Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sir Tigger KC]

The "extra" traffic will be using the reclaimed railway lines and they will then use my proposed free parking at the now redundant stations.
Oh yes, plenty of capacity for freight too,because the existing road network will still be there - everybody happy?

Ron.

What about the extra thousands of ICE's chucking out CO2, particulates and other pollution? 

Think of the poor little children! 

[Bigron]

CO2 never was and never will be the enemy - we need it - and other "pollutants" will fall harmlessly along the trackside.

Ron.

[Doctor Gollum]

That increase in journeys is purely down to a mass exodus of middle class folk from Lundun who mostly already own at least two cars.

Ironically this exodus frees up space for the poorest who seem intent on breeding like rabbits in turn making Lundun a shittier place to be, thereby fuelling the mass exodus... Etc, etc 

If people genuinely want to save the planet they should consider not having children, or at least minimizing how many.

[Nick W]

I hope not.
Cars aren't the solution to everything, and reducing their use in large urban areas is the way to go. Driving a car in London(or any other big city) is an expensive, slow, dirty, inefficient and wasteful thing to do. Any vehicle that isn't at least 50% full at the start of its journey should be disencouraged.

Yes I agree, and I would add that tarmacing over railways is an old, totally unrealistic, solution.

Throughout the UK passenger rail journeys for the year have increased to 1.8 billion journeys.  In the South East it has increased to a DAILY passenger journey figure of 600,000.  If all those passengers got into cars tomorrow, or at least two per car did, how would the roads, or covered railways, cope with an EXTRA 150,000 vehicles, with the majority going into London there and back, per day or 450 million, based again on two people per car, road journeys per year EXTRA on the roads going there and back?

In short, the most efficient method of the mass movement of people OVER SHORT(ISH) DISTANCES is by rail, and we should not forget the importance of railways for freight movements FOR HEAVY FREIGHT THAT NEEDS NO FURTHER TRANSPORT, and if they did not happen by that method, then tens of thousands of extra lorry movements would happen on our roads, adding to all the extra cars being there.

Fixed that for you, because railways are another limited solution to the problem. This means we need an integrated policy which is something that governments should provide, but prove spectacularly incapable of doing.

[Lizzie Zoom]

I hope not.
Cars aren't the solution to everything, and reducing their use in large urban areas is the way to go. Driving a car in London(or any other big city) is an expensive, slow, dirty, inefficient and wasteful thing to do. Any vehicle that isn't at least 50% full at the start of its journey should be disencouraged.

Yes I agree, and I would add that tarmacing over railways is an old, totally unrealistic, solution.

Throughout the UK passenger rail journeys for the year have increased to 1.8 billion journeys.  In the South East it has increased to a DAILY passenger journey figure of 600,000.  If all those passengers got into cars tomorrow, or at least two per car did, how would the roads, or covered railways, cope with an EXTRA 150,000 vehicles, with the majority going into London there and back, per day or 450 million, based again on two people per car, road journeys per year EXTRA on the roads going there and back?

In short, the most efficient method of the mass movement of people is by rail, and we should not forget the importance of railways for freight movements , and if they did not happen by that method, then tens of thousands of extra lorry movements would happen on our roads, adding to all the extra cars being there.

Fixed that for you, because railways are another limited solution to the problem. This means we need an integrated policy which is something that governments should provide, but prove spectacularly incapable of doing.

No, I have fixed it back as railways are the most efficient method for the mass movement of people between cities, not just in the South East.  I know from commuting into London from Bristol and back by train, along with commuting in by train from the Midlands into London, the value of that form of transport over longer distances, and so do the other 1.8 billion judging by the full trains!  

I also know how many unhappy, long, hours I have spent doing those same commutes by car!!

BUT, I agree that a fully integrated transport system is required for all the cities and major towns. Boris is talking the talk on that, but as with everything else, we shall see. 

[Sir Tigger KC]

CO2 never was and never will be the enemy - we need it - and other "pollutants" will fall harmlessly along the trackside.

Ron.

Whilst you are right Ron that we need CO2 for plant life, crops etc, at the same time as we are producing ever more amounts of CO2, we are busy chopping down the worlds great forests that soak much of it up. 

Airborne particulates have been proven to cause lung disease of all sorts especially in children who are exposed to it in high doses, and other "pollutants" do not fall harmlessly along the trackside/roadside they get carried on the winds to fall on crops, over residential areas or get washed into the drains and into the water courses to the sea.  Lovely! 

[Nick W]

No, I have fixed it back as railways are the most efficient method for the mass movement of people between cities, not just in the South East.  I know from commuting into London from Bristol and back by train, along with commuting in by train from the Midlands into London, the value of that form of transport over longer distances, and so do the other 1.8 billion judging by the full trains!  

I also know how many unhappy, long, hours I have spent doing those same commutes by car!!

Mass transport only works when everyone wants to go to the same place. So that means into(and then back out of) a large city from near by. It doesn't have to be in the SE, as traffic around Birmingham, Liverpool, Paris, Bordeaux, you get the idea, is similar. So it's effectiveness decreases the longer the trip; 10,000s of people do not want to regularly go from Southampton to Hull for example. Britain - England really - isn't big enough to need high speed trains that only stop at one destination, and they can't be high speed if they stop at Where-the-hell-is-this-on-the-Wold and all places in between.

[Lizzie Zoom]

No, I have fixed it back as railways are the most efficient method for the mass movement of people between cities, not just in the South East.  I know from commuting into London from Bristol and back by train, along with commuting in by train from the Midlands into London, the value of that form of transport over longer distances, and so do the other 1.8 billion judging by the full trains!  

I also know how many unhappy, long, hours I have spent doing those same commutes by car!!

Mass transport only works when everyone wants to go to the same place. So that means into(and then back out of) a large city from near by. It doesn't have to be in the SE, as traffic around Birmingham, Liverpool, Paris, Bordeaux, you get the idea, is similar. So it's effectiveness decreases the longer the trip; 10,000s of people do not want to regularly go from Southampton to Hull for example. Britain - England really - isn't big enough to need high speed trains that only stop at one destination, and they can't be high speed if they stop at Where-the-hell-is-this-on-the-Wold and all places in between.

The Javelin trains here in the South East that use HS1 track up into London (that you must know) carried 17 million passengers in 2017, and their popularity is climbing. They do stop at a few key stations en-route to the City, but they are considered fast enough (up to 140 mph on the HS1 tracks) and less crowded than the usual non-high speed trains, for those figures to climb still further over the next decade.

Those trains, or similar, no doubt will also be used on the other HS lines once built.

[TheBoy]

Those trains, or similar, no doubt will also be used on the other HS lines once built.

No, HS2 Ltd want to design something completely brand new. Its all part of their reason for existing, making as many jobs for themselves, not offering value to the taxpayer (who are 100% footing the build costs, and 60% the running costs).

Ironically, what they are aiming for is lower spec that what is available from existing, proven technologies made by other companies.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Those trains, or similar, no doubt will also be used on the other HS lines once built.

No, HS2 Ltd want to design something completely brand new. Its all part of their reason for existing, making as many jobs for themselves, not offering value to the taxpayer (who are 100% footing the build costs, and 60% the running costs).

Ironically, what they are aiming for is lower spec that what is available from existing, proven technologies made by other companies.

And no doubt completely incompatible with anything else, anywhere else. 

[Lizzie Zoom]

Those trains, or similar, no doubt will also be used on the other HS lines once built.

No, HS2 Ltd want to design something completely brand new. Its all part of their reason for existing, making as many jobs for themselves, not offering value to the taxpayer (who are 100% footing the build costs, and 60% the running costs).

Ironically, what they are aiming for is lower spec that what is available from existing, proven technologies made by other companies.

And no doubt completely incompatible with anything else, anywhere else. 

If that refers to track gauge, then that would happen in contravention of the Railway Regulation (Gauge) Act 1846, which stipulates all main railways in the England, Scotland and Wales must be built to the track gauge of 4 foot 8 1/2 inches, 5 foot 3 inches in Ireland.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Those trains, or similar, no doubt will also be used on the other HS lines once built.

No, HS2 Ltd want to design something completely brand new. Its all part of their reason for existing, making as many jobs for themselves, not offering value to the taxpayer (who are 100% footing the build costs, and 60% the running costs).

Ironically, what they are aiming for is lower spec that what is available from existing, proven technologies made by other companies.

And no doubt completely incompatible with anything else, anywhere else. 

If that refers to track gauge, then that would happen in contravention of the Railway Regulation (Gauge) Act 1846, which stipulates all main railways in the England, Scotland and Wales must be built to the track gauge of 4 foot 8 1/2 inches, 5 foot 3 inches in Ireland.

I'm sure that if a case was made that modern HS rail needed a different gauge, then it would happen. 

[LC0112G]

Its not just about track gauge, but vehicle size. Plenty of tunnels in the UK that are too small to take the latest rolling stock. And when the Channel tunnel locos needed servicing (before HS1 was finished), they had to be hauled by road from Folkestone to Old Oak Common (near Wembley in London) because there was no viable way to get such large locos to the depot by rail.

Going fast means you need very high powered trains/locos which tends to mean they bloat in size, which then means they don't fit the existing infrastructure.

[Lizzie Zoom]

Its not just about track gauge, but vehicle size. Plenty of tunnels in the UK that are too small to take the latest rolling stock. And when the Channel tunnel locos needed servicing (before HS1 was finished), they had to be hauled by road from Folkestone to Old Oak Common (near Wembley in London) because there was no viable way to get such large locos to the depot by rail.

Going fast means you need very high powered trains/locos which tends to mean they bloat in size, which then means they don't fit the existing infrastructure.

That is why these high speed lines are being purpose built with their infrastructure able to accommodate the new trains designed specifically for those lines only.

I would though argue with the planners that these trains, Eurostar and Javelin, on HS1 must be able to link in to the new HS lines, and their trains able to transfer to the former with ease. In addition the rail freight should be able to travel smoothly between the HS lines. At the moment I am not sure that is going to happen, which will be a big mistake and on a par with GWR Broad Gauge trains not being able to transverse other Standard Gauge railway company lines in the 19th century!

[Doctor Gollum]

What a load of twaddle.

Either completely rebuild the network ground up to make the best use of new tech or design new stock to fit the infrastructure.

Using the excuse that the trains are too big to justify new track roughly translates to "We've bought the wrong bloody trains"