Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Isn't HS2 basically required for NPR?
What they should of course do is build both.
What they should of course do is build both.
That's worked really well for Manchester's rail network so far...What they should of course do is build both.
Pretty much, yes. NPR and HS2 deal with different things.Isn't HS2 basically required for NPR?
What they should of course do is build both.
A story in yesterday's Mail on Sunday about scrapping HS2 south of Birmingham (which of course doesn't recognise that it would be quite difficult to do that).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7877371/Top-adviser-Boris-Johnson-urges-axe-HS2-South.html
Pretty much, yes. NPR and HS2 deal with different things.
If you don't want to read threads about HS2, just don't read them? It's not compulsory to read every thread.
A story in yesterday's Mail on Sunday about scrapping HS2 south of Birmingham (which of course doesn't recognise that it would be quite difficult to do that).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7877371/Top-adviser-Boris-Johnson-urges-axe-HS2-South.html
Could cutting air passenger duty for internal flights be presented as a way of relieving pressure on the WCML ?
and a sure sign that the air and petroleum lobby climate change deniers have their feet firmly under the cabinet table, lawd help us...That would be highly controversial as it would be against any sensible environmental plan.
"Why don't we start building HS2 in the North?" makes as much sense as asking "why don't we start building skyscrapers from the top?"
I look forward to Andrew Gilligan's floating skyscraper. At least it stops him from declaring every other day that trans people are causing the death of civilisation.
How many cars will HS2 remove from the roads and how many people will use HS2 instead of trains???? - therefore offsetting the environmental impact of the construction to 60-100 yearsThe building of HS2 will generate loads of dust and c02. Have the DFT worked out about the impact on the world this will add. Anyway I think it cannot be any worse than those fires in Austrailia and the volcano that's erupted. And the devastating loss of life. This is why I oppose it.
What about the enviromental impact of this work ? is that not a consideration?I think the government should be sorting out what we have already and finishing off projects already costed, such as electrifying Swindon to Bristol and Bromsgrove to Yate. Putting wires from Cardiff to Swansea makes sense first and not building railways which the rich would probably use.
And yet every time a paper prints some of his copy we have to dutifully go off and debate it. It is just disappointing we are playing the game of such people to their rules, and in doing so normalising such tosh until it becomes inevitable.If you don't want to read threads about HS2, just don't read them? It's not compulsory to read every thread.
True; but for how long? Aren't planes becoming more fuel-efficient and reducing their carbon footprint? Although if people drive to the airport that makes matters worse of course.That would be highly controversial as it would be against any sensible environmental plan.
Seeing as the line is double (ie four lines rather than two) for much of the journey south from Watford Gap, if congestion is such a serious problem on the rest of the WCML then it would make sense to start north and work southwards, freeing up capacity where it needs freeing up first?"Why don't we start building HS2 in the North?" makes as much sense as asking "why don't we start building skyscrapers from the top?"
.
But, the most serious capacity problems are at the south. There is literally no capacity to run additional trains during peak times, and trains are at maximum length.Seeing as the line is double (ie four lines rather than two) for much of the journey south from Watford Gap, if congestion is such a serious problem on the rest of the WCML then it would make sense to start north and work southwards, freeing up capacity where it needs freeing up first?
Short haul flights are the absolute worst as far as emmisions are concerned. They should definitely not be promoted where a ground based alternative exists. Electric aircraft are a long way in the future but would conversely be most applicable to shorter hauls clearly due to range issues. Perhaps someone needs to invent a way to launch such aircraft from a ground-powered linear motor railgun catapult contraption to avoid so much take off consumption.True; but for how long? Aren't planes becoming more fuel-efficient and reducing their carbon footprint? Although if people drive to the airport that makes matters worse of course.
And railways need fuel, and unless the electricity they use is 100% renewable there's a carbon footprint there too.
So we can stop it at Stockport and not take it further into Manchester, given it's 4 track from there to Piccadilly? It's the same situation, only heading south rather than north, that lines diverge heading away from the city and so the bit nearest it carries traffic off several quieter branches.Seeing as the line is double (ie four lines rather than two) for much of the journey south from Watford Gap, if congestion is such a serious problem on the rest of the WCML then it would make sense to start north and work southwards, freeing up capacity where it needs freeing up first?
Not a lot, and they have a very long way to go...True; but for how long? Aren't planes becoming more fuel-efficient and reducing their carbon footprint? Although if people drive to the airport that makes matters worse of course.
And railways need fuel, and unless the electricity they use is 100% renewable there's a carbon footprint there too.
Why? As Flanders and Swann said, "If god had meant us to fly he would never have given us the railways!"Short haul flights are the absolute worst as far as emmisions are concerned. They should definitely not be promoted where a ground based alternative exists. Electric aircraft are a long way in the future but would conversely be most applicable to shorter hauls clearly due to range issues. Perhaps someone needs to invent a way to launch such aircraft from a ground-powered linear motor railgun catapult contraption to avoid so much take off consumption.
The catapult wouldn't greatly affect the amount of energy required for the initial long climb to high altitude anyway, on reflection, so I agree it's much better to stay on the ground wherever possible!Why? As Flanders and Swann said, "If god had meant us to fly he would never have given us the railways!"
I've always proposed that there should be no such thing as short flights except those connecting to islands, and arguably anything over 250 miles is considered "short". No idea whey people fly from Manchester to Heathrow.....except for the bleedin' obvious where they are making a connection to a long haul - which begs the question why aren't all the airports connected to the national rail system better? So if you could get from Manchester, Newcastle, maybe even Glasgow to Heathrow direct by rail in less time than it takes to fly that distance including getting to the airport, security, 30' at the gate, taxi-ing etc they you probably wouldn't fly the first leg.![]()
Not a lot, and they have a very long way to go...
Why? As Flanders and Swann said, "If god had meant us to fly he would never have given us the railways!"
Could cutting air passenger duty for internal flights be presented as a way of relieving pressure on the WCML ?
I've always proposed that there should be no such thing as short flights except those connecting to islands, and arguably anything over 250 miles is considered "short". No idea whey people fly from Manchester to Heathrow.....except for the bleedin' obvious where they are making a connection to a long haul - which begs the question why aren't all the airports connected to the national rail system better? So if you could get from Manchester, Newcastle, maybe even Glasgow to Heathrow direct by rail in less time than it takes to fly that distance including getting to the airport, security, 30' at the gate, taxi-ing etc they you probably wouldn't fly the first leg.
If Heathrow is the UK's major hub airport, then build a railway to it avoiding London (and connect it to Gatwick with the loose change!!)!
True; but for how long? Aren't planes becoming more fuel-efficient and reducing their carbon footprint?
I've always proposed that there should be no such thing as short flights except those connecting to islands, and arguably anything over 250 miles is considered "short". No idea whey people fly from Manchester to Heathrow.....except for the bleedin' obvious where they are making a connection to a long haul - which begs the question why aren't all the airports connected to the national rail system better?
That's not a bad idea (and one that could have happened when you went on a Virgin to catch a Virgin). problem is - and there's always a problem (!) I don't think the airlines would take the buck when it's the railway that has let you down, if Avanti got me to London late and I missed my flight THEY should pay up accommodation and a fresh ticket.Codesharing would help too. Presently if you use BA Manchester-London to connect with London-wherever on one ticket, and you miss the connection due to the flight being delayed, you'll get hotel accommodation, meals and free rebooking on the next flight. Annoying but not expensive and no faffing with insurance claims. Whereas if you use Avanti and the same thing happens, you're on your own. That needs to change.
In terms of connecting the airports better, HS2 will sort that for Heathrow by it being a single change at Old Oak.
I assume the greatest power useage is in take-off so if, somehow, either by on-board batteries, connecting to an electric line on the surface - whatever (and goodness knows, anything's possible these days) maybe in future they could substantially reduce fuel use on take-off thus lowering the carbon footprint?To a point, but there will always be the fact that you're not only needing to use the energy to push several tons along but also to keep it up in the air.