navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address. Following continuous spam/hack attempts on the forum, "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: against HS2 high speed rail link  (Read 6753 times)
odbob
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 304


WWW
« on: August 21, 2013, 09:14:56 AM »

HS 2 potential costs now stand at 81 billion.
FOR :- will make travelling between major cities quicker for the privallaged few who happen to live close enough to the resited stations. This is assuming that the train isn't late.
 
AGAINST :- HS2 is bad for the country on so many different levels, from the sheer waste of money and increased debt, through to environmental disasters, think of all the wrongs in the country today, and just think what 81,000 million would do to put many of these things right.

A fraction of the 81,000 million would be better spent on existing infrastructure, improving safety reducing deaths on railways, just 30 million would build a hospital
The terrible disturbance to so many peoples lives.....

The destruction or major disruption to ancient woodlands, forests, areas of beauty, habitats, rivers....
etc etc etc

It is not really my problem, I am already 71, but I am concerned for the younger generations would will carry this burden for many years
Logged

martin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15733



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2013, 09:21:23 AM »

I agree, it's sheer lunacy!
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
odbob
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 304


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2013, 09:59:20 AM »

I have just started a petition against HS 2, please, go to :-

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/against-hs-2-high-speed-railhs2/

Your signature is valuable, please make a difference

Thankyou
Logged

dhaslam
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6775



« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2013, 10:48:41 AM »

It is a good point about the  station access  times.    The train may travel at 200 mph but the journey to and from the stations  is going to be  20 mph at best.
Logged

DHW 250 litre cylinder  60 X 47mm tubes
Heating  180,000 litre straw insulated seasonal store, 90X58mm tubes + 7 sqm flat collectors, 1 kW VAWT, 3 kW heatpump plus Walltherm gasifying stove
pdf27
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1778


« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2013, 02:51:45 PM »

Couple of points here:
1) Lots of the higher cost numbers for building the line include operating costs for a number of years, but don't include ticket revenue, etc. while the lower ones are often excessively optimistic. Treat cost figures with a great deal of caution.
2) One of the strongest arguments for it is that we've pretty much reached the limit of how many passengers we can push up the two existing main lines, and upgrading them to take a lot more passengers (adding new tracks, etc.) would cost about the same as a new high-speed line while being massively disruptive. So the benefits aren't necessarily directly to those near the stations and travelling between that city pair, but to everybody who uses the mainline as most of the city-pair traffic will get shunted off to the high-speed line.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about the new line, but one thing is very clear - if we want to add more capacity between London and Birmingham (then subsequently points North), this is the best way of doing it.
Logged
djh
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2128


« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2013, 03:18:10 PM »

I'm somewhat ambivalent about the new line, but one thing is very clear - if we want to add more capacity between London and Birmingham (then subsequently points North), this is the best way of doing it.

I'd just been thinking the opposite. It seems like a good opportunity to develop and build Elon Musk's Hyperloop, which might well provide a better service at lower cost and ongoing jobs benefits at the firms involved.

I think that major expenditure on a new traditional railway just as ideas like the hyperloop and self-driving cars are coming as alternatives might be a decision we'll come to regret hugely in a very short time. If railways are such a good idea, why are they so expensive to run?
Logged

Cheers, Dave
dhaslam
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6775



« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2013, 04:14:20 PM »

Public transport  isn't noted for innovation but it does seem that  trains need to be made a lot safer at high speed.  It isn't very long since carriages had to be strengthened  to survive low speed derailment  but  as speeds move up the carriages give virtually no protection.    The Spanish derailment was at relatively low speed  but carriages were still badly damaged.   

A tubed system   would take away  quite a lot of the risk  of serious derailment and  could use much lighter carriages with resulting lower  noise levels, energy usage and  space requirement.  The weakness is  that breakdowns are more difficult to manage but that  should't be insurmountable.


http://www.nation.com.pk/print_images/670/2013-07-26/driver-in-custody-after-80-killed-in-spain-train-crash-1374785675-2484.jpg 
Logged

DHW 250 litre cylinder  60 X 47mm tubes
Heating  180,000 litre straw insulated seasonal store, 90X58mm tubes + 7 sqm flat collectors, 1 kW VAWT, 3 kW heatpump plus Walltherm gasifying stove
stannn
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5606



« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2013, 07:44:07 PM »

Public transport  isn't noted for innovation but it does seem that  trains need to be made a lot safer at high speed.  It isn't very long since carriages had to be strengthened  to survive low speed derailment  but  as speeds move up the carriages give virtually no protection.    The Spanish derailment was at relatively low speed  but carriages were still badly damaged.

Beg to differ on this one. The steel mk111 coaches hauled in the UK by HSTs were extraordinarily strong and survived some very high speed derailments and collisions, usually with no loss of life and with the bodyshell barely creased. They were semi-monocoque. More modern designs in both steel and extruded aluminium alloy have energy absorbing modules at both ends of the cars and shear-off couplers to reduce deceleration in a collision.
Of course the result of a derailment is more favourable on straight track, which is why the Spanish incident was so bad. I suspect that the majority of deaths were of passengers who went out of the windows when the cars fell on their sides. For a long time, the lower edge of windows has been higher to reduce sickness but also with passenger ejection in mind. At extreme high speeds, the result of head-on high speed collision will be catastrophic, as when a German ICE hit a concrete bridge. We can't design for that.
Incidentally, I think that HS2 is far, far too expensive to go ahead.
Stan


« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 07:51:11 PM by stannn » Logged

2.45 kWp PV (Navitron supply), 40 evacuated tubes (Navitron supply), Clearview 650 log burner with back-boiler heating cottage and water, 2 off 50W border collies, 1 off 35W cat, 1 off 25W cat.
pdf27
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1778


« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2013, 10:09:49 PM »

I'd just been thinking the opposite. It seems like a good opportunity to develop and build Elon Musk's Hyperloop, which might well provide a better service at lower cost and ongoing jobs benefits at the firms involved.

I think that major expenditure on a new traditional railway just as ideas like the hyperloop and self-driving cars are coming as alternatives might be a decision we'll come to regret hugely in a very short time. If railways are such a good idea, why are they so expensive to run?
Thing is, running costs really aren't that high compared to transporting an equivalent number of people by car. The difference is that cars are paid for in lots of little bills, so nobody actually sees the full cost, while railways are run by a very small number of companies so the full price is clear. Additionally, it is overwhelmingly paid up front rather than over 20-30 years, making it even more obvious. Furthermore, even flying on a modern aircraft is better than travelling by car, self-driving or not. No matter how you slice it, travelling by train will be more energy efficient.

As for Hyperloop, I'm deeply sceptical - anything it does well, could be done better at lower cost by passenger trains. About the only thing it does very well is extremely high speeds, but that isn't actually very useful because it can't surge people through it at peak times - you spend the extra time queueing at the station rather than in the train. Even then, the small time saving is at the cost of a lot of fuel burn (however you do it, moving faster burns more fuel), and you may well end up better off in energy terms travelling by air. Notice that Musk doesn't state any energy consumption values - just said it would be net-neutral if the entire system were totally covered in PV panels. Conventional steel rails would almost certainly do rather better.
Logged
guydewdney
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4320



« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2013, 10:39:39 PM »

I agree, it's sheer lunacy!

hang on - I thought you were PRO public transport?
Logged

Pic of wheel on day 1
7.2kW Waterwheel and 9.8kW PV
martin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15733



WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2013, 10:45:34 PM »

Pro sensible public transport, not totally unnecessary money wasting "status" projects like this.......... whistlie
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
spaces
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1179



« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2013, 12:00:27 AM »

I'm slightly cynical regarding the fact that air travel is more efficient than car travel. If this really is true, it's a sad indictment of how regressive the motor industry has become.

As for HS2, I think most can see it is a daft idea. We are too small and densely-populated for it to make much sense.

Super high speed internet should be where money goes. Freight transport should be shifted back onto the railways, improved movement of people should be for leisure if we wish to reduce pollution. Government makes too much money from the motorist for any common sense to prevail, of course. Seeing miles of queuing traffic on motorways and dual carriageways does make you see how stretched our road network is.

If new railways are to be built anywhere, perhaps they should be driven through places like North-East Lincolnshire will Hull at one end and Cambridge at the other. And the old Great Central re-opened. Shame we sold our carriage and locomotive works abroad.
Logged

Simplicity, the ultimate refinement
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5398



« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2013, 07:40:46 AM »

Not a fan of this, particularly the scale of the cost compared to rolling out some renewables, but playing devil's advocate, I heard one argument that a new modern system would cost about twice that of upgrading the old one. Now I appreciate the idea of re-use and re-cycle but sometimes 'make do and mend' is just in-efficient. Think about our patchy upgrading of internet speeds when S. Korea is rolling out 10+ times faster, or piddling around with cheques when Africa went straight to mobile phone transfers.

However - the 2:1 cost didn't seem too unreasonable back when 'they' were talking about 32bn. But if the real costs do rise into these new suggested numbers, then that ratio will climb to 5:1 or more and becomes a mockery.

Also, my personal feeling is that the UK needs too many stops to ever utilise high speed trains properly, and HS2 will probably arrive just in time to coincide with large scale home working and tele-conferencing. Or even a system of being paid for hours worked once you log on and start, so the train time won't matter so much if you have WiFi and 'get to it' during the journey.

I know I (we?) should be in favour of mass/public transport but I think the timing and cost of HS2 isn't great, and consuming vastly more energy to smash a hole in air at ever greater speeds may have been a 'we can do it' proud dream in the 50's and 60's but makes less and less sense these days.

[Perhaps a re-visit to my somewhat joke suggestion of filling buses with recumbent bikes and generating leccy whilst you travel. How about a 'gym carriage' where you get your daily exercise cycling to work and home on the train. Maybe a discount/credit depending on how much leccy you generate. Spin class v's political spin? Of course taking this to the extreme, why not add a cycle lane between the tracks and just cycle down the railway behind a wind blocker vehicle, anyone reckon they could manage 150mph?]

Mart.
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
dan_b
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5112

SW London


WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2013, 09:26:36 AM »

I think what's flawed with HS2 as planned is that it doesn't guarantee a complete new line all the way to Scotland right from the start.  That's where you'd see the genuine benefits both economically and environmentally. I'm convinced the biggest reason for the cost increases is nothing to do with the actual construction but the bureaucracy and all the consultants - once you've assembled the workers, equipment and what not just keep going!
Running it to Scotland would massively reduce the London-Edinburgh short haul air travel and the greater distance would allow 200mph trains to make serious progress in terms of travel time reduction. 
Logged

3.06kWp SolarEdge system with a split array:
2.18kWp 10x South facing, plus 4x West facing 880W

Mk1 ImmerSUN DHW diverter
4kW PowerVault Battery

Tesla Model 3 Long Range
djh
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2128


« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2013, 10:16:09 AM »

As for Hyperloop, I'm deeply sceptical - anything it does well, could be done better at lower cost by passenger trains.

Well, the plan for Hyperloop was provoked by the cost of a plan for a railway over the same route, so I'd be interested to hear your plan for the California rail system that does the same job hugely cheaper than the existing plan?
Logged

Cheers, Dave
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!