j0hn0
Member
BUT a believer in less centralised Regulation and interference. He has considerable Treasury experience which will be needed and which is why he was appointed.
NR managers may be considering their positions shortly
BUT a believer in less centralised Regulation and interference. He has considerable Treasury experience which will be needed and which is why he was appointed.
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?
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 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.
No. Greatest Way Round. Fundemental difference there. Americanisms had not invaded England in Victorian times. Probably hadn't invaded America by then either.
Reduced to basics, conventional high speed rail delivers a fragmented railway, using technology no better than Britains competitors, which only gets as far as Lancashire and Yorkshire, and then fails to link them together.
UKU maglev, by contrast, provides a coherent Anglo-Scottish strategic intercity system, using the worlds fastest ground transport, linking most major city-regions from London to Scotland to each other as well as to London and Heathrow.
HS2 has projected a capital cost of around £30 bn to achieve a rail journey of 80 minutes to Manchester and 85 minutes or so to Leeds. Achieving this time requires the full construction of HS2s Stage Two system with three, separate branches to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.
For a projected capital cost of £13.5 bn maglev delivers London or Heathrow to Manchester in 54 mins, Liverpool in 73 mins and Leeds in 74 minutes on an integrated trunk network which links all these major markets to each other as well as to London.
In order to allow the forthcoming procurement competition to take place on a level playing field, UK Ultraspeed now looks forward to agreeing a cost-effective package of Government-supported study work to prepare a similarly detailed case for £30m-per-km 300mph maglev network. For the same order of total capital costs proposed by HS2, Ultraspeed will link London and Heathrow with M25 P&R, Birmingham Airport, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Manchester Airport, West Manchester, Liverpool Airport, Central Liverpool, Central Manchester, 2 x M62 P&R and Central Leeds.
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.Put yet another way, for around the same capital cost of rail from London to Birmingham, maglev will link London and Heathrow to the Midlands and the bulk of Englands Greater North
Whichever way the BCR is calculated, the result is the inescapable: maglev simply does more for less money.
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.
Is HS2 designed to allow double-decker trains then? It's about time new lines are, given the need for capacity.
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.
long distance double decker trains sound like a nightmare
Would double-deck trains fit through the Channel Tunnel?