6 ms·

Great piece. But if our goal is increased capacity, perhaps HS2 isn't the best way to do it - are there cheaper and slower alternatives? And if this is an eithe

Great piece. But if our goal is increased capacity, perhaps HS2 isn't the best way to do it - are there cheaper and slower alternatives? And if this is an either/or decision, there are alternative proposals that are absolutely worth of consideration - some scandalously poor situations up North for example. I just can't help feeling this is yet another example of the public being stitched up by their taxes being funnelled to a financial bonanza for the politicians' chums.

jnty 7y ago
Basically, no - upgrades to the existing rail network are exceedingly expensive and disruptive (the whole East Coast Mainline is basically closing this weekend because a single junction needs to be renewed.) HS2 provide lots of fast intercity capacity meaning existing lines can be freed up for a massive enhancement to local services. The high speed also helps reduce demand for domestic air travel which is vital for combating the climate emergency. This map shows where capacity will be unlocked: https://twitter.com/HS2ltd/status/1158403767756316672 https://twitter.com/HS2ltd/status/1158403767756316672 And this comprehensively explains why more capacity is needed and a new high speed railway is the solution: https://medium.com/@garethdennis/high-speed-two-and-the-need-for-speed-91d8c68c5d80 https://medium.com/@garethdennis/high-speed-two-and-the-need...
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  As it stands I don't believe this. I'll happily accept that new tracks need to be built, and to support higher speed, but going up to "400 km/h (250 mph)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2) seems pure dickwaving. From your article "Yet the story doesn’t seem to be getting through. As engineers, it is not just our duty to create new infrastructure, it is also our duty to communicate its purpose. Helping the British public to get behind High Speed 2 must be a priority for our industry if we are to truly make this megaproject a success." Translation: shut up and swallow, plebs. I'd like to know what incremental cost there is for an increment of higher speed - I bet I know the shape of that graph. If you want higher capacity, let me know why longer trains don't work. New line yes, gouging expense for national vanity, no.
  - benj111 7y ago
    The original article made the case that this was cheaper than upgrading existing infrastructure, it also made the case that this will be around for 200 years. That being the case, attempting to future proof, by eg designing it to be 250mph capable seems sensible. Theres also the fact that this route will have competition, against aircraft and cars, ideally it needs to be quicker than its alternatives in order to succeed. Longer trains probably will increase capacity, but mailing around TB hard drives probably has higher bandwidth than the average internet connection. Good luck selling individuals on that 'upgrade' though.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      > The original article made the case that this was cheaper than upgrading existing infrastructure which part of "I'll happily accept that new tracks need to be built" was unclear? > designing it to be 250mph capable seems sensible I understand it's not going to be run at that speed for much of its length, so what's the cost benefit? > Theres also the fact that this route will have competition, against aircraft and cars, ideally it needs to be quicker than its alternatives in order to succeed Interesting question whether we will have fossil-fuel powered aircraft for many decades, and as for cars it's a matter of cost. Trains are expensive now - that's where it will compete with cars; they often are already faster than cars for long distances. > Longer trains probably will increase capacity 'probably'? > but mailing around TB hard drives probably has higher bandwidth than the average internet connection false equivalence. Trains can already be faster than cars.
      - benj111 7y ago
        "false equivalence" That wasn't the point I was trying to make, in the quoted paragraph Passengers may value the speed more than the capacity. If you quadrupled capacity, but halved speed would that be better or worse for the railway, or the internet? Door to door train v car journey is more marginal that what you suggest. I would have to spend 2 hours to get to the east cost mainline. In a car I could be over halfway to London by then. And i could have the same problem at the other end. In the same way you'll never be as fast as a plane, but you don't have to turn up 2 hours early for a train.
rjsw 7y ago
Someone pointed out recently that the route of the former Great Central Main Line [1] could be relaid with track to increase capacity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Central_Main_Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Central_Main_Line

jnty 7y ago

Basically, no - upgrades to the existing rail network are exceedingly expensive and disruptive (the whole East Coast Mainline is basically closing this weekend because a single junction needs to be renewed.) HS2 provide lots of fast intercity capacity meaning existing lines can be freed up for a massive enhancement to local services. The high speed also helps reduce demand for domestic air travel which is vital for combating the climate emergency. This map shows where capacity will be unlocked: https://twitter.com/HS2ltd/status/1158403767756316672 https://twitter.com/HS2ltd/status/1158403767756316672 And this comprehensively explains why more capacity is needed and a new high speed railway is the solution: https://medium.com/@garethdennis/high-speed-two-and-the-need-for-speed-91d8c68c5d80 https://medium.com/@garethdennis/high-speed-two-and-the-need...

tempguy9999 7y ago
As it stands I don't believe this. I'll happily accept that new tracks need to be built, and to support higher speed, but going up to "400 km/h (250 mph)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2) seems pure dickwaving. From your article "Yet the story doesn’t seem to be getting through. As engineers, it is not just our duty to create new infrastructure, it is also our duty to communicate its purpose. Helping the British public to get behind High Speed 2 must be a priority for our industry if we are to truly make this megaproject a success." Translation: shut up and swallow, plebs. I'd like to know what incremental cost there is for an increment of higher speed - I bet I know the shape of that graph. If you want higher capacity, let me know why longer trains don't work. New line yes, gouging expense for national vanity, no.
- benj111 7y ago
  The original article made the case that this was cheaper than upgrading existing infrastructure, it also made the case that this will be around for 200 years. That being the case, attempting to future proof, by eg designing it to be 250mph capable seems sensible. Theres also the fact that this route will have competition, against aircraft and cars, ideally it needs to be quicker than its alternatives in order to succeed. Longer trains probably will increase capacity, but mailing around TB hard drives probably has higher bandwidth than the average internet connection. Good luck selling individuals on that 'upgrade' though.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    > The original article made the case that this was cheaper than upgrading existing infrastructure which part of "I'll happily accept that new tracks need to be built" was unclear? > designing it to be 250mph capable seems sensible I understand it's not going to be run at that speed for much of its length, so what's the cost benefit? > Theres also the fact that this route will have competition, against aircraft and cars, ideally it needs to be quicker than its alternatives in order to succeed Interesting question whether we will have fossil-fuel powered aircraft for many decades, and as for cars it's a matter of cost. Trains are expensive now - that's where it will compete with cars; they often are already faster than cars for long distances. > Longer trains probably will increase capacity 'probably'? > but mailing around TB hard drives probably has higher bandwidth than the average internet connection false equivalence. Trains can already be faster than cars.
    - benj111 7y ago
      "false equivalence" That wasn't the point I was trying to make, in the quoted paragraph Passengers may value the speed more than the capacity. If you quadrupled capacity, but halved speed would that be better or worse for the railway, or the internet? Door to door train v car journey is more marginal that what you suggest. I would have to spend 2 hours to get to the east cost mainline. In a car I could be over halfway to London by then. And i could have the same problem at the other end. In the same way you'll never be as fast as a plane, but you don't have to turn up 2 hours early for a train.

rjsw 7y ago

Someone pointed out recently that the route of the former Great Central Main Line [1] could be relaid with track to increase capacity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Central_Main_Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Central_Main_Line