Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
I'd love a national coverage high speed network, but noone in government is ever going to be willing to pay for one.
Ultimately this is one of these systems which costs an enormous amount, on paper, but once it was built within a generation people would not be able to conceive of life without it.
In essence, what if the Tube went to Aberdeen?
It is just one of those things you have to build if you are serious about creating a modern state for the 21st Century.
Given that the vast majority of the distance is in tunnels, which under Japanese law don't require money to be paid for land acquisition, what you are seeing as the cost of the Chuo Shinkansen (currently projected at JPY7.04 trillion for 286km) is construction only, and includes very little land acquisition. My quick calculation suggests that the cost of the Chuo Shinkansen will be around £165 million per km - and that doesn't have significant land acquisition costs - compared to around £90 million per km for HS2, which has a large proportion of property acquisition coasts.
As I noted above WCML 125 is only for trains fitted with tilt whilst HS1 is of course a purpose built High Speed line so personally I would exclude these as examples where the 110 ceiling has been exceeded - line speed on WCML remains 110 thus denying 125 capable trains such as classes 220 (other than between Wolverhampton and Stafford) and 397 from exploiting their full potential. The point I was trying to make was other than sections of MML and XC there seems to have been no desire to expand on the speed uplifts made in the mid 70's on the conventional network for conventional trains, but I could perhaps have expressed this differently.
Given that the vast majority of the distance is in tunnels, which under Japanese law don't require money to be paid for land acquisition, what you are seeing as the cost of the Chuo Shinkansen (currently projected at JPY7.04 trillion for 286km) is construction only, and includes very little land acquisition. My quick calculation suggests that the cost of the Chuo Shinkansen will be around £165 million per km - and that doesn't have significant land acquisition costs - compared to around £90 million per km for HS2, which has a large proportion of property acquisition coasts.
Phase 1 of HS2 is currently set to cost £228m per km. Perhaps we should have tunnelled the whole thing? I'm entirely in favour of HS2, but I really don't understand UK costs for infrastructure
line speed on WCML remains 110 thus denying 125 capable trains such as classes 220 (other than between Wolverhampton and Stafford) and 397 from exploiting their full potential
it’s not really a sensible argument to say “it’s not 125mph as only some kingpins of train can use it”. By that argument all other stretches of 125mph shouldn’t count as that can only be used by trains with a certain braking rate and axle load.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'd love a national coverage high speed network, but noone in government is ever going to be willing to pay for one.
Ultimately this is one of these systems which costs an enormous amount, on paper, but once it was built within a generation people would not be able to conceive of life without it.
In essence, what if the Tube went to Aberdeen?
It is just one of those things you have to build if you are serious about creating a modern state for the 21st Century.
By definition of the EC decision, a high-speed line must have one of these three infrastructure characteristics:
specially built high-speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h
specially upgraded high-speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h
specially upgraded high-speed lines which have special features as a result of topographical, relief or town-planning constraints, on which the speed must be adapted to each case.
The ECML, WCML and GWML all have sections of 125mph (200 km/h) already so technically meet that.
What I think you mean is a shiny, new build network in the way that France or Spain has, conveniently ignoring both of those are much larger countries geographically than the UK.
What I think you mean is a shiny, new build network in the way that France or Spain has, conveniently ignoring both of those are much larger countries geographically than the UK.
No, I mean one that is capable of producing short journey times across the entire country.
The fact that that the only practical way to do that is a new build network doesn't mean that I want a newbuild network because it is newbuild - I want it because it is the only way to get what I actually want.
I balk at calling 200km/h high speed, it's still painfully slow for the aforementioned objective. I want public transport that beats (preferably crushes) the car for most journeys, including the end legs done on slow urban public transport, bikes or on foot.
I certainly don't want a network that resembles the French or Spanish model - indeed I am on record on this forum for railing against HS2 for being too like said model.
As for charging facilities, a great many drivers don't want the uncertainty of not knowing whether their next charge point will be unoccupied, they don't want to wait more than a few minutes even if it is unoccupied, and what about the 40% of UK households that don't have the luxury of off street parking?
I agree that this shouldn't be an argument, but it is nevertheless an interesting and necessary discussion.
I also think that electricity supply infrastructure in rural areas will not be able to cope with the extra load of car charging, after all a higher proportion of rural dwellers have cars, and more have 2nd cars (owing to poor public transport). 2nd cars are also more likely to be electric. If 50% of the households had electric cars and they put them on charge using a fast charger of some sort then I am sure in our village the supply would fail. Most home fast chargers will use 32A, and will take 3-4 hours to recharge. Thats similar to an electric shower, but a shower is in use for maybe 15 mins at a time. This is an additional load to the existing load on the infrastructure.
No, I mean one that is capable of producing short journey times across the entire country.
The fact that that the only practical way to do that is a new build network doesn't mean that I want a newbuild network because it is newbuild - I want it because it is the only way to get what I actually want.
I balk at calling 200km/h high speed, it's still painfully slow for the aforementioned objective. I want public transport that beats (preferably crushes) the car for most journeys, including the end legs done on slow urban public transport, bikes or on foot.
I certainly don't want a network that resembles the French or Spanish model - indeed I am on record on this forum for railing against HS2 for being too like said model.
In which case I think you're being utterly unrealistic.
On the one hand you want "short journey times" yet on the other hand want it done with Victorian era alignments which are naturally not disposed to the kind of high speed running that would necessitate.
You want effectively a 'mesh' of railways that, in your words "crushes" the car for most journeys, yet don't want new lines to achieve this.
You think 200 km/h / 125 mph is "painfully" slow yet by the same token don't want HS2 which is actually designed to exceed that speed whereas the legacy lines simply cannot meet this.
On the one hand you want "short journey times" yet on the other hand want it done with Victorian era alignments which are naturally not disposed to the kind of high speed running that would necessitate.
I want new build, but I want new build not because its shiny, but because it is necessary.
If I could get modern railway performance out of existing alignments I would be all aboard on using them - but we can't.
So ultimately the bulk of the existing railway is of questionable usefulness in the modern era and lots of it would seem to have little future beyond nostalgia.
One of the big problems we face is everything seemingly being London centric. The IRP only focuses on helping London, with the bare minimum done elsewhere. If we took London out of the equation, there'd be more options for HSR projects.
I think the biggest hurdle to High Speed Rail in the UK is the political landscape. It feels like the party in power at the time promote an improvemnt and the opposition feel duty bound to oppose it just because thats what they do. Given that there can be a change every 5 years there is no continuity. Couple this with the horrendous budget overruns and late delivery which have dogged recent major rail projects and you have a toxic mix which means politicians see the railways as a poisoned chalice. The problem is the design, build and deliver cycle is much longer than the political cycle so politicians dont see a return within their term of office.
One of the big problems we face is everything seemingly being London centric. The IRP only focuses on helping London, with the bare minimum done elsewhere. If we took London out of the equation, there'd be more options for HSR projects.
I'll correct that for you - if you took London out of the equation, non of the other HSR projects would have a cat in hell's chance of developing a viable Business Case.
HS2 to Birmingham does have a viable BC - because its creation frees up capacity on the southern WCML.
There simply isn't a viable benefits case of an HSR line from Liverpool to Leeds for example - not least because any such line to be viable needs to serve Manchester which is only 30 miles away. HSR needs much longer distances to start being sensible or viable.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I want new build, but I want new build not because its shiny, but because it is necessary.
If I could get modern railway performance out of existing alignments I would be all aboard on using them - but we can't.
So ultimately the bulk of the existing railway is of questionable usefulness in the modern era and lots of it would seem to have little future beyond nostalgia.
One of the big problems we face is everything seemingly being London centric. The IRP only focuses on helping London, with the bare minimum done elsewhere. If we took London out of the equation, there'd be more options for HSR projects.
I'm sceptical there would be. Even the 'full' NPR scheme as envisaged by Transport for the North was at least in part based on using HS2 infrastructure where possible - Manchester - Liverpool and Leeds station spring to mind - and it still had a weak business case, despite sharing some of the HS2 infrastructure. If it didn't the IRP would have commited to building more East-West infrastructure in the North than just Warrington - Manchester - Marsden.
I'll correct that for you - if you took London out of the equation, non of the other HSR projects would have a cat in hell's chance of developing a viable Business Case.
HS2 to Birmingham does have a viable BC - because its creation frees up capacity on the southern WCML.
There simply isn't a viable benefits case of an HSR line from Liverpool to Leeds for example - not least because any such line to be viable needs to serve Manchester which is only 30 miles away. HSR needs much longer distances to start being sensible or viable.
But then we can also look at devolved projects. Scotland and Wales have the political will for their own projects, they just need London to not get involved. A similar situation could happen for the North.
Because HS2 has a new alignment doesn't mean that I have to support it, and given the runaway cost growth on HS2 I question whether the business case is still any good.
The cost base has exploded and the problems going on in land procurement hardly lead to confidence.
I have a variety of proposals for a wide variety of budgets, starting at relatively minor modifications to the HS2 core (chiefly four tracks between the Birmingham Curzon Street station and the delta junction to allow the Manchester NPR solution to be applied) all the way up to a 1200km long Chūō Shinkansen derived maglev line that would literally make the tube go to Aberdeen and Cornwall.
My main gripe with HS2 is that it has an operating model that is based on the French and Spanish model of very long runs with minimal stops - which I believe to be a poor fit for the UK's dense population centres.
I hesitate to agree to the statement that 30 miles is not enough for high speed rail to be "sensible or viable" - the Japanese certainly manage to make use of much higher than UK classic speeds with shorter stop spacings than that.
But I am more on board with a model that trades absolute raw speed for a metro-ised railway of simple stopping patterns at high frequency.
Even 20 mile stop spacings would still allow ~100mph+ service average speeds based on Japanese experience. Modern high speed units are capable of traction limited acceleration to surprisingly high speeds.
But then we can also look at devolved projects. Scotland and Wales have the political will for their own projects, they just need London to not get involved. A similar situation could happen for the North.
If you seriously think that Scotland or Wales can viably sustain HSR, then you'd better tell us what you're smoking.
And neither Scotland nor Wales have anything like the budget they'd need to even consider building HSR.
HS2 is costing about £ 307m / mile. Edinburgh - Aberdeen is 130 miles, Glasgow - Inverness is about 180 miles - that's around £ 50bn, Scotland has about 2.5m taxpayers. Scotland's current "block grant" is £ 41bn / year.
Care to offer some suggestions about how a devolved Scottish Gov could pay for this?
This is a fundamental issue - the difference between 200 and 300 kph on the trunk leg is irrelevant if you can't easily get to/from the HS station. And as mentioned on various threads, in Britain we tend to live in low density housing estates spread across many medium sized towns rather than in a few high density cities.
Pre-Shinkansen I'm sure the Japanese rail network was made up of narrower gauge tracks with really low line speeds not capable of being upgraded. Hence why they decided to start from scratch. And I think all of their cities are on a convenient single corridor from one end of the islands to the other?
The UK at that point had a network which afforded much better speeds and could be upgraded. It's only recently we have looked at accepting the existing network cannot do any more without relief.
Regarding Germany, I think their average inter city speeds are lower than in the UK?
I do think we need to play catch up though. Not necessarily in terms of matching other countries for route length, but just whatever we need to cover the UK. Even where new HSL tracks may not seem needed, I think bypassing old alignments before environmental wear and tear becomes very disruptive is wise.
If you seriously think that Scotland or Wales can viably sustain HSR, then you'd better tell us what you're smoking.
And neither Scotland nor Wales have anything like the budget they'd need to even consider building HSR.
HS2 is costing about £ 307m / mile. Edinburgh - Aberdeen is 130 miles, Glasgow - Inverness is about 180 miles - that's around £ 50bn, Scotland has about 2.5m taxpayers. Scotland's current "block grant" is £ 41bn / year.
Care to offer some suggestions about how a devolved Scottish Gov could pay for this?
Well HS2 is clearly overbudget. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not far off the Chuo Shinkansen price per mile. It's a terrible example of what it would cost for Scotland and Wales.
I also think that electricity supply infrastructure in rural areas will not be able to cope with the extra load of car charging, after all a higher proportion of rural dwellers have cars, and more have 2nd cars (owing to poor public transport). 2nd cars are also more likely to be electric. If 50% of the households had electric cars and they put them on charge using a fast charger of some sort then I am sure in our village the supply would fail. Most home fast chargers will use 32A, and will take 3-4 hours to recharge. Thats similar to an electric shower, but a shower is in use for maybe 15 mins at a time. This is an additional load to the existing load on the infrastructure.
Even 20 mile stop spacings would still allow ~100mph+ service average speeds based on Japanese experience. Modern high speed units are capable of traction limited acceleration to surprisingly high speeds.
Purely out of interest on this comment, when I used the Shanghai Maglev in 2005, the train had a top speed of 267mph and an average speed of 155mph. This was all done from standing to standing in 7m20s, over a length of 19 miles, so averaging 100mph over 20 miles looks easy by comparison. Note also, that this trip didn't require people to be seated, several were standing throughout, and it was far less likely to make you lose balance than London's underground trains are.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I want public transport that beats (preferably crushes) the car for most journeys, including the end legs done on slow urban public transport, bikes or on foot.
In principle I would also like public transport that is A LOT faster than the car. There's not much point having a train which gets from London to Birmingham in the HS2 time of 52 minutes, if it then takes half an hour at either end on public transport or other means, when the end to end journey can be done by car in about the same time.
However, this leads to two points. Firstly, going into or out of many parts of large cities by car can eat up most of the said half hour in addition to the motorway bits, which throws the balance back in favour of HSR. But secondly, if we think of driving at quieter times, or if we think of those examples where the origins and destinations are closer to motorways, then the car gains once again, which is why longer distances by HSR are more beneficial.
This all makes our HS2 proposal of London to Birmingham plus an eventual bit more seem a very expensive project for the relatively little that it achieves, and if we keep going back to "Ah but WCML needed to be relieved, and it made the business case stack up", then HS2 in its latest form is a horribly expensive way of providing this relief. Which all brings me back yet again to thinking we'd have been better off with a London to Sheffield / Leeds / Newcastle / Scotland route first and foremost, with Birmingham as a second priority. Manchester / Liverpool could have been served by a branch from the Sheffield area (not necessarily via Woodhead), and the relief to WCML would have been inherent in such a routing anyway. And also inherent in such a routing would have been a great start to linking Northern cities.
Which all brings me back yet again to thinking we'd have been better off with a London to Sheffield / Leeds / Newcastle / Scotland route first and foremost, with Birmingham as a second priority. Manchester / Liverpool could have been served by a branch from the Sheffield area (not necessarily via Woodhead), and the relief to WCML would have been inherent in such a routing anyway.
But, the three biggest markets for long distance (over 100 miles) inter urban travel in this country are:
London - Birmingham
London - Manchester
London - Scotland central belt.
Why would you choose to do anything other for HS2 than to serve these three markets as the first priority? What you propose would cost more and deliver less benefit.
But, the three biggest markets for long distance (over 100 miles) inter urban travel in this country are:
London - Birmingham
London - Manchester
London - Scotland central belt.
Why would you choose to do anything other for HS2 than to serve these three markets as the first priority? What you propose would cost more and deliver less benefit.
Well if we want transport to be sustainable, we need people out of cars and planes, and where do they go? Not necessarily where the railway currently goes.
Why do you feel so strongly about catering only for existing demand? People have always migrated to where the transport corridors are, it's a fallacy to only cater for existing demand.
Ask yourself how many fast roads have been built in order to facilitate traffic getting quickly from A to B, only to find that over the following years one enterprise after another develops near to the fast road due to its accessibility, with the local authority permitting new junction after new junction, often accompanied by reduced speed limits, until eventually it ceases to be a fast route.
It's not greatly different with railways. Time was that people always lived within walking distance of where they worked, but once a road or a railway was in existence, it enabled them to live further away from their workplace, and so that's what millions of people ended up doing.
This all means that for many millions of trips the infrastructure was there first, which was responsible for promoting the journey, it is by no means only the other way around.
So yes, if you build a good enough transport corridor then it certainly will be used, especially if its competing transport corridors are slow and unreliable. Which a lot of our existing transport corridors increasingly are.
Why do you feel so strongly about catering only for existing demand? People have always migrated to where the transport corridors are, it's a fallacy to only cater for existing demand.
Ask yourself how many fast roads have been built in order to facilitate traffic getting quickly from A to B, only to find that over the following years one enterprise after another develops near to the fast road due to its accessibility, with the local authority permitting new junction after new junction, often accompanied by reduced speed limits, until eventually it ceases to be a fast route.
It's not greatly different with railways. Time was that people always lived within walking distance of where they worked, but once a road or a railway was in existence, it enabled them to live further away from their workplace, and so that's what millions of people ended up doing.
This all means that for many millions of trips the infrastructure was there first, which was responsible for promoting the journey, it is by no means only the other way around.
So yes, if you build a good enough transport corridor then it certainly will be used, especially if its competing transport corridors are slow and unreliable. Which a lot of our existing transport corridors increasingly are.
The UK has a similar size population to France, but a very different shape - we are quite thin by comparison so we need less network to connect us together. I'm sure you'd agree a second north-south high speed line (in addition to HS2) would be overkill. Whereas France needs several radiating out from Paris to connect up all the relevant bits.
The UK definitely needs high speed rail for the east coast as well. Relying on HS2 for all London - North travel is working one asset way to hard, creating a network too vulnerable to disruption, making capacity shortages likely to drive up prices, and preventing serving all the areas of the country that could benefit from HSR from doing so.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
