-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
High Speed 2
- Thread starter ianbartlett
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I think some of the people who are opposing HS2 are missing some the point. The fact is that population projections combined with expected passenger usage mean that the WCML south of Rugby will be opperating at full capacity by 2020. Therefore anywhere which the HS2 money is spent will need to address this problem. So therefore the options are either to lengthen platforms continually, slow down trains and hence the distances between them so that more trains can be run, add new tracks on the existing line or build a new line. I hope nobody here is for slowing down 140MPH trains to around 50 or 60 mph, and it is not a long term solution to continually lengthen platforms. Then we are left with either the possibility of adding additional tracks or building a dedicated new line. The cost of either option will be similar considering compulsory purchase and material costs on the longer WCML so therefore it seems the obvious choice to build new lines which will allow considerably faster running. There is no substantive work that can be done on the WCML now, at the end of the day the laws of physics dictate how fast a train may traverse the many curves on that line. We just won't be able to get the 160,'70,'80 mph people are talking about on here, there just won't be enough centripetal force to keep the train on the rails at that speed. I think prehaps the failure of anybody to provide an alternative to increase Rugby-London capacity is probably the best arguement in favour of HS2
Geezertronic
Established Member
With the Labour plans for HS2 the majority of anti comments I saw were things like "who needs a quicker journey time to Birmingham from London" and of course this totally forgets the detailed plan for a connection to the WCML at Lichfield for northbound services. They also fail to understand the massive upheaval in upgrading the WCML and ECML to higher speed as it is not worth the time, money and massive disruption due to many nightly and weekend possessions
Now HS2 is a bit up in the air with ConLib wanting to route it via Heathrow, through Birmingham and up to Leeds. This brings a new set of issues for me, the major one being how high speed through lines can be configured through a new Birmingham station (since I am a Brummie) and whether the line will join HS1, the WCML and the ECML at any stage during the journey. So one set of NIMBYs could be pleased that HS2 will avoid their area of natural beauty and another set of NIMBYs will complain due to any new route the ConLibs have planned. Only time will tell how the plans will change from Labours.
Now HS2 is a bit up in the air with ConLib wanting to route it via Heathrow, through Birmingham and up to Leeds. This brings a new set of issues for me, the major one being how high speed through lines can be configured through a new Birmingham station (since I am a Brummie) and whether the line will join HS1, the WCML and the ECML at any stage during the journey. So one set of NIMBYs could be pleased that HS2 will avoid their area of natural beauty and another set of NIMBYs will complain due to any new route the ConLibs have planned. Only time will tell how the plans will change from Labours.
BBC has reported that the Queen's Speech says that the new government will introduce a Bill for a construction of a High Speed Rail Network "in due course" - no indication given of routes or timescale.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8703052.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8703052.stm
Regardless of any political agendas, is it really worth the risk of building a high speed line now when it seems very possible that new technology could outdate it very quickly? If it is going to be built today, they would make it to go at speeds of around 200mph, but that has already been topped and surely we are better off pioneering a faster network than anyone else rather than doing this just to keep up?
HS2 has a design speed of up to 250mph, thats faster than any opperating high speed rail (excluding maglev). Its always an arguement against investment that new tecnology could be developed, and if we always waited for the new tecnology to be completed we would never build anything. So far nobody has come up with an alternative plan for increasing capacity on the WCML south of Rugby, so its clear that HS2 is the way forward
If we took this view then nothing would ever be built! The only thing you can do is try to 'future proof' the whole thing, by building in plenty of overheads into the design i.e. make it easy to redevelop the signalling or track work to allow faster speeds or give it plenty of loading gauge to allow for new bigger rolling stock. Look at any mainline over the last 30+ years most have recevied some sort of upgrades to provide higher speeds. The ECML for instance wasn't built from the start with 125mph running but was upgraded to allow it.
Which I suppose shows just how visionary Brunel was. The GWML was designed to be as straight and flat as possible, when the fastest train had barely exceed 40 mph. Mile-a-minute runs from Swindon to London were not unknown on broad gauge, they may even have been scheduled. Now, 125 is perfectly normal and the line could easily cope with 155 with no realignment except for a bit of extra rail cant. Future-proofing 1830s style.
j0hn0
Member
Which I suppose shows just how visionary Brunel was. The GWML was designed to be as straight and flat as possible, when the fastest train had barely exceed 40 mph. Mile-a-minute runs from Swindon to London were not unknown on broad gauge, they may even have been scheduled. Now, 125 is perfectly normal and the line could easily cope with 155 with no realignment except for a bit of extra rail cant. Future-proofing 1830s style.
hence the moniker the Great Way Round
pablo
Member
No. Greatest Way Round. Fundemental difference there. Americanisms had not invaded England in Victorian times. Probably hadn't invaded America by then either.
Last edited:
It was definitely Great Way Round, although the pre-Severn Tunnel route via Gloucester to Cardiff may have had something to do with it.
It was also God's Wonderful Railway, Gas Works Railway (in Reading, because down trains queue up outside the gasworks), Greasy Wet and Rusty and now Gone With Regret
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
I'm staggered that this is serious, but it is:
http://www.500kmh.biz/UltraspeedMedia/Latest_News/Entries/2010/5/25_UK_Ultraspeed_welcomes_Queens_Speech.html
some quotes:
http://www.500kmh.biz/UltraspeedMedia/Latest_News/Entries/2010/5/25_UK_Ultraspeed_welcomes_Queens_Speech.html
some quotes:
Seems like a proposal for another completely incompatible transport network using (virtually) untested and non-production technology and requiring new network infrastructure and city stations.
Too early to tell, but there will be two different types. One that is only used on HS2 (might be double decker, and will probably be based on TGV) and the other that will be 'classic' compatable i.e. it can run on HS2 and then continue on the WCML and other lines.
Chilterns Dan
Member
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 11
Is HS2 designed to allow double-decker trains then? It's about time new lines are, given the need for capacity.
gordonthemoron
Established Member
If Maglev is so great, why has germany abandoned both projected lines, Hamburg-Berlin & Munich-Airport, because it costs too much?
j0hn0
Member
coz it's new?
Germany were building their conventional high speed at the same time and so the investment they already made wouldn't make any sense if they were to build a maglev network as well.
The thing with Germany is that the NBSs augment the existing network only. It takes far too long for long distance services to actually get out of and into the cities.
The UK proposal builds high speed lines directly into the centre of the cities and so if it was to built in one go, there would be no need to use classic lines at all.
Germany were building their conventional high speed at the same time and so the investment they already made wouldn't make any sense if they were to build a maglev network as well.
The thing with Germany is that the NBSs augment the existing network only. It takes far too long for long distance services to actually get out of and into the cities.
The UK proposal builds high speed lines directly into the centre of the cities and so if it was to built in one go, there would be no need to use classic lines at all.
Thats what I've heard, but seeing as construction isn't supposed to start for at least 6 or 7 years, it's really only a bit better than speculation.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/commandpaper/pdf/cmdpaper.pdf
Page 129 section 8.12.
Last edited:
gordonthemoron
Established Member
long distance double decker trains sound like a nightmare
j0hn0
Member
Not sure if I agree with that one. TGV duplex seems to do OK.
The train in the shot is the train for Brussels from Nice running in multiple. The capacity of these trains is phenominal, but I could imagine them being a nightmare in terms of loading times.
I saw a few at Nice station and there was honestly no-one on it
The train in the shot is the train for Brussels from Nice running in multiple. The capacity of these trains is phenominal, but I could imagine them being a nightmare in terms of loading times.
I saw a few at Nice station and there was honestly no-one on it
Attachments
Maglev might be really good in places where you are starting from scratch with high-speed lines, such as the USA. People have proposed high-speed coast-to-coast services with gas turbine power before, but a Maglev running the length of California would be an interesting experiment. If it turned out to be profitable, expand the project accross the country.
I actually think that's a mistake, unless you allow enough interchangeability with classic lines running alongside. Otherwise, you have to build much more new infrastructure, especially new stations, and it cuts down the possibility of connecting services. An ICE is really not that much different from an ordinary intercity train, just a bit faster in places, so you can just turn up and catch one without a reservation. I'd much rather see HS2 as a set of new fast lines for the WCML than a completely new line, even though the route is different.
I actually think that's a mistake, unless you allow enough interchangeability with classic lines running alongside. Otherwise, you have to build much more new infrastructure, especially new stations, and it cuts down the possibility of connecting services. An ICE is really not that much different from an ordinary intercity train, just a bit faster in places, so you can just turn up and catch one without a reservation. I'd much rather see HS2 as a set of new fast lines for the WCML than a completely new line, even though the route is different.
bluebottle
Member
- Joined
- 9 May 2009
- Messages
- 191
Why a nightmare?
Geezertronic
Established Member
Would double-deck trains fit through the Channel Tunnel?
j0hn0
Member
and they would definitely fit through the tunnel too.
No airline seating on dutch double deckers, I love the ViRMs, fairly slow but so bulky and aggressive looking with a nice smooth ride.
No airline seating on dutch double deckers
, I love the ViRMs, fairly slow but so bulky and aggressive looking with a nice smooth ride.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
Most definitely; have you ever seen the size of the Euroshuttle wagons? I think the Channel Tunnel has the largest loading guage in Europe?
leewoods60019
Member
I think HS2 is a good idea for the sole purpose of getting around quicker but i don't know enough info about it to comment on it really
gordonthemoron
Established Member
I don't like double decker trains because there is hardly any luggage capacity and they are cramped
That's surely just a result of trying to fit a double deck into a loading guage that will only just take it- the double deck stock found in the US for example doesn't look cramped- either the Amtrak long distance stuff or the Bombardier bi-level commuter coaches- but they have more space to play with.
As for Eurotunnel, the double deck carriages for that have a flat lower floor above the bogies, and each deck can accomodate cars up to 1.85m high (with suitable clearence above them too- estimate maybe 2m high cabin?) with enough width to open car doors both sides. The stock cannot leave the system on either side.
As for Eurotunnel, the double deck carriages for that have a flat lower floor above the bogies, and each deck can accomodate cars up to 1.85m high (with suitable clearence above them too- estimate maybe 2m high cabin?) with enough width to open car doors both sides. The stock cannot leave the system on either side.
Geezertronic
Established Member
Does anyone know when the new Government are going to release any further details about their route for HS2 and any other info that would be of use?
- Status