the figure arriving to Euston and New St now by their own car is probably miniscule. Therefore terminal stations and large city centre stations currently aren't reliant on the car, so it seems sensible that HS2 wouldn't be either. People will still buy public transport season tickets in urban areas to get them to the transport hubs as they will be the only economical way of doing it, I can't imagine any massive change in that.

 

[jon0844]

I don't drive to the station any longer. To park there is £6 a day (albeit cheaper if I got a season) but there's petrol, insurance (and the risk of damage/break ins in the car park) and so on to consider. Therefore I take the bus, which costs me a flat £300 or so per year with the PlusBUS scheme (and also gives unlimited bus travel locally).

I could of course cycle too. I did once and had my bike nicked first day. However there are now new shelters and CCTV so maybe I'll try again one day - and that would make the most sense of all, allowing for me (and others) who are a reasonable distance from a station to get there. Or I buy a folder, except that's a waste of time as my office is a few minutes walk from the other end and so I'm lugging a bike with me for no reason.

For me the £300 (or whatever it is, £320 perhaps) is a flat rate add-on to any season ticket throughout the country. Thus, it's available to most people. There's no way driving (and parking) can come anywhere close.

I reserve using my car for when I get home and want to go shopping at night, drive to a restaurant in the country or whatever.. basically, places where a train or bus will not go (or not at times suitable for me). That's what I can see cars being used for most of the time in the future, with the short drives being ruled out as people try and save money.

 

[bluenoxid]

high speed 1 was delivered to time and budget

Sorry, could you repeat that statement?

Initial cost £2.8 billion

http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/ne...annel-tunnel-rail-link-gets-royal-assent.html

Final cost £5.8 billion

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm071016/text/71016w0009.htm
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Interesting demolition of HS2 from the Torygraph, who only a fortnight ago published an editorial praising the project...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...rail-running-rapidly-right-off-the-rails.html

Of course a fair media takes opinion from both sides of the fence. Rail lets Wolmar spout off

 

[Philip Elliott]

I'd imagine that the figure arriving to Euston and New St now by their own car is probably miniscule. Therefore terminal stations and large city centre stations currently aren't reliant on the car, so it seems sensible that HS2 wouldn't be either. People will still buy public transport season tickets in urban areas to get them to the transport hubs as they will be the only economical way of doing it, I can't imagine any massive change in that.

The HS2 reported suggested 93% of the West Midlands - London market was by car and that HS2 should be able to capture a large share of that market but most of the West Midlands isn't in Birmingham and the time taken just to get to the city centre station (often in the wrong direction) is time that could see you very near the destination. For instance, Rugby - Euston is 47 minutes / 83 miles. But the 7 miles to Rugby by bus with walking and connection time is over an hour during which time a car could be past Watford. There are far greater time savings from local links than cutting intercity times.

The size of the car parks in many cities and large towns such as Wakefield, Rugby, Tamworth, Bicester suggests intercity rail is very heavily dependent on the car - the main station for HS2 is likely to be Birmingham Airport which will have it's very own motorway junction!

 

[Zoe]

Why does HS2 have to head for Birmingham before going anywhere else? Why can't it follow the MML corridor with a branch to Birmingham. If you are heading for Newcastle, you wouldn't want to go via Birmingham.

 

[caliwag]

Well, quite so Zoe. One of the arguments for this whole charade is that it will invigorate the North and create an economic rebalance. Err, why would that happen by knocking a few minutes off journey time, when in twenty years time all business will be conducted in completely different ways...obviously.

Most odd, outdated thinking...though I agree, difficult to predict the future when you probably only have five years in office! What are the odds on the current transport secretary (can't remember his name) being in place in 18 months.

Importantly, what of Gilligan's assertions that more local (like London to Liverpool and Glasgow) will be shrunk to accommodate the white elephant?

 

[The Planner]

The size of the car parks in many cities and large towns such as Wakefield, Rugby, Tamworth, Bicester suggests intercity rail is very heavily dependent on the car - the main station for HS2 is likely to be Birmingham Airport which will have it's very own motorway junction!

It already has, junction 6 of the M42, that doesn't change under HS2. It just gets a connection to the current A452.

 

[Zoe]

If they had used the former GCR corridor as far as Rugby there would have been an opportunity to build a large car park at the M1/M6 junction. It would also be a chance to sort out the mess of Catthorpe Interchange.

 

[digitaltoast]

Interesting demolition of HS2 from the Torygraph, who only a fortnight ago published an editorial praising the project...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...rail-running-rapidly-right-off-the-rails.html

And unsurprisingly, this morning, The Grauniad have an opposing view:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/07/hs2-urban-regeneration

Interestingly, currently the highest rated comment is:
"I confidently predict any high speed rail attempted on this benighted island will, if it gets going at all, be massively more expensive than forecast, will open years behind schedule and will be so expensive with such a Byzantine approach to ticket sales that only the rich and those able to plan journeys months in advance will be able to use it." ... and this is The Guardian. I think pro-HS2 might have a battle on their hands...

While I'm here:

whilst I'd like to spend all day educating you about the facts about renewable energy, I suspect you dont really want to hear it & only come on here to cause trouble anyway.

Well, on my side against micro-PV, I've got George Monbiot, countless failed studies, the highly acclaimed book "Without Hot Air" and hence physics mathematics and economics,, the experience of my father and his first in engineering from Imperial College, the experience of the German government who have basically given up on the hugely expensive failed experiment, and my two years as a contractor on the National Grid's SCADA system (electrical side, not gas! And yes, I know the grid deals in HV only, but there's a helluva a lot of people there who know about microgeneration, and you won't find a single pro-micro-PV one amongst them).

And your evidence is? That's my last comment on solar PV, as it's not really the right thread for it, but feel free to come over to the lively debate on MSE: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=35345925#post35345925 - my username is the same there, feel free to let me know if you post there and we can carry it on.

 

[tbtc]

in twenty years time all business will be conducted in completely different ways...obviously

This is an argument that gets used often against HS2, but does it bear out?

I mean, at the moment all you need to hold a video conference are two mobile phones (no special conference facilities etc), we have email etc, yet people still meet face to face, business travel is still important.

 

[jon0844]

I'd work from home more if I had a flexible season ticket that didn't charge me a flat rate for the year - giving no incentive for me to stay home (for me, my journey is relatively easy and painless so that's not even an incentive!).

I can see people may work more flexible hours, which will in turn balance loads on trains (and roads) but I don't think people will ever want to work from home exclusively. We are social creatures after all.

 

[sprinterguy]

Why does HS2 have to head for Birmingham before going anywhere else? Why can't it follow the MML corridor with a branch to Birmingham. If you are heading for Newcastle, you wouldn't want to go via Birmingham.

Which is part of the reason that a High Speed line is being specified rather than an additional 125mph route: Despite HS2 taking a more circuitous route from the Northern cities, it is still competitive in terms of time taken from A to B, which is what counts to the passenger rather than which cities it passes through en route. It is sensible for HS2 to serve the largest and most prosperous cities in order to cater for intermediate traffic as well as London bound passengers. Building a line between England’s first and second cities first is the safest way to ensure high usage of HS2 before it is extended through to Leeds and Manchester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

in twenty years time all business will be conducted in completely different ways...obviously.

Advance in communications technology is much more likely to impact local trips in the future than the mixed use nature of Intercity travel. While the shortening of journey times will encourage more people to live further from where they work, the majority of commuters will remain located near to their place of work. Long distance travel for work purposes is related more closely to meeting with clients, and conference activities between organisations, than to the suitability of working from home or not.

It’s not just business that will be affected either: The nature of domestic and leisure pursuits is changing as well, which can be clearly witnessed in the rising prevalence of internet shopping over trips to city centre shopping centres and local commercial centres. This activity is also tied much more closely to local trips than it is to long distance travel.

 

[Philip Elliott]

It already has, junction 6 of the M42, that doesn't change under HS2. It just gets a connection to the current A452.

Junction 6 is for the A45 which was the main road from the south / east. The airport is accessed from the A45 but HS2 will have a new dedicated motorway junction.

 

[brianthegiant]

Err, why would that happen by knocking a few minutes off journey time, when in twenty years time all business will be conducted in completely different ways...obviously.

I agree with tbtc, this sounds like the ' we dont need to expand railway services because everyone will use videoconferencing' argument

Which of course is why in the period when services like webex, gotomeeting, skype, etc, have made web/video conferencing accessible technologies for anyone with a laptop, rail use has doubled...

as I've said before these technologies do save some journeys, but, there is no substitute for face to face meetings, shaking hands eye contact etc.

Besides,the ever increasing availability of wifi, 3G & power sockets on trains, continues to make rail travel more attractive to business travellers as you can carry on working on a train which you cant at the wheel of a car (or on a plane).

 

[jon0844]

I've seen the BT video conferencing product (in the 80s?) come and go, 3G phones with video calling come and go (well, it still remains but most phones don't bother and nobody used it) and now Apple has reinvented it with FaceTime (and of course, Skype etc).

Some people use it to keep in touch with family, but only rarely because it's a case of preparing yourself for being filmed, so I guess the only real use now is for pornographic chatlines.

Video conferencing for business can work in some scenarios, but clearly not for most - as you get to do far more face to face (like all the casual chatting before and after the meeting, which you can't do on something that everyone participates in).

Video conferencing will NEVER replace normal meetings. The most that will happen is there being less need for meetings altogether - but people will still need to move about to do their work.

I was self-employed for thirteen years and worked from home most of that time. I coped, but really prefer going to an office now and as I get older, I see myself less likely to want to stay at home all day long. When I retire, I'll have plenty of time to do nothing.

 

[NJTom]

Just a couple of points from someone who doesn't live in the uk anymore, and probably shouldn't have an opinion, but ..

HS2 will unquestionably take revenue from existing lines, making investment and upgrades on the ecml and wcml more of a tax burden, and therefore far less likely to happen.

I don't believe the numbers or projections. Over here we have all kinds of BS about Acela, and that it runs at a profit, which is a lie. A lot of the infrastructure, and non train crew staffing is buried in Amtrak's red ink.
Does this kind of creative accounting apply to the reported success of HS1?

 

[Metroland]

This is an argument that gets used often against HS2, but does it bear out?

I mean, at the moment all you need to hold a video conference are two mobile phones (no special conference facilities etc), we have email etc, yet people still meet face to face, business travel is still important.

Quite so. Most future predictions are wrong because humans are essentially conservative and social.

 

[jon0844]

Video conferencing is a great idea, and IS used quite a lot already, but it will never become widely used as you miss the body language, the ability to have private conversions between people around you, and the social chat before and after a meeting. It's all or nothing in a conference call/chat.

Working from home is worth looking at, with people maybe working 1 or 2 days at home - which will, overall, reduce the traffic on roads, trains etc. But, we don't have season tickets that make it cost effective to stay home when you pay for 7 days, a month or a year.

Car drivers are probably the people who could 'afford' to work from home more, than those using public transport.

 

[digitaltoast]

Digitaltoast - I can make that argument from a technical standpoint. I am a rolling stock engineer on high speed trains. I understand aerodynamic drag. My thesis 12 years ago was based on aerodynamics and while CFD technology has improved, the laws of physics haven't changed therefore I assume what got me a degree is still valid! I'm mechanically based specialising in suspensions, wheel/rail dynamics and coupling systems but have electrical experience, particularly with current collection at high speeds. If any of that sounds like something that can answer your questions then shoot - I will answer honestly if I can.

Fantastic! At last! And sorry I didn't reply earlier.

OK, can you give me a good estimate of the current required to pull a train to 125mph, then run it for some distance at 125mph?
Can you then do the same for 250mph, or the top speed at which you expect the HST2 to run at?

The reason I ask is because days ago I was thinking exactly the same as this news report from this morning which says:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/12827969

Greener and cleaner has become the catchphrase for governments as they encourage greater use of renewable energy sources such as solar power or wind farms, or nuclear power, none of which emit carbon dioxide the way fossil fuel power stations do.

The motor industry is playing a big role in green technology, with petrol-electric hybrid and electric cars being touted as the future drivers of growth.

But the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan has raised some questions about the immediate future of such vehicles.

The reason behind that is simple. Electric vehicles operate on batteries that need to be charged.

If batteries are charged by electricity produced by nuclear power plants, the objective of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is achieved.

However, if the electricity is produced by burning fossil fuel it defeats the object as it is not only expensive to generate that power, but it also does nothing to reduce emissions.

So, bringing it back to TGV's question, something we know about drag:

"Horsepower lost to aerodynamic drag goes up by 8 times for each time the speed doubles".

So a train travelling at 250mph uses 8x the energy of a 125mph train to maintain that speed?

I use the figure of 250mph as the HS2 site trumpets a figure of 400kph all over the place, which is 248.55 mph. http://www.hs2.org.uk/about-hsr

"Experts forecast that by 2020 the technology will exist to create a passenger train that can travel up to 400kph.

In order to run at very high speeds, HSR trains need to be far more powerful than conventional trains. They can accelerate at a much quicker pace reaching 100kphin less than 500m or 300kph from a standing start in just over 7km

There's a table below showing:

Top speed (kph) conventional: 200 HS2: 400
Installed power (MW) conventional: 4 HS2: 20
Passenger capacity: conventional: 500 HS2: 1100

So from what we know about drag, we'd expect the energy use to be 8x as great. Even a quickl glance at the installed power shows a 5x increase, for just double the passenger numbers.

So let's be (very) generous and assume that HS2 is going to uses just around 3x the amount of electrical power per passenger to achieve its aims.
Unless we're pretty much 100% nuclear by the time it opens (chances of that happening?!) then the cost of carbon credits for running the service is surely going to be astronomical, let alone the raw cost of electricity? (Which according to calculations by the Nottingham Energy Partnership appears to be rising around 1% month on month at the moment).

So, the reason for the question marks is that I'm sure TGV can clarify this, as originally offered. Thanks!

 

[gordonthemoron]

we can always import nuclear produced electricity from France

 

[digitaltoast]

we can always import nuclear produced electricity from France

From your username, I can only assume you're being comical, trolling, or really don't understand how grids work or the capacity of the HVDC cable.

And it's extremely expensive to import electricity this way too.

Also:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article6626811.ece

France is being forced to import electricity from Britain to cope with a summer heatwave that has helped to put a third of its nuclear power stations out of action.

With temperatures across much of France surging above 30C this week, EDF’s reactors are generating the lowest level of electricity in six years, forcing the state-owned utility to turn to Britain for additional capacity.

Fourteen of France’s 19 nuclear power stations are located inland and use river water rather than seawater for cooling. When water temperatures rise, EDF is forced to shut down the reactors to prevent their casings from exceeding 50C.

A spokesman for National Grid said that electricity flows from Britain to France during the peak demand yesterday morning were as high as 1,000MW — roughly equivalent to the output of Dungeness nuclear power station on the Kent coast.

Next?

 

[Class172]

If the route would be hugging alongside the M40, wouldn't it face a problem when it went around Oxford. When the M40 was built, it had to be diverted so it avoided some nature thingy, this caused the awkwardly tight bends that adds on time between J9-10. How would a 196mph train try to negotiate these same alignments?

 

[Mystic Force]

However, if the electricity is produced by burning fossil fuel it defeats the object as it is not only expensive to generate that power, but it also does nothing to reduce emissions.

I am a scientist so I can deal with this one.

Simply put. Generating electricity at a power plant is a lot more efficient than generating power in a local source. Basically the amount of useful work as a percentage of the amount possible is significantly more, than when it is generated at a local small power source. i.e. a big coal-fired power station liberates more useful energy than burning the equivalent about of diesel in a small engine. So even CO2 heavy coal will generate less CO2 for the same amount of work than burning diesel. Once you are using electricity you now have a choice of how to generate it. But even burning coal to generate electricity would be better than directly running of diesel in terms of CO2. This is because of the efficiency of scale.

 

[brianthegiant]

@Mystic force, don't forget that Coal & Diesel have different numbers of carbon atoms per molecule, hence why coal has highest CO2 emission per kWh of all fossil fuels. But yes in general larger tubines/engines generally more efficient than small ones, since economies of scale allow more expenditure on the plant.

I think the other big argument for electric rail is that you can use regenerative braking, so the braking energy goes back into the wires & not as heat from brake pads.

@ GordontheMoron & digitaltoast,

I think the England-France HVDC link is rated to about 1GW, ie equivalent to 1/2 the maximum output from Sellafield. So as a percentage contribution to our power its a small part of the mix. It function is more to even out peaks & troughs in UK/French demand (ie in both directions), rather than to import bulk energy. Most of the variation in demand between England & France is due to the different time zones,