Rail Franchises

[Geo Ghost]

Christ sake. 4 pages in half a day? This is going to take some catching up. Pretty much all seems the same.. again.

Also the tunnels will be 50% larger than the ones on HS1, so they will be able to deal cope with higher speeds of 200 mph (and to counter the increase air pressure)

50% larger... what? Are you for real The Tunnels on HS1 are built to continental loading gauge. To demand them 50% larger is just ridiculous and a total waste of time, money, space, machinery, etc. Though such things seem to be good in your eyes - especially wasting money.
Also, what trains are going to run 200mph in the UK for a start. Secondly, why would any train be doing 100mph under Birmingham to stop in a station. Let alone double that. You have less ground to stand on than the crew on the ISS

Also I would not build HS2 under 2 or 3 diffrent phase, but all at the same time

Right I'll tell you what Alan. Boot up Transport Tycoon, set the game mode to normal or hard. Now, without using cheats or anything, build a complete fully-functioning railway network in one go and see what happens after one minute of attempting it. I won't spoil the surprise

Also there are HSR at Ashford and Ebsfleet, not very big those towns

Silly Alan. you do make me laugh. Pitifully at that, but you do make me laugh Ebbsfleet isn't a town.
Secondly, Ashford isn't exactly a small town.
And thirdly, do you ever check your posts? Might I suggest going back to school and re-studying our language as 90% of the time your sentences don't make sense, and you seem completely incapable of using a spell checker at the very least.

HERE IS ALAN'S PLAN FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL, TO MAKE SURE HE GETS ALL OF HIS STATIONS IN

http://www.tt-forums.net/download/file.php?id=161124

Seems legit...

For Starters you have not been readinng my planned route properly, Here it is again:

Yeah yeah. We've seen it 20 times before Alan. We just ignore it because it's incredibly stupid.
It's got more stops that an express route.

I think we should build a high speed line from Thurso and Wick to Penzance.

Bugger off Only if you run it through Stevenage by knocking down the leisure park and planting a huge High Speed station there (No seriously, I'd be for that. The leisure park is a dump!)

[Ameecher]

Alan Fry wrote:
Also the tunnels will be 50% larger than the ones on HS1, so they will be able to deal cope with higher speeds of 200 mph (and to counter the increase air pressure)

50% larger... what? Are you for real The Tunnels on HS1 are built to continental loading gauge. To demand them 50% larger is just ridiculous and a total waste of time, money, space, machinery, etc. Though such things seem to be good in your eyes - especially wasting money.
Also, what trains are going to run 200mph in the UK for a start. Secondly, why would any train be doing 100mph under Birmingham to stop in a station. Let alone double that. You have less ground to stand on than the crew on the ISS

Not endearing yourself again

The tunnels would need to be at least 50% larger as the current HS1 tunnels are limited to 140mph due to air pressure, I pointed this out to him ages ago and he seems to have taken it on board! Still, doesn't mean it is practical, especially as, as you say they'll be having to stop anyway.
200mph is the designed speed of HS2 anyway so yes, trains in the UK will go 200mph.

[Geo Ghost]

Not endearing yourself again

The tunnels would need to be at least 50% larger as the current HS1 tunnels are limited to 140mph due to air pressure, I pointed this out to him ages ago and he seems to have taken it on board! Still, doesn't mean it is practical, especially as, as you say they'll be having to stop anyway.
200mph is the designed speed of HS2 anyway so yes, trains in the UK will go 200mph.

Ameecher - On the mainline I agree, you would need such But we're talking about a hypothetical (thank god) tunnel under Birmingham that runs into a station. You simple wouldn't need a tunnel that big for a train rolling into a station. That to me just seems illogical.

As for 200mph... I'll believe it when I see it They can say it is what ever speeds all they like, but I won't believe it till I see it.
Perhaps I'm just overly negative, but I honestly won't believe that plan till I see it.
However, if it does indeed happen, all the more reason not to have a bunch of new stations along the route.

[JamieLei]

Also its not 8 minutes longer, it 5 minutes longer per station

ALAN, I have already PROVED here that on the Japanese Sanyo Shinkansen which runs at 186mph, every additional station adds ELEVEN MINUTES to the journey time.

Since HS2 will run much faster, the additional journey time for station calls will be much higher.

You can't just pluck figures out of nowhere and ignore the facts.

[Geo Ghost]

Silly Alan. you do make me laugh. Pitifully at that, but you do make me laugh Ebbsfleet isn't a town.
Secondly, Ashford isn't exactly a small town.

My point is that if it is justified to build a HSR station at Ashford, then its the case at Oxford.

Also Ebbsfleet is a region with a lot of towns!

"My point is-" Do you know, any time I see that, I just expect to see rubbish? You have no point to almost everything and your 'point' changes in every post. So until you actually have a true point or argument to make, kindly stop saying that.
Also, how do you work that out then? If there's a HSR station in Ashford, there should be one in Oxford? Why? Ashford is a connection hub for a start.

As for Ebbsfleet again, can't you just admit you were wrong? You said it was a small town and I told you otherwise. Now you're saying "No I meant regions of towns"... Which also isn't entirely true either. Ebbsfleet is a station and football team. It's also the name of an area but it's not a 'region' as such. There were plans for a new town called Ebbsfleet, but that never got off the ground.

Seems legit...

Clearly you have not seen my version of the planned route too well

That's because it has no vision. It's just- wait, are we really having this argument again? Dear god, deja vois again

Yeah yeah. We've seen it 20 times before Alan. We just ignore it because it's incredibly stupid.
It's got more stops that an express route.

its very clear you just don't get my plan!

Oh we get your plan. We've seen it 20 times across 3 topics now. It's just ridiculous

[JamieLei]

The fast and slow paths of the railway will be separated, also I would include in the specs for the trains to have improved acceleration than what has been done for HSR trains to date

However, we will have to wait and see if that demands can me met (no more than 5 minutes longer per stop)

The average wait for paths on the Sanyo Shinkansen was about 2-3 minutes if you average it out among stations. That means 8-9 minutes per stop.

If you think that you can engineer better trains than the Japanese can, then good luck.

[Geo Ghost]

I have never said that Ebbsfleet was a town

Yes you did.

Also there are HSR at Ashford and Ebsfleet, not very big those towns

Now stop denying you're wrong and just admit it.

The DFT plan has no vision, shame you cannot see that!

If they had no vision, they wouldn't have has the HS2 plan in the first place
I'll give you credit for imagination. But not for sensibility.

So you are saying a £60 Billion railway with only 4 stations is not?

Oh yes sorry. I really should think this through. Spending much, much more for something that won't be beneficial is a far better idea isn't it?


Now, I'd love to debate with you more Alan, but I have to go and sort out a possible ear infection prior to flying. So as you can imagine, priorities are elsewhere. So I will continue this later. Good day.

[GurraJG]

Remember we are spending £60+ Billion on a railway that currently only serve 4 cities!

No we're not, we're spending half of that! Stop quoting that bulls*** £60 billion figure.

The building of the railway will cost £32 billion, but overall it will cost £62 billion at least! (not counting extending it to Scotland and legal delays)

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/high_spe ... costs-3227

HOLY s***, ALAN ACTUALLY QUOTED A SOURCE!

Now, assuming that this website actually got its sums right, then fine, lets say it's £60 billion. But, as the very same website says:

Some of these costs will likely be offset via income and other benefits for the scheme, as the DfT makes clear. This means the cost to the taxpayer will likely be substantially less that the full £65 billion cost, although we cannot say precisely by how much.

[Pilot]

HOLY s***, ALAN ACTUALLY QUOTED A SOURCE!

What is this Sourcery!

[GurraJG]

HOLY s***, ALAN ACTUALLY QUOTED A SOURCE!

What is this Sourcery!

I don't know! Where's the Alan Fry we know and love/hate (delete as appropriate)?

[Kevo00]

When rolling stock and operating costs are included, the total estimated cost over the 60 year "appraisal period" comes to around £62.5 billion - almost double the construction cost alone.

Except of course that Alan has misrepresented the source - the £62.5bn figure, turns out to be over a sixty year period. £1bn a year for the asset is not bad. Shocking mistake for someone that claims to be in 'higher management' yet doesn't understand amortisation.

[Chris]

Alan, I've already pointed out that Ashford and Ebbsfleet only have have 3 or 4 trains per day on Eurostar. That is hardly a well served station. Furthermore they are pick-up/set down only, you're not allowed to journey domestically on Eurostar. So the fact that they both have 'High Speed Rail' stations is moot, they're not well served and demand for them is low. I'm sure the people of Stafford would prefer two trains per hour into Euston rather than 3 HS trains per day, I certainly know what I would find more useful.

Oh and If you're talking about Ashford and Ebbsfleet being served by Southeastern 'Highspeed', you're silly because that service isn't high speed.

[Geo Ghost]

Oh and If you're talking about Ashford and Ebbsfleet being served by Southeastern 'Highspeed', you're silly because that service isn't high speed.

Well to be fair, it's not exactly slow

How do we define 'high speed' now? To me, anything high-speed around 125mph is considered high-speed.
125-140mph on HS1 is high speed one way or another in my eyes, comparing it to the rest of the country that is.

[Chris]

Well as far as I know, Southeastern Highspeed is timetabled to do 125mph on HS1, and they only go up to 140mph if they're late.

The official definition of HS is over 155mph on new tracks and over 124mph on existing tracks, and HS1 is new, so Southeastern Highspeed isn't officially highspeed. Of course apart from that, it isn't a high speed service insofar that it is for commuters and so makes fairly frequent stops, whereas typical HS would be long distance intercity services with infrequent stops, hence why you can't really say that Ashford or Ebbsfleet are served frequently by a high speed service and so all other towns of similar size should have HS stations, because the basic fact is that they aren't served frequently by HS services as guess what, they don't have the demand for it.

[Ameecher]

Geo Ghost wrote:
50% larger... what? Are you for real The Tunnels on HS1 are built to continental loading gauge. To demand them 50% larger is just ridiculous and a total waste of time, money, space, machinery, etc. Though such things seem to be good in your eyes - especially wasting money.
Also, what trains are going to run 200mph in the UK for a start. Secondly, why would any train be doing 100mph under Birmingham to stop in a station. Let alone double that. You have less ground to stand on than the crew on the ISS


I am only doing this so that the extra tunnels do not slow down HS2, also since there will be at least a 4 track line, trains can go fast at 200 mph (if needed)

Also the planned designed speed of HS2 is 250 mph, which I plan to exploit to the full

Well you're not by putting lots of stations in. A train that has to stop just once between London and Birmingham might as well not have a 250mph top speed.

[Geo Ghost]

Well as far as I know, Southeastern Highspeed is timetabled to do 125mph on HS1, and they only go up to 140mph if they're late.

I've spoken to an engineer for the 395s who told me that they do typically run up to 140mph on HS1. I think they can go up slightly higher if delayed, but I can't confirm right off my head. I was going to ask a driver there to confirm it last time I travelled but due to time, I wasn't able to pull anyone aside. I'll try my best to next time if you like.
Riding on them though, I'm personally certain it's faster than 125mph. I can't say how, but watching the world go by, it looks and feels much faster than 125mph on say the ECML or the WCML.

So 'true' HS is +124mph / 155mph dependant on the tracks and typical HS is up to 125mph. You know what, I'm never going to look at a sign that says "high speed trains pass this station" the same again
Neither place have much of a demand for HS rail indeed. However, the fast services to them and thus the coast are certainly useful. Much faster than any other route around there and people who use it seem quite happy with it.

[Ameecher]

Well as far as I know, Southeastern Highspeed is timetabled to do 125mph on HS1, and they only go up to 140mph if they're late.

I've spoken to an engineer for the 395s who told me that they do typically run up to 140mph on HS1. I think they can go up slightly higher if delayed, but I can't confirm right off my head. I was going to ask a driver there to confirm it last time I travelled but due to time, I wasn't able to pull anyone aside. I'll try my best to next time if you like.

I still believe this to be wrong. In the current times of OTMR the top speed can not be exceeded and the 395s have a top speed of 140mph.

[Chris]

Well you're not by putting lots of stations in. A train that has to stop just once between London and Birmingham might as well not have a 250mph top speed.

Indeed, from some quick calculations based on the N700 for a linespeed of 250mph, it would take around 40km (~25 miles) for it to slow to a stop and accelerate back up to 250mph, so if you want to put a stops closer than 40km apart then 250mph is utterly useless, as it wouldn't even reach top speed.

Using this, lets say that you put a station halfway between London and Birmingham. Distance between London and Birmingham is just over 100 miles, so you're station is 50 miles from London and 50 from Birmingham, ie. 80km from London and 80km from Birmingham. Since 40km is needed to accelerate and then brake, your train only goes at 250mph for 40km from London to wherever and 40km from wherever to Birmingham. So only half the journey is spent at 250mph - you may as well re-gear your train so that is has a faster acceleration and a lower top speed, which would also make it cheaper to run (track maintenance would be lower and running costs would be lower as it would cruise at a slower speed). Also in reality, you wouldn't be putting a station half way between London and Birmingham, as nothing is there, but if you're putting one at Wembley, one at Oxford, and one at Coventry, I doubt you would ever reach 250mph, and if you did, it would only be very briefly.

[Geo Ghost]

I still believe this to be wrong. In the current times of OTMR the top speed can not be exceeded and the 395s have a top speed of 140mph.

Actually, you could be right there. I will certainly double check when I can as even I'm not totally certain any more.
I managed to snag this in the cab at Railfest.

_DSC0022.JPG

Max Speeds in cab. For the record, I do not know what CTRL means. If anyone does, please let me know =)

(3.15 MiB) Not downloaded yet

However, what baffles me is why they have MPH in brackets at the top, then KPH in brackets on the next bit. That is quite confusing if you take a quick glance
I'm certain I've heard 140mph operating on 140mph and 160mph max speed in the past and from an engineer.
However, watching things likethis make me even less uncertain. Arg. Now I really want to know what it is. Pity I'm not going down on the route till after I'm back from Norway.
Someone remind me at a later date encase I forget. I need some confirmation and closure on this one. It's baffling me. I'm no longer certain if it is what I was told, or whether it's what Ameecher says.

Damit Ameecher. My mind can't take much thinking and now you've thrown me into a state of unknown

Edit: Just had a look what CTRL means. Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Why the hell I didn't pick that up before I don't know.
Amecher, I'm more convinced by you now than I am with the engineer at Railfest. Come to think of it, there were a couple of people talking about the trains who weren't fully correct in their information so... Oh sod it. I give up. I'm convinced. Apologies for the mistake.
Wow... Javelins sudden seem pretty crap. You've just single-handedly made the whole route seem bloody dull

Edit 2:
And A321 Pilot has confirmed the CTRL meaning for me as well. Thanks

[Pilot]

CTRL - Channel Tunnel Rail Link, also known as HS1