5 ms·

Basically, no - upgrades to the existing rail network are exceedingly expensive and disruptive (the whole East Coast Mainline is basically closing this weekend

by 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.
      - tempguy9999 7y ago
        > If you quadrupled capacity, but halved speed would that be better or worse for the railway, or the internet? Bandwidth is speed in most cases for the internet, lag intolerant games being an exception. Also my 10Mbit link is good enough for me despite having 100Mbit available. So the question is about comparing things which are not really comparable. Well, TBF, I can't. > Passengers may value the speed more than the capacity well they might, and they might want the carriages painted polkadot with hot podium dancers at each end, so how about arguing from a basis of fact instead? from https://press.which.co.uk/whichpressreleases/rail-companies-fail-stress-test-for-fed-up-commuters/ https://press.which.co.uk/whichpressreleases/rail-companies-... and with a table at the bottom. Speed is not mentioned in the report. Clearly other things really are hurting them. As to speed vs capacity, look in the chart at 'standing room' and 'availability of seats'. That's about capacity. > Door to door train v car journey is more marginal that what you suggest For you I wouldn't doubt, but there's a lot of others who may feel different. Pace but arguing from 1 data point is not rigorous. I've heard of people spending £5,000 a year for their work commute (that may be reporting bias but it's another data point).
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  I'd like to know what incremental cost there is for an increment of higher speed So you are arguing against it when you don't know the cost?
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    That's a good question. I don't know the cost but it is reasonable to suppose that every extra 10% in speed adds >10% in cost, and that this cost increment grows nonlinearly. So my objection is I think reasonable - or does it grow linearly in your view? However to be sure I'm not being unreasonabe I want to know what that curve is - am I being unreasonable to ask for information given that I'm going to be paying for HS2?
    - ucosty 7y ago
      That doesn't seem to be the case, if you look at the infrastructure cost breakdowns the total construction cost for phase 1 is estimated at £6.6Bn, with the remaining £9.6Bn going to things like project management, mitigation costs, and land acquisition. If you take a look at the construction costs, of the $6.6Bn only £665 are going towards the rail and control systems. With all other items being largely the same regardless of rail speed, I have a feeling (though I could be quite wrong), that the cost difference between low and high speed is marginal. Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69741/hs2-cost-and-risk-model-report.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
      - tempguy9999 7y ago
        Thanks, I really appreciate you made the effort to find some actual stats, but with respect, that doc is from march 2012. I don't know if the data is still relevant now (though it may be). We need some solid stats by an independent party which is why I'm happy one is going to be looking into it. FYI from that document, let me quote cos it's interesting: cost estimates in march 2012: 2.9 Route package cost summaries 2.9.1 The phase one total cost estimate is £16.3 billion within a cost range of £15.4 billion to £17.3 billion. [...] 2.9.2 The phase two total cost estimate is £17.1 billion within a cost range of £15.7 billion to £18.7 billion. [...] 2.9.3 The full Y network cost estimate is £33.4 billion within a cost range of £30.9 billion to £36.0 billion. [...]
- jnty 7y ago
  What part of 'let's communicate the case for our new infrastructure' translates to 'shut up'? If anything, they're saying they need to move away from steamroll it through and try and make the case to local communities that they'll benefit from this and should be singing its praises.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    Provide reliable, independent costings and benefits for the project. That's how you make a case. If you can't make a case then it's time to start up the PR bullshit, which uses nice words and breathless aspirations. It tends to sound like this: "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" Let's go through that: "Yet the story doesn’t seem to be getting through" why not? "it is not just our duty to create new infrastructure, it is also our duty to communicate its purpose" It's purpose is clear. It's a railway. So something else is going wrong with your story that you don't want to talk about. The last sentence is content free. It says zilch.
- isostatic 7y ago
  What money are you trying to save? You could go for Ballast rather than Slab, which means lower install costs and slower trains, but also means higher maintenence costs, but the headline price will be lower, even though the TCO will be higher and the service will be worse. Longer trains don't work because you'd have to demolish the towns that the stations are currently in -- extending 200m north/south at every station between Euston and Rugby is not cheap and will piss off a lot more people than building a quiet railway through an empty area, not to mention all the signal problems and points fouling, and what will you do at Euston? > I'd like to know what incremental cost there is for an increment of higher speed The big costs are land acquisition and earthworks, which won't change at all regardless of the speed. Euston is another cost, but you'd have to completely rebuild the station, including putting all the platforms underground, for your longer train plan - and Underground space in London isn't that easy.

by jnty 7y ago

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.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      > If you quadrupled capacity, but halved speed would that be better or worse for the railway, or the internet? Bandwidth is speed in most cases for the internet, lag intolerant games being an exception. Also my 10Mbit link is good enough for me despite having 100Mbit available. So the question is about comparing things which are not really comparable. Well, TBF, I can't. > Passengers may value the speed more than the capacity well they might, and they might want the carriages painted polkadot with hot podium dancers at each end, so how about arguing from a basis of fact instead? from https://press.which.co.uk/whichpressreleases/rail-companies-fail-stress-test-for-fed-up-commuters/ https://press.which.co.uk/whichpressreleases/rail-companies-... and with a table at the bottom. Speed is not mentioned in the report. Clearly other things really are hurting them. As to speed vs capacity, look in the chart at 'standing room' and 'availability of seats'. That's about capacity. > Door to door train v car journey is more marginal that what you suggest For you I wouldn't doubt, but there's a lot of others who may feel different. Pace but arguing from 1 data point is not rigorous. I've heard of people spending £5,000 a year for their work commute (that may be reporting bias but it's another data point).
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
I'd like to know what incremental cost there is for an increment of higher speed So you are arguing against it when you don't know the cost?
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  That's a good question. I don't know the cost but it is reasonable to suppose that every extra 10% in speed adds >10% in cost, and that this cost increment grows nonlinearly. So my objection is I think reasonable - or does it grow linearly in your view? However to be sure I'm not being unreasonabe I want to know what that curve is - am I being unreasonable to ask for information given that I'm going to be paying for HS2?
  - ucosty 7y ago
    That doesn't seem to be the case, if you look at the infrastructure cost breakdowns the total construction cost for phase 1 is estimated at £6.6Bn, with the remaining £9.6Bn going to things like project management, mitigation costs, and land acquisition. If you take a look at the construction costs, of the $6.6Bn only £665 are going towards the rail and control systems. With all other items being largely the same regardless of rail speed, I have a feeling (though I could be quite wrong), that the cost difference between low and high speed is marginal. Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69741/hs2-cost-and-risk-model-report.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      Thanks, I really appreciate you made the effort to find some actual stats, but with respect, that doc is from march 2012. I don't know if the data is still relevant now (though it may be). We need some solid stats by an independent party which is why I'm happy one is going to be looking into it. FYI from that document, let me quote cos it's interesting: cost estimates in march 2012: 2.9 Route package cost summaries 2.9.1 The phase one total cost estimate is £16.3 billion within a cost range of £15.4 billion to £17.3 billion. [...] 2.9.2 The phase two total cost estimate is £17.1 billion within a cost range of £15.7 billion to £18.7 billion. [...] 2.9.3 The full Y network cost estimate is £33.4 billion within a cost range of £30.9 billion to £36.0 billion. [...]
jnty 7y ago
What part of 'let's communicate the case for our new infrastructure' translates to 'shut up'? If anything, they're saying they need to move away from steamroll it through and try and make the case to local communities that they'll benefit from this and should be singing its praises.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  Provide reliable, independent costings and benefits for the project. That's how you make a case. If you can't make a case then it's time to start up the PR bullshit, which uses nice words and breathless aspirations. It tends to sound like this: "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" Let's go through that: "Yet the story doesn’t seem to be getting through" why not? "it is not just our duty to create new infrastructure, it is also our duty to communicate its purpose" It's purpose is clear. It's a railway. So something else is going wrong with your story that you don't want to talk about. The last sentence is content free. It says zilch.
isostatic 7y ago
What money are you trying to save? You could go for Ballast rather than Slab, which means lower install costs and slower trains, but also means higher maintenence costs, but the headline price will be lower, even though the TCO will be higher and the service will be worse. Longer trains don't work because you'd have to demolish the towns that the stations are currently in -- extending 200m north/south at every station between Euston and Rugby is not cheap and will piss off a lot more people than building a quiet railway through an empty area, not to mention all the signal problems and points fouling, and what will you do at Euston? > I'd like to know what incremental cost there is for an increment of higher speed The big costs are land acquisition and earthworks, which won't change at all regardless of the speed. Euston is another cost, but you'd have to completely rebuild the station, including putting all the platforms underground, for your longer train plan - and Underground space in London isn't that easy.