Print

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

[Lizzie Zoom]

Further to the "Cost Overrun" thread, we can now add that today Boris Johnson announced his commitment to Northern High Speed Rail development, and first a Leeds to Manchester line.

He also stated he was aiming to build 100 new towns in the North, and he reiterated the old cry of making a Northern Power House!

Now if he achieves everything he plans, including 20,000 more police officers, then I will be the fist to eat my critical words for Boris and praise him.  But I sense first there must be a General Election, and there is the small matter of Brexit!

He certainly has the right idea on High Speed rail development (sorry TB!) to boost Northern development, the birth place of the Industrial Revolution.

[Varche]

Was it only five years ago that Osborne showboated the Northern Powerhouse, fast rail links East West. What happened in those five years?

As STEMO says he is making a lot of promises.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Boris has promised to spend the national GDP for the next couple of decades within the last week. Ive heard fish fart and seen the bubbles. 

[Sir Tigger KC]

Was it only five years ago that Osborne showboated the Northern Powerhouse, fast rail links East West. What happened in those five years?

As STEMO says he is making a lot of promises.

Didn't Gideon represent a Northern constituency?    

[Lizzie Zoom]

Was it only five years ago that Osborne showboated the Northern Powerhouse, fast rail links East West. What happened in those five years?

As STEMO says he is making a lot of promises.

I agree, but there is a General Election in the wind, so Boris, breaking out of 'Austerity' will try to establish himself as a serious PM.  WE shall see!

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Theresa was going to turn Britain into Utopia. She would start with the JAM's.

I'm sure Boris will be equally effective once the honeymoon period is over......

[Doctor Gollum]

Presumably when the M62 is turned into a smart motorway, someone might think to run a pair of tracks along the central reservation

[Rods2]

It has a much better business case than HS2, where east-west transport communications are generally, much, much worse than where most north-south transport routes lead to London.

If you want the best £££s spent, then it is on smart signaling where you can double or more the number of trains running per hour & get rid of over priced drivers & all bloody minded unions, with automated trains & no union contracts for guards & station staff.

[aaronjb]

Presumably when the M62 is turned into a smart motorway, someone might think to run a pair of tracks along the central reservation

You jest, but .. that's exactly where the tracks are as you enter Tel Aviv from Ben Gurion airport. Granted, it's not quite "a pair of tracks down the central reservation" as the  two sides of the motorway are separated by a hundred hards of multiple tracks

[Bigron]

The money would be better spent on concreting over all of the railway lines, giving direct and easy routes into London, preferably without speed limits. Convert all of thr stations into free car parks and maybe at last motorists might get some value for all of the exhorbitant taxes we pay?
Am I still your Minister for Transport, TB?

Ron.

[Nick W]

The money would be better spent on concreting over all of the railway lines, giving direct and easy routes into London, preferably without speed limits. Convert all of thr stations into free car parks and maybe at last motorists might get some value for all of the exhorbitant taxes we pay?
Am I still your Minister for Transport, TB?

Ron.

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.

[Varche]

The pollution aspect is a big thing over here. A few of the major Spanish cities including our nearest of Granada, are failing to hit their EU target (and will get fined) .

On bad days they have introduced a 30 kmh , that is 20 mph approx , not only on main arterial roads but the ring road motorway in parts.

Even with cleaner cars, something has to be done about the ever increasing number of vehicles on our roads.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

The pollution aspect is a big thing over here. A few of the major Spanish cities including our nearest of Granada, are failing to hit their EU target (and will get fined) .

On bad days they have introduced a 30 kmh , that is 20 mph approx , not only on main arterial roads but the ring road motorway in parts.

Even with cleaner cars, something has to be done about the ever increasing number of vehicles on our roads people in western Europe.

ftfy. 

[Lizzie Zoom]

The money would be better spent on concreting over all of the railway lines, giving direct and easy routes into London, preferably without speed limits. Convert all of thr stations into free car parks and maybe at last motorists might get some value for all of the exhorbitant taxes we pay?
Am I still your Minister for Transport, TB?

Ron.

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.

So, any argument to pave over our railway lines is a non-starter. Always was, always will be.

[Bigron]

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.

[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"

[Lizzie Zoom]

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"

That is exactly what is happening with the new HS lines.

As for the use of new design and the latest technology to fit the existing infrastructure, that is exactly what has been done with the latest rolling stock.  But the fact is that the 21st century trains that can be built, and are being built, can travel at far higher speeds than the old infrastructure will allow without thousands of billions being spent on it.  The old embankments and alignments, let alone all the rest of the infrasture, can not easily and cheaply be modified to allow trains to run at 225 mph.

As people are bulking at the idea of spending up to £80 billion on HS2, just imagine the outcry about spending trillions to convert the old lines, let alone the mass demolition of buildings in the cities and towns they pass through, far in excess to the new HS lines being built!!

That is why the new HS lines are being built. They are, believe it or not, the cheapest and most effective way of bringing high speed travel to the UK.

So it is not "a load of twaddle", just reality!!

[Lizzie Zoom]

....................I would also add that on existing lines there are always slower train movements, such as frequently stopping locals and freight.  So the pathways for 225 mph running trains would be constantly blocked.  It would also add to the capacity problems many of our lines now face.  Free capacity for these very high speed trains is just not there.

[Doctor Gollum]

Why 225 mph? Why not 500+ in straight lines ie point to point?

I mean if we really need super high speed trains (and all the infrastructure and power etc to operate them then why not make it worth while?

Besides, the island of Britain is barely a thousand miles end to end. Being able to travel less than a third of that in an hour can already be done easily, hell, you can do Lundun to Mancchester in a car in less than five hours without having to sit next to anyone...

Your supposition that it is the most cost effective solution is misguided because the actual most cost effective solution is not to bother building it in the first place

[Lizzie Zoom]

Why 225 mph? Why not 500+ in straight lines ie point to point?

I mean if we really need super high speed trains (and all the infrastructure and power etc to operate them then why not make it worth while?

Besides, the island of Britain is barely a thousand miles end to end. Being able to travel less than a third of that in an hour can already be done easily, hell, you can do Lundun to Mancchester in a car in less than five hours without having to sit next to anyone...

Your supposition that it is the most cost effective solution is misguided because the actual most cost effective solution is not to bother building it in the first place

Because even the World's fastest commercially in service train, not as a test run, the  Shanghai Maglev,  runs at 'just' 267 mph, and only over 19 miles. It reflects that technology has not YET provided the speeds you suggest, and as you say it would need a straight line, without too many curves to allow such trains to run on. Now, in the UK we are, as you rightly say DG, a small island, and certainly not like the expanse of say the USA or Australia. 

The UK has major towns and cities quite close together, and certainly not in straight lines if you try to link them up with a HS railway. The cost, once more, would also be horrific if you tried to build very straight lines as, inevitably, they would plough through areas of habitation requiring the mass demolition of property.  The HS lines have, and are, causing much concern on that score, even though the planners are attempting to bend their new lines so as few properties are effected.

Yes, you are right, the UK could stop building new railway lines. But then we are capping any possibility of UK Ltd., developing it's business in the Midlands and North, and letting the current railway system, let alone road system, be completely over loaded and grid logged with all the additional population this country will have by 2050 and beyond. It is already being predicted that by 2045 the population will reach 76 million.
We could just sit back and watch our proud country become a poor, backward thinking, over-crowded backwater of Europe that has given up on any desire to remain a leading World economy. Do we all really want that?

So many people are concentrating on the multi-billion pound cost of building these lines, whilst ignoring the trillions of pounds they potentially will generate over many decades by expanding the business potential of the Midlands and North, whilst providing a very fast, highly efficient and environmentally sympathetic transport system for the rest of the 21st century.

[Bigron]

Re-patriation could be an option?

Ron.

[Sir Tigger KC]

The UK has major towns and cities quite close together, and certainly not in straight lines if you try to link them up with a HS railway. The cost, once more, would also be horrific if you tried to build very straight lines as, inevitably, they would plough through areas of habitation requiring the mass demolition of property.  The HS lines have, and are, causing much concern on that score, even though the planners are attempting to bend their new lines so as few properties are effected.

I am working on the solution to this in my shed. 

A solar powered laser tunneling machine!   

The lasers will melt the rock ahead at a much quicker rate than conventional tunnelling techniques and we can thus construct bigger, better, deeper tunnels in a dead straight line between cities and we'll be saving the environment in the process! 

[BazaJT]

Original post was meant to ask how when someone[company]has given a quote for a specific job,how then can costs spiral in such a fashion.When I gave a quote the customer knew that was the cost,if I misquoted then that was my loss,not a case case of oops sorry Mr Customer but that job I've done for you will now cost you 4 times as much.Anyway be that as it may[and I don't mind the sidetracking]my recent experience of rail travel was more than enough to put me off using rail travel.Scunny to Ewell[Surrey]wait for bus to get to train station,wait for train to arrive[it was late too]change at Donny wait for train to arrive/depart off at Kings Cross change stations wait for train to depart[9 carriages long virtually empty-I know as I walked its length trying to figure out how to open the damn doors to get on!]Luckily the seller of the car I'd gone to buy picked me up at the station otherwise there'd have been another bus ride/walk to reach my final destination.Journey time just short of 4 and a half hours,cost a few pence short of £110.Return journey by car,stop to add fuel,slow moving/snarled up traffic on M25 near Heathrow,stop for a "comfort break"/coffee and home.Journey time under 4hrs and fuel cost of less than £30.That was travelling solo,travelling as a family the rail cost would have spiralled by a ridiculous amount where the fuel cost by car while it would have risen due to extra weight of more people would have been negligible.

[BazaJT]

OOps sorry thought I was posting on my cost overrun thread

[Doctor Gollum]

Again twaddle.

There are plenty of businesses in the Midlands and beyond. Unfortunately they are largely based on the now largely defunct industry of digging stuff up for consumption*.

Perhaps a better use of public and tax payers money would be to set up a northern tech hub.

*Birmingham only exists because it's the geographical centre of the island and Mancchester because of the abundance of water (although it required the construction of the Mancchester Shit canal to sustain its development...)

Betterment of the links between Leeds and Mancchester makes sense, extra lines from Lundun don't.

Also, if the technology doesn't exist, why don't we invent it rather than sitting in a corner thumbsucking and whining about how crap everything is?

[Lizzie Zoom]

Again twaddle.

There are plenty of businesses in the Midlands and beyond. Unfortunately they are largely based on the now largely defunct industry of digging stuff up for consumption*.

Perhaps a better use of public and tax payers money would be to set up a northern tech hub.

*Birmingham only exists because it's the geographical centre of the island and Mancchester because of the abundance of water (although it required the construction of the Mancchester Shit canal to sustain its development...)

Betterment of the links between Leeds and Mancchester makes sense, extra lines from Lundun don't.

Also, if the technology doesn't exist, why don't we invent it rather than sitting in a corner thumbsucking and whining about how crap everything is?

Agreed, so get on with it DG!

[Varche]

The UK has major towns and cities quite close together, and certainly not in straight lines if you try to link them up with a HS railway. The cost, once more, would also be horrific if you tried to build very straight lines as, inevitably, they would plough through areas of habitation requiring the mass demolition of property.  The HS lines have, and are, causing much concern on that score, even though the planners are attempting to bend their new lines so as few properties are effected.

Good that you are inventing. Your machine would be great in sunny countries but not much use in Northern  Europe. All is not lost though as a long extension cable from sunny country solar panel would do the job!

I am working on the solution to this in my shed. 

A solar powered laser tunneling machine!   

The lasers will melt the rock ahead at a much quicker rate than conventional tunnelling techniques and we can thus construct bigger, better, deeper tunnels in a dead straight line between cities and we'll be saving the environment in the process! 

[Sir Tigger KC]

The UK has major towns and cities quite close together, and certainly not in straight lines if you try to link them up with a HS railway. The cost, once more, would also be horrific if you tried to build very straight lines as, inevitably, they would plough through areas of habitation requiring the mass demolition of property.  The HS lines have, and are, causing much concern on that score, even though the planners are attempting to bend their new lines so as few properties are effected.

Good that you are inventing. Your machine would be great in sunny countries but not much use in Northern  Europe. All is not lost though as a long extension cable from sunny country solar panel would do the job!

I am working on the solution to this in my shed. 

A solar powered laser tunneling machine!   

The lasers will melt the rock ahead at a much quicker rate than conventional tunnelling techniques and we can thus construct bigger, better, deeper tunnels in a dead straight line between cities and we'll be saving the environment in the process! 

And another extension lead from a windy place where there are lots of wind turbines and it's job jobbed! 

[Varche]

I’ve been busy this afternoon and secured you a grant of 100 million EU Euros for your project. No strings attached but initially they did query your name of Sir Tigger QC.

I have put a cheque in the post less handling charges , mafia pay offs etc. Expect a million euros in a few days.