High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[YorkshireBear]

email Sheffeild City Council and demand a job from them saying t'was my idea, and do a full analysis for them?

And get them to pay you a fortune!!! then when i graduate in 2 and half years time give me a job in civil engineering for it?
sounds like a plan to me.

 

[Nym]

Don't think that will happen though, unless Atkins or ARUP feel the need to offer me a job... Both of these companies really like taking their sweet time getting back to you.

From what I know of Sheffield CC I don't think I'd want to work there anyway.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Don't think that will happen though, unless Atkins or ARUP feel the need to offer me a job... Both of these companies really like taking their sweet time getting back to you.

From what I know of Sheffield CC I don't think I'd want to work there anyway.

I'll be honest with you, it wasn't a serious aspiration..

I wouldn't either i will be leaving sheffield as soon as i get the oppurtunity. (well im already in leeds but really thats the same place...)

 

[Badger]

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2012/02/27/hs2-water-pipe-plan-to-ease-drought-in-south/

Major water pipe to be built alongside High Speed 2.

Makes sense, is much needed, and the perfect opportunity to do so. But people are still bloody complaining. Lucky them, not living in the drought zones, I guess.

 

[brianthegiant]

hmm, but big problem with capital funding for it in a privatised water industry.

Also the the project managers of HS2 wont be keen on another set of complications to deal with.

 

[WatcherZero]

Sublet the allignment and thats a billion pounds wiped off HS2 financial cost. Im sure if it was seriously proposed they would do all they could to accomadate it.

 

[HSTEd]

Fitting 6'6" diameter pipework with access provisions that do not foul the high speed line is far from easy however.

 

[swt_passenger]

Major water pipe to be built alongside High Speed 2.

Not true. What you have written is stating it as fact, however it is no more than a tentative proposal, not even a plan as reported in the linked article.

 

[Deerfold]

England’s canals may be used to supply the water rather than its reservoirs with up to 66 gallons of water delivered each day.

Is it just me or is 66 gallons a day not a lot?

 

[HSTEd]

On a rather belated note regarding comments earlier in the thread about splitting services being impractical:

They do it often on the Shinkansen system in Japan with little or no adverse effect on the timetable, and since these CC trains are probably half an hour up or more on the conventional trains already, leaving slack in the timetable for coupling makes little difference.

Additionally there would still be one train path delayed by the train being late, it makes no difference, apart from the fact that a splitting train-based system will have one less train to squeeze in and thus will have more slack for path recovery.

 

[Martin222002]

I agree. Splitting and joining along route is a good idea, and it’s has been shown that it’s being looked at with the idea of the Manchester and Leeds to Heathrow services potentially joining and splitting at Birmingham Interchange, as a way of reducing the number of paths being used on the core route.

 

[Yew]

Is it just me or is 66 gallons a day not a lot?

Im guessing its a typo?

My old scout leader came up with that idea for moving water around years ago though
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree. Splitting and joining along route is a good idea, and it’s has been shown that it’s being looked at with the idea of the Manchester and Leeds to Heathrow services potentially joining and splitting at Birmingham Interchange, as a way of reducing the number of paths being used on the core route.

Just a thought, but would it be possible to split and join whilst moving? Might need some sort of computer controlled circuit though to make sure it doesnt go from a join, into a crash though :/

 

[Batman]

Just a thought, but would it be possible to split and join whilst moving? Might need some sort of computer controlled circuit though to make sure it doesnt go from a join, into a crash though :/

The technology might be more simple than you might think.

The military have been refueling aircraft mid air for decades (or certainly since the cold war), so I can't see why the same technology can't be applied to trains. It might be expensive to train the drivers to use the technology though. And you only need one component not to be working correctly, or a computer glitch or human error to end up with a high speed collision with possibly thousands of fatalities.

 

[ukrob]

Quite pointless though as removes some through journeys by not calling at Birmingham.

Will never happen.

 

[WatcherZero]

The technology might be more simple than you might think.

The military have been refueling aircraft mid air for decades (or certainly since the cold war), so I can't see why the same technology can't be applied to trains. It might be expensive to train the drivers to use the technology though. And you only need one component not to be working correctly, or a computer glitch or human error to end up with a high speed collision with possibly thousands of fatalities.

Do you know how mid air refueling works?? The tanker trails a flexible hose behind itself with a funnel (not too dissimilar to that worn by dogs to stop them licking wounds) the trailing plane with a fixed boon then tries to spear that funnel. How exactly could it be used for rail travel? the mind boggles.

 

[HSTEd]

Joining trains on the move is insanely difficult to engineer and totally unneccesary, why are people so obsessed with non stop trains anyway?

 

[ntg]

I guess some of you never played Final Fantasy VIII

 

[Crispy75]

Im guessing its a typo?

My old scout leader came up with that idea for moving water around years ago though
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Just a thought, but would it be possible to split and join whilst moving? Might need some sort of computer controlled circuit though to make sure it doesnt go from a join, into a crash though :/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_coach

 

[sprinterguy]

Just a thought, but would it be possible to split and join whilst moving? Might need some sort of computer controlled circuit though to make sure it doesnt go from a join, into a crash though :/

There's the "Moving Platforms" concept. Frankly, I think it's ludicrous:
http://inhabitat.com/moving-platforms-could-let-travellers-change-trains-while-in-motion/

http://vimeo.com/25407213

 

[Holly]

Joining trains on the move is insanely difficult to engineer and totally unneccesary, why are people so obsessed with non stop trains anyway?

A modern equivalent of the slip coach could be valuable though.

For example, an HS 400metre train configured as two 200metre portions that could divide during Southbound approach to OOC, with the front portion continuing non-stop to Euston and the rear portion stopping at OOC then, a few minutes later, proceeding on to Euston to reunite with the first portion.
This allows a faster journey time to Euston and a stop at OOC, without using two paths on the HS line North of OOC.

 

[ole man]

A modern equivalent of the slip coach could be valuable though.

For example, an HS 400metre train configured as two 200metre portions that could divide during Southbound approach to OOC, with the front portion continuing non-stop to Euston and the rear portion stopping at OOC then, a few minutes later, proceeding on to Euston to reunite with the first portion.
This allows a faster journey time to Euston and a stop at OOC, without using two paths on the HS line North of OOC.

And has this been done elsewhere?.

 

[giblets]

Joining trains on the move, whilst possible, would be a safety nightmare. The entire time between the join and the following train entering the preceding trains 'block' would be a major accident waiting to happen, should something cause the preceding train the brake suddenly.

I'm sure there are arguments that the trains could be electronically linked so they brake at the same time/rate, however, different loads, track conditions (i.e impacting something on the line), would cancel this out.

 

[HSTEd]

A modern equivalent of the slip coach could be valuable though.

For example, an HS 400metre train configured as two 200metre portions that could divide during Southbound approach to OOC, with the front portion continuing non-stop to Euston and the rear portion stopping at OOC then, a few minutes later, proceeding on to Euston to reunite with the first portion.
This allows a faster journey time to Euston and a stop at OOC, without using two paths on the HS line North of OOC.

Slipcoaches do have issues with an Eschede style accident though.

The slip portion would be unable to stop before plowing into the wreckage of the first portion, but I suppose that would happen if the two trains were coupled.

With the fast accelerating trains we have today, stops cost 4-5 minutes over the non stop journey, at most.

 

[LE Greys]

Slipcoaches do have issues with an Eschede style accident though.

The slip portion would be unable to stop before plowing into the wreckage of the first portion, but I suppose that would happen if the two trains were coupled.

With the fast accelerating trains we have today, stops cost 4-5 minutes over the non stop journey, at most.

There aren't so much problems with gradients today either. The other reason for slipping a coach was to lighten the weight whilst still carrying enough momentum to get a good run at an approaching incline (hence coaches often being slipped at Newton Abbott).

 

[Badger]

The slip portion would be unable to stop before plowing into the wreckage of the first portion, but I suppose that would happen if the two trains were coupled.

What's worse?

- A 16 coach train hitting something at full speed all attached
- An 8 coach train hitting something at full speed and then an 8 coach train (that's split from it) hitting that train slightly slower?

I'm not sure how these things work.

 

[HSTEd]

What's worse?

- A 16 coach train hitting something at full speed all attached
- An 8 coach train hitting something at full speed and then an 8 coach train (that's split from it) hitting that train slightly slower?

I'm not sure how these things work.

Probably the slipped train, because the second train would pile into the debris of the first one, which is normally the thing in serious rail accidents that turns them into a disaster.

You get two high speed impacts rather than one.

And the high speed design will likely do its acceptance trial in China next to its factory. :P
Although it could always do it by running on the line prior to its official opening, perhaps rolling the infrastructure nad train acceptance trials into one. (How long is HS2-NLL-HS1 end to end once the NLL has its supposed gauge upgrade?)

 

[Holly]

[Context, splitting a Southbound train, half continuing nonstop to Euston, the rear half for Euston stopping at OOC.]

Slipcoaches do have issues ...
With the fast accelerating trains we have today, stops cost 4-5 minutes over the non stop journey, at most.

This report
http://gatewaycog.org/HSR_Project/lib/Design-Reports_Alternatives_Analysis_AppendixF.pdf
seems to say that stopping an HST costs 7 minutes on average, and that is assuming the train is stationary for 90 seconds.

90 seconds seems a bit optimistic to me for worst case for half a trainload of people alighting at the primary connection for Heathrow.
Nine minutes or so off a journey from the North seems like a worthwhile saving in return for some operational changes.

And no, it hasn't been done before. Heck, the line isn't even built yet, let alone running any special type of trains on it.

 

[HSTEd]

[Context, splitting a Southbound train, half continuing nonstop to Euston, the rear half for Euston stopping at OOC.]


This report
http://gatewaycog.org/HSR_Project/lib/Design-Reports_Alternatives_Analysis_AppendixF.pdf
seems to say that stopping an HST costs 7 minutes on average, and that is assuming the train is stationary for 90 seconds.

90 seconds seems a bit optimistic to me for worst case for half a trainload of people alighting at the primary connection for Heathrow.
Nine minutes or so off a journey from the North seems like a worthwhile saving in return for some operational changes.

And no, it hasn't been done before. Heck, the line isn't even built yet, let alone running any special type of trains on it.

Being as Shinkansen style rolling stock (which I keep going on about I know) with 75%+ motored axles is (apparently) capable of going from stationary to 170mph in three minutes, I find the idea of a 90 second stop costing 7 minutes being a little ridiculous unless it is an old fashioned TGV style loco hauled formation.

And half a trainload is a little much really, as a train would be 400m long with 32 sets of doors and would have several per hour which quickly saturates the Heathrow requirement.

 

[WatcherZero]

Well I said it wouldnt take long after it went to Ministers for details to leak, especielly where theres a aggrieved party. The first leak is that the chosen site for the Sheffield HS2 station is Meadowhall Shopping Centre, and Sheffield Council are hopping mad because they want a city centre location and have suggested several sites they consider suitable.

 

[LE Greys]

Well I said it wouldnt take long after it went to Ministers for details to leak, especielly where theres a aggrieved party. The first leak is that the chosen site for the Sheffield HS2 station is Meadowhall Shopping Centre, and Sheffield Council are hopping mad because they want a city centre location and have suggested several sites they consider suitable.

I don't blame them!