callaght Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 At the risk of being totally slated here, I think HS2 is an excellent idea and I can't wait for it to be built. ...Ill get me coat.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Tell that to the idiot world leaders for COP21 Ha ha David! I am wise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uptherebels Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 It's a stupendous waste of money which is why the politicians love it. I can see a short hub being built out from London and the money running out at around 1 hour journey time from London. Well even without them going any faster, that would be Kettering then. We go to London several times a year, and it takes an hour. I like the journey. I'm not really interested in something that would make it quicker! If they were running two services, and one took an hour, and the other one halved it, I'd still take the hour one. I realise though, that I'm speaking as an occasional leisure traveller! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 It does look like a waste of money. I also don't understand why we still have trains as opposed to turning the tracks into roads purely for coaches and freight. The cost of tracks alone must be huge; surely this is Victorian technology that is best left to local enthusiasts with their own lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 At the risk of being totally slated here, I think HS2 is an excellent idea and I can't wait for it to be built. ...Ill get me coat.. I'm ambivalent.. mainly because it won't affect me (unless it reaches a lot further up north). Virgin already offer a pretty fast service down to London from here but I guess extra infrastructure is always good. The cost is about half the amount we spend on the NHS in one year. As a one off cost on such a large project I don't think that's too terrible. Especially if using mostly British companies who will recycle some of the money back into the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 I'm ambivalent.. mainly because it won't affect me (unless it reaches a lot further up north). Virgin already offer a pretty fast service down to London from here but I guess extra infrastructure is always good. The cost is about half the amount we spend on the NHS in one year. As a one off cost on such a large project I don't think that's too terrible. Especially if using mostly British companies who will recycle some of the money back into the economy. That's what large cost infrastructure projects are about! Hitler built the Autobahns! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justthisbloke Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 That's what large cost infrastructure projects are about! Hitler built the Autobahns! And Harold Wilson built the Humber Bridge. I think the Germans got the better deal. In terms of roads, not leaders, that is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 It does look like a waste of money. I also don't understand why we still have trains as opposed to turning the tracks into roads purely for coaches and freight. The cost of tracks alone must be huge; surely this is Victorian technology that is best left to local enthusiasts with their own lines. The costs are high for the wrong reasons, and railways are rather more efficient than roads, certainly for freight, when you've got large flows. Even for passengers getting in and out of cities by rail is often easier, and for longer journeys it can be more relaxing (or would be if we hadn't degraded passenger accommodation so badly with every godawful new train). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 And Harold Wilson built the Humber Bridge. I think the Germans got the better deal. In terms of roads, not leaders, that is! They did, as I have travelled on the German Autobahns a bit, but I think I only went over the Humber Bridge once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justthisbloke Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 As I've never had call to personally collect a fish from Hull nor a turnip from Lincolnshire, I've never used the bridge either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 As I've never had call to personally collect a fish from Hull nor a turnip from Lincolnshire, I've never used the bridge either. That's what the supermarket home delivery service is for! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Generation Game Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 As I've never had call to personally collect a fish from Hull nor a turnip from Lincolnshire, I've never used the bridge either. We don't have many fish left in Hull. I've used the bridge a few times recently, after they halved the fee to £1.50 (now free for motorbikes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 And Harold Wilson built the Humber Bridge. I think the Germans got the better deal. In terms of roads, not leaders, that is! And Harold Wilson built the Humber Bridge. I think the Germans got the better deal. In terms of roads, not leaders, that is! The humber bridge is underused as it was supposed to be part of a motorway that was never built...the M11 was supposed to go past cambridge and all the way to Hull (perhaps beyond). Instead they've opted to upgrade the A1 to the A1(m) in a rather piecemeal fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 HS2 trains are at risk of derailing if they hit top speed of 225mph, claim engineers working on £42billion project Commissioned by HS2 and marked 'official-sensitive', the report by Professor Peter Woodward said trains reaching speeds of 225mph would cause 'significant issues' with track instability. FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Sounds rather unlikely, the only real unstable thing are the minds of people who want to build something that whizzes around that fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 HS2 trains are at risk of derailing if they hit top speed of 225mph, claim engineers working on £42billion project Commissioned by HS2 and marked 'official-sensitive', the report by Professor Peter Woodward said trains reaching speeds of 225mph would cause 'significant issues' with track instability. FFS. Could we not just have some slow trains that just turned up on time.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35790137 That is without mentioning the 'partial cancellations' where the train only gets to its destination on time by missing out stations and leaving passengers behind http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/14319068.Rail_commuters_most_affected_by_trains_missing_out_station_stops/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChumpusRex Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 It does look like a waste of money. I also don't understand why we still have trains as opposed to turning the tracks into roads purely for coaches and freight. The cost of tracks alone must be huge; surely this is Victorian technology that is best left to local enthusiasts with their own lines. The cost of the tracks is big. For the full 300 mile "Y" shaped HS2 - the tracks, ballast, sleepers, and overhead power system would come to a total cost of almost £2 billion. The problem is the cost of getting things built in the UK is much higher than in other countries. There is much more bureaucracy, wages are much higher, land is more expensive, planning is more difficult and demands very high levels of environmental mitigation requiring much more expensive construction techniques. Similar projects in France are typically 80-90% cheaper on a per km basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 The problem is the cost of getting things built in the UK is much higher than in other countries. There is much more bureaucracy, wages are much higher, land is more expensive, planning is more difficult and demands very high levels of environmental mitigation requiring much more expensive construction techniques. Similar projects in France are typically 80-90% cheaper on a per km basis. In that case you'd think we'd end up bulding things that aren't bloody awful and shouldn't be torn down at the first opportunity, with all those involved in the design, planning and construction thrown in prison for gross vandalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 HS2 trains are at risk of derailing if they hit top speed of 225mph, claim engineers working on £42billion project Commissioned by HS2 and marked 'official-sensitive', the report by Professor Peter Woodward said trains reaching speeds of 225mph would cause 'significant issues' with track instability. FFS. We need real speed https://www.rt.com/news/335305-hyperloop-transportation-system-europe/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome The deal between Slovakia and Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT), which has slated testing for 2020, brings the Hyperloop one step closer to reality. HTT announced the deal on its website Thursday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 It's a silly train set for politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 We need real speed https://www.rt.com/news/335305-hyperloop-transportation-system-europe/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome We need to slow down and take things at a more leisurely pace. Faster transport, as well as inevitably being an obnoxious presence wherever it's built, just ends up putting more pressure to travel. The last thing we need is more stress, more "be here, be there, be everywhere." There's a happy medium, I don't know where it is but suspect we've already passed it (maybe for quite some time, there were train services that spent a fair proportion of their journeys above 100 mph even in the 30s although they were very much the exception and not the rule). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 Yes, but if you need to do that journey often enough for it to be an issue then I'd say the problem isn't with the transport system. More capacity, as I said, is a pretty sound argument for building a new railway (even if it's yet another symptom of over-population, although considering how many railways have been closed it's still not getting near to what it used to be). That's why I wouldn't be against it if we were actually capable of building anything non-repulsive. Top speed of 100 mph, non-electrified, no concrete, no over-the-top modern standards and it might be fine. edit: Forgot the bit where I view HS2 supporters and what they want as about as good for the country as massive income multiple mortgages and eternal house price rises. Or is that too on-topic? Higher speed's most obvious technical advantage is higher capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 HS2 trains are at risk of derailing if they hit top speed of 225mph, claim engineers working on £42billion project Commissioned by HS2 and marked 'official-sensitive', the report by Professor Peter Woodward said trains reaching speeds of 225mph would cause 'significant issues' with track instability. FFS. Professor Woodward is in favour of hs2 being built. He has highlighted some technical concerns, AFAIK, because that is the responsible thing to do, being a civil engineer and all that. At this early stage they can be mitigated more economically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saver Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 Basically we a living in a World where a transatlantic conference can be done over VPN at home. Why bother to actually go there? A bit like DAB radio, bad engineering too late! Why broadcast low quality crap in marvelllous mono, when I can get that off the internet? because lots of decisions are not taken in meetings, rather you need to network with people and gain their confidence. Meeting in person helps a lot with this, whilst those who connect remotely to meetings can end up getting excluded from what is really going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.