Transport Tycoon Forums

The Government has released more details on HS2:

The BBC wrote:The Government has unveiled its latest plans for a new high speed rail link between London and Birmingham.

The route has been controversial and ministers have offered some change, but for some campaigners, that was not enough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12043880


Also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12035524



Haven't found any more detailed information yet, but then I haven't searched for it


Interesting the NIMBY Tory MPs seem to (currently) be using stronger words then the LibDem MPs did when they were forced to vote on tuition fees.

I wonder how many of them will actually vote against it when the time comes...

Being Tories, Dave will probably manage to buy them off in some cushy way...

Kevo00 wrote:Being Tories, Dave will probably manage to buy them off in some cushy way...

Send it via Slough probably.

A large bunch of .pdf maps are available of the proposed route here:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highs ... oute/maps/

Some interesting things here.

Not quite sure how they plan to include Heathrow on through trains though when the second phase comes around

The Government has started up the consultation process: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12591464

Cue a lot of articles about it being a waste of money, and "not in my back yard!" Along with it spoiling the countryside etc. etc. (as obviously the alternatives, like a motorway, are so much more aesthetically pleasing).

The BBC also has an article about the noise levels: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12596619
With an interesting comment from DB that few complaints are about the high-speed trains and more are about freight trains.

There are some bizarre comments from the no-campaigners. These include that with today's internet it isn't necessary for business people to go to London for lunch (or have face to face meetings).

And that the money would be better spend upgrading the existing west coast line instead of building a new one. Some of you will no doubt correct me, but surely the strongest argument against an upgrade is indeed (ironically enough) the last upgrade.


One of the other opinions was that it would be better spend on electrifying the London - Bristol route, which has now been confirmed as happening: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12606470 (yay!)

But Wales is up in arms that won't go as far as Swansea, only Cardiff. However getting that far will be a huge improvement. It also opens up a huge area that Network Rail can electrify annually as "in-fill". Are there many bridges/tunnels/other low structures between Cardiff and Swansea that would make it expensive, or is it all open?

Also, the governments ideas to run hybrid trains still has me curious to the benefits. Hauling a switched off diesel engine 145 miles to Cardiff only to switch it on for the final 45 miles doesn't seem terribly efficient (but possibly better then a pure diesel).
Does anyone know of any current successful implementations of hybrid electro-diesel? France appears to have one, the SNCF Class B 81500 - does it work well?

And my final comment is: I'm glad to see the Government still wants to spend money on infrastructure. Surely the past has taught us that to cut back heavily on infrastructure spending while attempting to save money will only come back and bite you later on.

Thoughts (and apologies for the slightly random ramblings)?

Very happy about electrics here in Bristol!

BBC News wrote:Powerful trains have long barrelled down tracks blowing their horns. But faster lines mean louder trains.

Don't you just love how BBC news think they know what they are talking about...
When I was next to HS1 the otherweek, the 395's and Eurostars zoom up and down the line and make much less noise than any other railway I've been to before. Especially compared to such highspeed trains as the HST's which you can hear for miles around. Speed doesn't mean louder. The only noise you get from most electric trains is the running of the wheels on the track and the wind buffer (some exceptions of course)

Where the heck BBC reporters/journalists get their information from at times I do not know. They just talk a load of crap majority of the time if you ask me.

John wrote:Cue a lot of articles about it being a waste of money, and "not in my back yard!" Along with it spoiling the countryside etc. etc. (as obviously the alternatives, like a motorway, are so much more aesthetically pleasing).

I get the feeling that a lot of these NIMBYs are actually BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). They say "we don't want new roads, cars are evil, use public transport instead!", "don't fly, use the train!" and so on. But when we actually plan to make an investment and build a new high-speed line, they don't want that either!

John wrote:But Wales is up in arms that won't go as far as Swansea, only Cardiff. However getting that far will be a huge improvement. It also opens up a huge area that Network Rail can electrify annually as "in-fill". Are there many bridges/tunnels/other low structures between Cardiff and Swansea that would make it expensive, or is it all open?

Transport policy is surely devolved to Wales, is it not? So it would be up to the WAG to electrify from Cardiff to Swansea, not Westminster.

I wonder if there is a group that objects because they "Won't 'Ave it Near Kids"?

orudge wrote: Transport policy is surely devolved to Wales, is it not? So it would be up to the WAG to electrify from Cardiff to Swansea, not Westminster.

[insert humorous comment about why the WAGs should pay for our infrastructure here]

John wrote: Also, the governments ideas to run hybrid trains still has me curious to the benefits. Hauling a switched off diesel engine 145 miles to Cardiff only to switch it on for the final 45 miles doesn't seem terribly efficient (but possibly better then a pure diesel).
Does anyone know of any current successful implementations of hybrid electro-diesel? France appears to have one, the SNCF Class B 81500 - does it work well?
?

There was, of course, the BR Class 73 on the Southern Region, and the odd one might still be running around now. Was never aware of any real inefficiency where it was concerned; you are just using the cheapest fuel source when available. Anyway, its just the generator bit driven by diesel fuel that needs to be separate I guess.

On HS2, objection is a strange thing, because up to Rugby the line proposes to re-use the old GCR alignment - and why not? The Vale of Aylesbury is a rich area of the country which benefits substantially from businessmen having face to face meetings. It is not very densely populated, and in any case the alignment is there, some with track remaining, some not, effectively having been kept open since it was closed in the 1960s. People in the area, and especially the local council which is now wasting £100k campaigning against it, must have known that its reinstatement was always possibility in the long term. I guess they have form on this though; they successfully campaigned against the Central Railway's proposals for a 'piggyback' freight line on the alignment in the 1990s. I guess part of the problem is that no one in the Aylesbury Vale, or at least those that are powerful there, needs the benefit of construction going on and the boost to the local economy that it would provide, which would probably be welcomed with open arms anywhere north of Rugby.

orudge wrote:

John wrote:But Wales is up in arms that won't go as far as Swansea, only Cardiff. However getting that far will be a huge improvement. It also opens up a huge area that Network Rail can electrify annually as "in-fill". Are there many bridges/tunnels/other low structures between Cardiff and Swansea that would make it expensive, or is it all open?

Transport policy is surely devolved to Wales, is it not? So it would be up to the WAG to electrify from Cardiff to Swansea, not Westminster.

And look where's that got them. Friggin WAG Express!

Oh and a few 73s still knocking about as SWT thunderbirds. Some other uses coming about now I think.

Dave W wrote:Oh and a few 73s still knocking about as SWT thunderbirds. Some other uses coming about now I think.

SWT don't retain any 73s as Thunderbirds anymore, not since the slammers have gone. Desiro to rescue desiro is the operation plan nowadays.

Kevo00 wrote:There was, of course, the BR Class 73 on the Southern Region, and the odd one might still be running around now. Was never aware of any real inefficiency where it was concerned; you are just using the cheapest fuel source when available. Anyway, its just the generator bit driven by diesel fuel that needs to be separate I guess.

The inefficiency comes in because you're always hauling deadweight. Either the extra weight of the diesel engine (most of the time) or the extra weight of the electrical transformers (less of the time, and lighter since you could have an diesel-electric and the motors are there anyway). The real question is whether the extra electricity used hauling the diesel generator (added to the extra diesel cost of hauling the electrical kit) is less than the cost of hauling diesel the whole way without the electrical equipment.

The answer is almost certainly that it is cheaper to run it under wires, but the capital costs will be recouped slower than for an equivalent length.

That was pretty much my point; the inefficiency is pretty small and, as in the case of the class 73, outweighed by the machine's increased usefulness, and the fact that you avoid the enthusiast's pet hate, the diesel under wires.

The other problem with electrification is that to be truly efficient, considering it represents a massive sunk cost, all of the trains running under it need to be electric - the economic case for ECML electrification looks somewhat dubious in hindsight, for example, because apart from the FCC, Doncaster-Leeds and North Berwick services, it shares with almost no other electric trains. Electric trains didn't even end up going that much faster than the HSTs, either (infact an HST can keep a 91 timetable no problem, or even go faster if its on the Aberdeen run).

The whole idea of hybrids is a bit ridiculous really. Lugging a set of diesel lumps from London to Edinburgh just so that it can run to Aberdeen on it's own power is stupid. Far better to electrify the lot or hook up a diesel loco to the front. The diesel loco has one lump sat in it and can be better utilised. You'll need far less if you unhook it at Edinburgh and stick it on the front of the next train north.

Apparently the biggest farce with these hybrid units is that they'll have to switch their engines on 20minutes before going off the wires to pre-heat them. So they'll be idling, that really is ridiculous, can't even find a way of getting the 'lektrik to pre-heat....

Isn't there a 73 in South Wales now?

Dave W wrote:Isn't there a 73 in South Wales now?

Yeah, At Cardiff Tidal acting as cover for 08s should they pack up. Interestingly enough, the 73 was withdrawn from traffic as it can only run on its engine, the 3rd rail gubbins having packed up.

I think actually the biggest argument against HS2 is that our "regular" lines are some of the best in the world. Does anyone know anywhere else in the world where non-HST/Shinkansen trains run at 125mph? Here in Japan, you'd be lucky if a conventional line pushes 80mph, let alone 125. The Haruka Airport Express from KIX's top speed is 62mph I believe!

Of course, that's not a reason not to build HS2, but the time savings and speed increase in comparison to what we have already is quite a bit less than other countries!

The main argument for building HS2 is that we need more capacity and if you're going to build it why not make it good? That's essentially it, really.