Proposed high-speed train - HS2
The new high speed train project has been declared 'ON' again in the news recently. It is reported that the trains will travel in excess of 200 mph.
This got me to thinking about the closing speed when they pass each other; something in excess of 400 mph.
Thinking about the slight buffetting felt when large vehicles overtake on the M-ways, would not the trains be significantly rocked by pressure waves at these speeds? And the aftermath of a derailment (Heaven forbid) doesn't bear thinking about.
I would expect that has been taken into consideration Snowball.
I do not think it is commercially viable, for every pound spent they are expecting one pound forty pence back, these are the treasuries figures, i.e. with a back wind and excluding overruns.
It strikes me, if our parliamentarians want to go on an ego trip, (mine is bigger than yours!) and Scottish devolution is such a bad thing, should this white elephant go all the way to Scotland?
Just had a thought. The distance by rail from London to Birmingham is 113 miles. How long will it take to get up to speed, and how long to begin reducing speed for approaching birmingham? The resulting time is that at which the 200 mph can be achieved. I think the journey time was stated to be 45 minutes. If you allow 10 minutes to get up to top speed, and 10 minutes to decelerate to a stop, that leaves 25 minutes at top speed, which equates to a distance of 83 miles, (= 15miles to accelerate and 15 miles to stop)
So if the train only did a top speed of 100 mph, making it reasonable to only allow 5 mins to reach 100 mph and 5 mins to slow to a stop.
I work out 100 mph for 99 miles (60 mins)+ 2 x 5 mins. = 80 minutes journey time.
If I have my calculations right, this means £billions spent to save a journey time of 35 minutes. Jeez!
I believe your 10 minutes to get up to speed is far too conservative, and the projected 49 minutes journey time is achievable.
Originally Posted by Snowball
However, if you think it'll be a white elephant, let's extend it up the East Coast so it can connect with the Edinburgh tram 'Network' ....
It will end up costing about ten times as much of the original quote, just like the cost of the Scottish Parliament building did?
Depends upon how far the train has to travel out of the station and over existing network points before getting onto the specially laid tracks.
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
Remember that rose-tinted spectacles are already being used to support the project. Many of us still haven't forgotten the Blue Streak debacle; and the more recent NHS national computer system shambles.
Has anyone ever seen a combined government/private enterprise successfully achieved, either in time or to budget, in the UK? I can't think of one. And of those that are eventually cobbled through, the realism is always less effective than the initial euphoric claims.
We spent millions on the 'Advanced Passenger Train' high speed rail project years ago just to scrap it and let other countries use the technology we had developed. I can think of many things we should be spending the money on rather than trying to prove to the world we are still close to the front with technology.
I have two reasons to be against it. The first is that quite simply we cannot afford it. It is not only going to cost millions to build, but I believe it would cost millions to maintain. I say 'would cost millions to maintain' because I think it will not be maintained correctly and will eventually end up with 40mph speed limits because of track degradation. This already happened on stretches of our Intercity/125 network.
The second is that it has been aimed through the Green Belt, and historically I have lost count of the amount of time the Govt has tried to build on our Green Belt. This time I think they will succeed, and I think our Green Belt will disappear very quickly. I would point out that a rail link already exists between Central London and Birmingham, and I think it would be cheaper, easier and quicker to upgrade this link in stages.
Just for my own curiosity, where are the extra passengers going to come from, and how much are fares going to rise? Nobody seems to have thought of this.
I think the projected cost for the London-Birmingham stage was around £3.5billion, Rolebama. As for where the passengers are to come from, I think they are either still at school or not yet born! Another problem is that the proposers are basing their (dare I say 'knowledge'?) on today's work patterns. Road transport congestion is likely to get worse in the future, and the daily travel to get to one staion and away from another will be time-consuming, so as to make the difference between a HST and standard main line journey times irrelevant. Also, unless the ordinary lines/locos/coaches are to be left in the doldrums, isn't it reasonable to suppose, the time scale being what it is, that standard train times will be faster anyhow, negating the much trumpeted differences in journey times?
On top of this, many of the passengers that would be typical for HST are users of high-tech communications and home-based computer systems for their work. This pattern will increase in the future, and many more such people will spend more time working from home.
Up until now, I have formed the opinion that those fervently in favour of HST are not so much likely to use it, as they are to profit from its inception.