Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 25 March 2013, 19:56:35
-
Channel 5 at eight ........which means now.
How does 360MPH grab you?
-
That will be HS2 , delivered slightly ahead of schedule. :y
-
Can it cope with the wrong type of snow on the line? ;D
-
It was about the 60's first gen bullet train and the TGV ::)
-
Yes, a programme on how the French have shown the World how to do what Britain should have done well before! ::) ::) ::)
...........and we still have detractors for HS2! ::) ::) ::) ::)
If we listen to the negatives and whatever from the NIMBY brigade, environmentalists, and general railway disbelievers, we will end up with horse and carts! :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
Advanced railways for the 21st Century please 8) 8) 8) 8) ;) ;)
-
Yes, a programme on how the French have shown the World how to do what Britain should have done well before! ::) ::) ::)
...........and we still have detractors for HS2! ::) ::) ::) ::)
If we listen to the negatives and whatever from the NIMBY brigade, environmentalists, and general railway disbelievers, we will end up with horse and carts! :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
Advanced railways for the 21st Century please 8) 8) 8) 8) ;) ;)
Oh, I take it back. I didn't realise HS2 went at speeds of up to 360 mph. I retract my detraction :y
-
160-180mph is more than fast enough for high speed railways in the Uk where the major populous centres are reasonably close together.
-
160-180mph is more than fast enough for high speed railways in the Uk where the major populous centres are reasonably close together.
Given than most lines are 100+ and long haul we can easily achieve 125/140mph with current stock, it's a lot of money to get an extra 40mph at best :(
-
Its a sustained 160-180mph not the very occasional 120-140mph sprint as per the current network.
-
Its a sustained 160-180mph not the very occasional 120-140mph sprint as per the current network.
Exactly!! :y :y :y
No doubt also, with purpose built HS lines, our trains will speed up further but, like you, doubt we will need, or will be able, to get to 357 mph! ::) ::) :y :y
-
Even so, the predicted travel times really don't justify the cost
-
Empty tubes, that's the future of train travel. Then the only the only speed limit is the g force passengers are willing to experience and the length of the journey. Much faster than planes, up to 5,000 mph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain). Wait till London gets empty tubes :y
-
Empty tubes, that's the future of train travel. Then the only the only speed limit is the g force passengers are willing to experience and the length of the journey. Much faster than planes, up to 5,000 mph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain). Wait till London gets empty tubes :y
Not at present, if ever, for long distance train travel with multi-directional and freight requirements.
Maybe be for short transit systems, but for any great length the costs would be horrendous and the engineering challenges of creating a continuous vacuum over distance, as Brunel once discovered, is I fear too much for current technology. There is also the psychological difficulties with humans remaining in a tunnels for any extended length of time, although I suppose at 5,000 mph that would not be so long! :D :D :D ;)
-
...........and we still have detractors for HS2! ::) ::) ::) ::)
If we listen to the negatives and whatever from the NIMBY brigade, environmentalists, and general railway disbelievers,
But its a massive, huge, unsustainable amount of money, not just to build, but to run.
NIMBY? Not really. Although it skirts around Brackley, it shouldn't affect me much - I'm sure the bridge over the A43 will be up in a couple of days, so no real disruption. I am more annoyed about the Chilterns being destroyed purely for this waste of time... ...and I'm 35-40 miles away from the Chilterns.
The business case was built by Network Rail, and like all Civil Service, have to come up with wild brain ideas to justify their existence. If you ever went to any of the consultations, you would be able to see this...
I actually walked into the local consultation, telling the tree hugging hippies at the entrance to get a real job, with a slightly "HS2 is the way forward" bias. Walked out thinking that the tree huggers were basically right, although not for the same reasons. Never have I come across such a load of guff, clearly contradictory with itself, and outright lies. When I asked one of the senior NR bods there to clarify some of the figures, and why they were using different figures depending on what message they were trying to get over, his response was along the lines of "of course were are going to twst and distort the business case, as this is our livelihood, and we want it to go ahead". In fact, he said the consultations were a waste of time as this was going to happen anyway (this was long before the government gave the official go-ahead).
Even the NR bod said it would be under utilised outside of peak hours, and that the (already seriously flawed) business case worked on the assumption that by 2026 (estimated opening), home working would not have increased.
Phase 2 wasn't supposed to even be considered until something like 2020, but I notice NR are trying to push Phase 2 through now, as they realise that the current government are stupid enough to sign it off, and the current government are needing this as a Labour style borrow-for-infrastructure-to-create-short-term-employment.
Like Labour's mad, wasteful spending spree on education and the NHS, we will be paying for this white elephant for generations and generations.
-
Empty tubes, that's the future of train travel. Then the only the only speed limit is the g force passengers are willing to experience and the length of the journey. Much faster than planes, up to 5,000 mph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain). Wait till London gets empty tubes :y
Not at present, if ever, for long distance train travel with multi-directional and freight requirements.
Maybe be for short transit systems, but for any great length the costs would be horrendous and the engineering challenges of creating a continuous vacuum over distance, as Brunel once discovered, is I fear too much for current technology. There is also the psychological difficulties with humans remaining in a tunnels for any extended length of time, although I suppose at 5,000 mph that would not be so long! :D :D :D ;)
Ok but it's not aimed at freight where time is not such an issue, its real market is to replace passenger aircraft. To hold a vacuum the tunnel needs to withstand about 15 pounds per square inch which is the same as an air filled tunnel at 10m water depth I believe. There would be economies of scale in long tunnel production and new materials would help.
Admittedly safety might be a problem remember Total Recall
(http://tarstarkas.net/pics/movies/t/totalrecall08.jpg)
(http://tarstarkas.net/pics/movies/t/totalrecall15a.jpg)
-
Dont know where your pictures have gone.
I thought that was a face pull at the cost.
-
Empty tubes, that's the future of train travel. Then the only the only speed limit is the g force passengers are willing to experience and the length of the journey. Much faster than planes, up to 5,000 mph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain). Wait till London gets empty tubes :y
Not at present, if ever, for long distance train travel with multi-directional and freight requirements.
Maybe be for short transit systems, but for any great length the costs would be horrendous and the engineering challenges of creating a continuous vacuum over distance, as Brunel once discovered, is I fear too much for current technology. There is also the psychological difficulties with humans remaining in a tunnels for any extended length of time, although I suppose at 5,000 mph that would not be so long! :D :D :D ;)
Ok but it's not aimed at freight where time is not such an issue, its real market is to replace passenger aircraft. To hold a vacuum the tunnel needs to withstand about 15 pounds per square inch which is the same as an air filled tunnel at 10m water depth I believe. There would be economies of scale in long tunnel production and new materials would help.
Admittedly safety might be a problem remember Total Recall
(http://tarstarkas.net/pics/movies/t/totalrecall08.jpg)
(http://tarstarkas.net/pics/movies/t/totalrecall15a.jpg)
Not really workable, unfortunately. Of course, you could just raise the train to 36,000 feet where it's not that far off a vacuum anyway. Should be able to get 500 MPH out of it reasonably efficiently. Oh, wait! ::)
I saw a report a few years back that said if you did away with air traffic control and every aircraft just climbed at it's maximum rate of climb to its' most efficient cruising altitude, at a heading that would take it straight to its' destination with collision avoidance by "random separation", air travel would be much more efficient and actually safer! OK, it would be a brave man who put it into practice, but with better collision avoidance systems, who knows?
-
Even so, the predicted travel times really don't justify the cost
Its not just the travel times.
The current routes which it would support are currently at capacity and freight is suffering as a result (not enough paths).
By moving passenger services to high speed rail, you create further paths for lower speed services such as local stoppers and freight. This helps to take lorries off the road for long runs and improves servies to smaller towns.
Its all about the big picture and better we spend money on infrastructure then ineffecient services where money is not the real issue.
But hey, the press have no understanding of such things because its just to hard (and does not sell papers!)
-
Even so, the predicted travel times really don't justify the cost
Its not just the travel times.
The current routes which it would support are currently at capacity and freight is suffering as a result (not enough paths).
By moving passenger services to high speed rail, you create further paths for lower speed services such as local stoppers and freight. This helps to take lorries off the road for long runs and improves servies to smaller towns.
Its all about the big picture and better we spend money on infrastructure then ineffecient services where money is not the real issue.
But hey, the press have no understanding of such things because its just to hard (and does not sell papers!)
Indeed Mark, and that is my argument. :y :y :y
But you are right, it is far more commercial for the papers to condemn it all regardless of the facts and looking ahead 25 - 50 years! ::) ::) ::)
Freight is important to the Chunnel, and if I was in power, I would be strongly supporting the creation for HS freight trains. Freight trains have been the real bread and butter for most lines since the start of the railway revolution, and fast freight of particularly perishables changed life in the cities forever. HS freight from and to Europe would open markets we can hardly imagine now, getting product from far afield in the factories / warehouses / shops same day /next day.
The future is fast, the future is high speed train! :y :y