search the site
 daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 1st, 2013, 08:34 PM   #801
Dobbo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,399
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
Well, it's clear that a lot of MPs abstained. I imagine that a lot of those were on the Labour benches, so there is still a lot of politicking to be done before the next bill (authorising compulsory purchase powers) in the new year.

But the Tory rebellion that the obviously biased BBC was predicting failed to materialise.

There is also set to be a further announcement about continuing the route to Scotland later. I think the BBC has got the wrong end of the stick in this article, which is fairly nondescript about what is happening: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24766765

If we aren't aiming for 2 hours to Glasgow/Edinburgh, it's a bad job IMHO.
The letter to HS2 is to examine all options to get the journey time under 3 hours. I imagine one of those options would be a captive railway from Manchester to Glasgow/Edinburgh.
Dobbo está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 2nd, 2013, 01:00 AM   #802
Stainless
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Pyeongnae
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
There is also set to be a further announcement about continuing the route to Scotland later. I think the BBC has got the wrong end of the stick in this article, which is fairly nondescript about what is happening: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24766765

If we aren't aiming for 2 hours to Glasgow/Edinburgh, it's a bad job IMHO.
They quote that 92% of Rail journeys in Scotland start and end in Scotland. Considering how far the border is from any population centre I would say that 8% is quite a significant amount of traffic. Is there any domestic benefit at all besides connecting Edinburgh and Glasgow?
Stainless no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2013, 01:02 AM   #803
Neb81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 201
Likes (Received): 71

HS2 is a tough one. Though I am a staunch supporter of HSR, the proposals for HS2 as they exist are so ill thought out that I'm hoping it will suffer a defeat before construction starts in order to force a rethink.

Specifically the excess tunneling involved bumps up the price to unjustifiable amounts, and makes future expansion (i.e. additional access points to the conventional network, stations etc.) difficult. It also limits passenger appeal (who really wants to spend half of a London to Birmingham journey in a glorified tube train for a journey that's a few minutes faster and more expensive?) and complicates maintenance and future upgrades.

Also, without a clear funding commitment and timetable for Phase 2, the London-Birmingham stretch risks being a white elephant, with the Chiltern line upgrades adding the extra London-Birmingham capacity needed, duplicating what HS2 Ph.1 does, whilst capacity on the NW of the WCML is still choked to death.

I'd love to see HSR happen, and *work* in the UK, but to do that it needs to be engineering led with a long term vision, rather than being a political fudge.

At the very least we need a more practical and cost-effective alignment, a fully funded and timetabled development schedule that covers both phases 1 and 2, and a clear vision for expansion to Scotland, as well as a incorporating flexibility enough to allow for future growth and additions.

A ridiculous oversight for the current phase 2 proposals is also the lack of a connection to Liverpool, which is currently *very* poorly served by intercity services. Phase two should be rethought from the current "Y" concept to a "T" one, with a trans-pennine linking of Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds/Bradford to each other as well as to London being intrinsic to the design.
__________________

SAS 16, ncx liked this post
Neb81 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2013, 02:55 AM   #804
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

The excess tunneling involved is down to the NIMBYism, pure and simple. What would change about that if they went back to the drawing board? They'd just have to tunnel under another bunch of home counties NIMBYs elsewhere.

And I don't see why there is this presumption that the line to Scotland will go up the west coast. That leaves out the ability to serve Newcastle/Sunderland/Middlesborough, which is a sizable conurbation and large market. IMHO the route should proceed north from Leeds and up the easier east coast to take in these cities. Sorry Carlisle.

I agree there needs to be a Transpennine link between Liverpool/Manchester and Leeds, but not at the expense of the other arm of the Y. I was originally in favour of the "Reverse S" with the South Yorkshire/Nottinghamshire line coming later, but if the Y offers better value then so be it. We have that now. Either way, the end game is the same.


And as to 8% of rail journeys crossing the border - they are forgetting that currently rail only has a fifth of the London - Scotland market, where air dominates. If rail can take 80% of the 1 million passenger a month market (something which the previously talked about 2h 30m journey times might enable) then that alone is > 25 non-stop trains per day each way. That's before we take into account other journey pairs that would be enabled.
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2013, 03:49 AM   #805
Neb81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 201
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
The excess tunneling involved is down to the NIMBYism, pure and simple. What would change about that if they went back to the drawing board? They'd just have to tunnel under another bunch of home counties NIMBYs elsewhere.
Running largely beside the M40 - within it's acoustic footprint - would negate a lot of NIMBY arguments, would be less economically damaging, require less tunneling, and would make an Oxford station feasible. Given the importance of Oxford as an economic engine in high-value industries (the amount of corporate air traffic out of Oxford airport is out of all proportion to it's population) that is no small matter.

Also, we are ignoring the fact the tunneling makes future expansion far more difficult, if not impossible, and makes upgrades and routine maintenance far more difficult, aside from making the whole project financially vulnerable. Advocating an M40 routing with lower cost would further undermine the "out of control cost" argument put forward by NIMBYs and their allies. Finally, it doesn't involve passengers spending an hour on a souped up Central Line black hole - a not insignificant issue on phase one, where traveling times are not significantly improved over conventional rail, which will likely offer more attractive pricing as well as aesthetics.

At the same time the old GCML route (actually all remaining parts of old rail alignments) can and should be protected so that it can be available for other rail projects in the future.

Quote:
And I don't see why there is this presumption that the line to Scotland will go up the west coast. That leaves out the ability to serve Newcastle/Sunderland/Middlesborough, which is a sizable conurbation and large market. IMHO the route should proceed north from Leeds and up the easier east coast to take in these cities. Sorry Carlisle.
Newcastle, M'boro and Hull are all in real need of improved services, but it is questionable if a single HSR line can serve all of these destinations, which is why I'd favour the east coast being served by a dedicated east coast HSR in future. There is less immediate pressure here since the ECML has fewer capacity constraints (and could support 140mph running at least as far as Newcastle relatively simply), so it may be better to wait and have a dedicated line that try and make one route do it all.

Quote:
And as to 8% of rail journeys crossing the border - they are forgetting that currently rail only has a fifth of the London - Scotland market, where air dominates. If rail can take 80% of the 1 million passenger a month market (something which the previously talked about 2h 30m journey times might enable) then that alone is > 25 non-stop trains per day each way. That's before we take into account other journey pairs that would be enabled.
I agree fully. I think a concrete commitment for the Scottish extension (either east or west) is essential.

Last edited by Neb81; November 2nd, 2013 at 03:58 AM.
Neb81 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2013, 04:45 AM   #806
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,231
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neb81 View Post
Running largely beside the M40 - within it's acoustic footprint - would negate a lot of NIMBY arguments, would be less economically damaging, require less tunneling, and would make an Oxford station feasible. Given the importance of Oxford as an economic engine in high-value industries (the amount of corporate air traffic out of Oxford airport is out of all proportion to it's population) that is no small matter.

Also, we are ignoring the fact the tunneling makes future expansion far more difficult, if not impossible, and makes upgrades and routine maintenance far more difficult, aside from making the whole project financially vulnerable. Advocating an M40 routing with lower cost would further undermine the "out of control cost" argument put forward by NIMBYs and their allies. Finally, it doesn't involve passengers spending an hour on a souped up Central Line black hole - a not insignificant issue on phase one, where traveling times are not significantly improved over conventional rail, which will likely offer more attractive pricing as well as aesthetics.
Although I am not familiar with the geography, I doubt you can do this due to the fact that HSR especially when going beyond 360Km/h requires a route that has curves larger then 7500m radius. Motorways in general doesn't design such large curves and many road architects tends to place many small curves to keep the driver sharp and not fall asleep.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2013, 01:03 PM   #807
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,878
Likes (Received): 289

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neb81 View Post
Also, we are ignoring the fact the tunneling makes future expansion far more difficult, if not impossible, and makes upgrades and routine maintenance far more difficult, aside from making the whole project financially vulnerable.
I don't know what kind of expansions you expect. The proposal looks pretty future-proof to me.

And high-speed services couldn't call in Oxford even if the route would run anywhere near there. The envisaged number of services makes it technically extremely difficult, not to say impossible, to introduce stopping services between London and Birmingham.
__________________
Rippachtal.de

sotonsi liked this post
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2013, 03:30 PM   #808
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,465

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neb81 View Post
(who really wants to spend half of a London to Birmingham journey in a glorified tube train for a journey that's a few minutes faster and more expensive?) and complicates maintenance and future upgrades.
Fierfly has taken out your 'future proof' nonsense. That Euston to South Heath is 90% in a tunnel will not make the trains 'glorified tube trains'. And 30 minutes is not 'a few'. As for more expensive - that is only if the classic line service operators reduce their prices. There is no reason to have HS2 trains have a higher price than the classic-line trains the year before (they even modelled that scenario in the latest business case, and found that it had no effect on the business case). In fact, there's little reason to have HS2 trains at that price - they are cheaper to run, and have lots of seats to fill. If it wasn't the expectation that there ought to be a premium and getting the money used to build the line back ASAP, then they would be much cheaper.
Quote:
Also, without a clear funding commitment and timetable for Phase 2,
Do you not read/watch the news. That vote the other day was for both phases.
Quote:
the London-Birmingham stretch risks being a white elephant, with the Chiltern line upgrades adding the extra London-Birmingham capacity needed, duplicating what HS2 Ph.1 does
No it wouldn't, and your complaint about doing nothing for the NW is even more true. Phase 1 does do quite a bit for the NW. Chiltern line upgrades (lets assume Evergreen 4 is some more passing loops, plus infill electrification on top of the Electric Spine) won't add capacity to London-Birmingham services - they'd add journey time improvements as any capacity upgrades would be due to the switch to electric rolling stock (and the removal of short commuter trains, especially on the overcrowded Amersham route)
Quote:
A ridiculous oversight for the current phase 2 proposals is also the lack of a connection to Liverpool, which is currently *very* poorly served by intercity services. Phase two should be rethought from the current "Y" concept to a "T" one, with a trans-pennine linking of Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds/Bradford to each other as well as to London being intrinsic to the design.
This nonsense is all debated to death in the UK forums' HS2 threads.

Liverpool is poorly connected for a reason - none of the WCML franchise bids wanted to double the service to 2tph, and Virgin, together with Network Rail, have come up with a timetable that adds more stops to the Liverpool service to help fill the trains - which are, on average, the lightest loaded LDHS ones on the WCML. Liverpool will get 2tph on HS2, but they serve other places before going High Speed as they need to to fill up! HS2 is almost over-serving Liverpool compared to what it warrants.

Transpennine link is silly, as the cities are too close for High Speed Rail. The Transpennine route is getting a lot of upgrades in this and the next Control Periods (electrification, improved capacity, etc, etc) and will be fine for a while. A GC-gauge, 140mph line across the Pennines can be built at a later date - there's nothing stopping that.

You can't talk about needing to keep costs down as your (erroneous) justification for an M40 route, having just demanded more route miles in the north. upping costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neb81 View Post
Running largely beside the M40 - within it's acoustic footprint - would negate a lot of NIMBY arguments, would be less economically damaging, require less tunneling,
Have you ever travelled along the M40?

You cannot run a high speed line within the motorway's acoustic footprint as the motorway is too curvy - horizontally and vertically. It would be more economically damaging in every single way: longer timeframe to build, more route miles (so longer journey times), more costly route miles (so higher cost), more tunnelling/large viaducts (so higher cost), more destruction of the Chilterns... Plus the acoustic footprint of HS2, as it currently travels through the Chilterns, is very much too small to notice and is mostly well within the acoustic footprint of the A413 (not that people believed them when they had the exhibition in Amersham. They modelled it from the car park at Gt Missenden and it was so hard to tell that a train was running past as the road drowned it out that people thought that HS2 hadn't added any train noise).

The M40 runs across valleys and exits the Chilterns at a high point on the ridge in a massive man-made cutting. The HS2 route runs along valleys and exits the Chilterns in a natural cutting - it isn't only a much more direct route, but is a flatter one. The tunnels are to avoid built up areas, but with an M40 route, the tunnels would be needed to avoid hills and you'd either need a Chilterns base tunnel from about the M25 to Lewknor, or large viaducts to cross valleys, before diving straight back into a tunnel.

There's a good reason why the M40 route was rejected early on. In fact there's a great many reasons!
Quote:
Advocating an M40 routing with lower cost would further undermine the "out of control cost" argument put forward by NIMBYs and their allies.
Where is this lower cost? It didn't even make the short list as it was too costly, too environmentally damaging, much less NIMBY-friendly.
Quote:
aesthetics.
Other than brief glimpses from viaducts, the aesthetics from the train will not be as good. From the ground, however, the route would be much less aesthetically pleasing to locals - tunnel mouths, viaducts, etc. HS2 has done lots of work to hide the route in the Chilterns, because the aesthetics of those who live and work and do leisure near the line is far far more important than those travelling at over 200mph along it!
Quote:
At the same time the old GCML route (actually all remaining parts of old rail alignments) can and should be protected so that it can be available for other rail projects in the future.
About 30 years too late!
Quote:
Newcastle, M'boro and Hull are all in real need of improved services, but it is questionable if a single HSR line can serve all of these destinations,
It can - HS2 can. HS2 frees up paths on the ECML. Hull can easily have an hourly (or even better) service no problem. Middlesbrough can gain direct trains if there is a case for them, and Newcastle gets HS2 services, plus some Scotland ones.
Quote:
which is why I'd favour the east coast being served by a dedicated east coast HSR in future.
Lets walk before we run though. Certainly a London-Toton link is viable, but at the moment we're trying to keep costs down and have the biggest bang for our buck! The Eastern leg of Phase 2 is cross-subsidising the western bit: if there's no Eastern leg, then the case for the Western leg is debatable as to whether it is worth it.
Quote:
There is less immediate pressure here since the ECML has fewer capacity constraints (and could support 140mph running at least as far as Newcastle relatively simply), so it may be better to wait and have a dedicated line that try and make one route do it all.
So the MML and XCML aren't worth relieving as the ECML isn't quite as congested as the WCML and a multi-billion pound re-electrification and re-signalling project (as well as 4-tracking the Welwyn viaduct and Huntingdon-Peterborough) can give 15mph faster speeds, missing the capacity point entirely?
Quote:
I think a concrete commitment for the Scottish extension (either east or west) is essential.
Again, lets get phase1 and 2 well underway before we get phases 3 and 4 sorted. I can't imagine approval for extensions (which provision has been made for) northwards until after phase 1 opens. It won't slow anything down in terms of construction, but we have to wait before committal as phase 3 is too long-term to commit to for at least 10 years.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2013, 05:53 PM   #809
jrawle
Always the Same
 
jrawle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Oxfordshire (was Leicester, was W. Mids)
Posts: 808
Likes (Received): 77

Just a general comment not aimed at anyone in particular, but I sometimes wish people would stop using the term "nimby" as a term of offence for someone who opposes an infrastructure project. It's only natural that people will oppose a project that severely impacts upon them and provides little or no personal benefit to them, and I expect everyone here would oppose something (probably not rail, but something you don't use and don't want) that involved disruption to you. By definition, someone who supports a project and lives nowhere near it is also a "NIMBY" as they are supporting a project that is not in their back yard. Please bear that in mind before using the term, and perhaps find a different way to describe such opposition.

I should add that I am a great supporter and user of rail. I live 200 metres from the GWML, and hear freight trains rumble past late at night. But I chose to live here - the line was here a long time before - and I can walk just under a mile to the station and be in London in 45 minutes. However, I can quite understand why someone will not want a new line built next to their home when previously there was nothing, and when there will still not be a station they can use anywhere near their home. So while I support the construction of HS2, I understand why others might oppose it, and won't resort to calling them names.

Some of the opposition will be from people who live near the line, but other people will oppose the route through the Chilterns as they don't believe it should go through an AONB. They may well live nowhere near it themselves. The fact that politicians will change or cancel projects becasue people protest is the price we pay for living in a democracy. Remember, if a project was hugely popular, politicians would press ahead with it at any cost.

Besides, many of the tunnels are to take the line into the centre of cities such as London and Manchester. Without them the options would be a station outside the city, which is much less use, or to demolish huge swathes of the city. As for why countries such as France can build high speed rail more easily, there's little comparison. They have much more space and less dense population. The French do protest about things, but when there's more countryside and less people around there will be less opposition.

Please try to find better ways to describe opposition to infrastructure projects rather than blaming "nimby this" and "nimby that". It's not really a very sophisticated way to argue your case.
__________________

SAS 16 liked this post
jrawle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2013, 02:19 PM   #810
Steve Ellwood
Moderator
 
Steve Ellwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne/Whitley Bay
Posts: 36,586
Likes (Received): 3944

HS2 - what does it mean for the North East?

From today's Chronicle Live, copyright NCJMedia Ltd @ http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/...-north-6288970

HS2 - what does it mean for the North East?

By Jonathan Walker - 10th November 2013



Opponents of a planned new high speed rail line are “putting the future of the north of England at risk”, according to David Cameron.

The Prime Minister made the dramatic claim to the annual conference of employers’ body the CBI last week, as he claimed high speed rail would “unite our country, drive economic growth, make sure our economy shares growth between the North and South”.

But he’s got a fight on his hands - because critics are not convinced.

They say it’s a white elephant, a “toy for politicians egos” and a waste of up to £50 billion.

And Labour has warned it may scrap the project and spend the money on housing instead, even though the high speed line was a project inherited by the current Government from the last administration led by Gordon Brown.

The project is officially known as High Speed Two or HS2, because if it ever gets built it will be the second high speed line in the country. The first runs from London to the Channel Tunnel in Kent.

Ministers are increasingly referring to the scheme as the North-South Line, in an attempt to highlight the benefits it will bring to the North.

Under current plans, the network will run northwards from London to Birmingham and then split into two. One line will run north west to Manchester. Another will run north east - but it ends at York, where trains will transfer on to the existing East Coast Main Line.

So how does this benefit the North East? Firstly, even though Newcastle or Darlington are not the line, direct services will run between them and Birmingham or London. Trains heading south will run at conventional speeds until York, where they transfer on to high speed track allowing them to run at up to 225mph.

Getting from Newcastle to London will take 2 hours 19 minutes - down from the current time of 2 hours 52 minutes.

The journey from Newcastle to Birmingham will fall to 2 hours 7 minutes, down from 3 hours 14 minutes at the moment.

And a new service linking Newcastle to Liverpool will be created, with a journey time of 2 hours 45 minutes. At the moment there is no direct train between the two cities.

Supporters of HS2 say creating better connections between the big cities of the North and Midlands will provide a massive economic boost.

But speed is only part of the justification for a new line. In fact, supporters of the project say a new railway would be needed even if it ran at traditional speeds.

The problem is that the existing network can’t cope with demand. And it’s important to remember

Read more @ http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/...-north-6288970
__________________
Regards

Steve Ellwood
www.steve-ellwood.org.uk
Steve Ellwood está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2013, 10:13 PM   #811
dimlys1994
Moderator
 
dimlys1994's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dniepropetrovsk
Posts: 16,230
Likes (Received): 25834

Published on Thursday:

Quote:
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/camden..._fee_1_3119229

Camden Council demands government waives HS2 petition fee

Harriet Crawford
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
5:09 PM

Camden Council has demanded the government waives a £20 fee it plans to charge residents who want to petition against the HS2 Bill.

The council, which has labelled the high-speed rail project as “devastating for Camden”, made the pledge after a number of residents raised concerns about the cost at a meeting in the Castlehaven Community Centre in Camden Town last Thursday.

With many directly affected by the mammoth HS2 construction project living in social housing, the council said the government should not expect those affected to fork out £20 just to have their voices heard.

Council lawyer Louise Mclaughlan said the council were “lobbying against” the fee, having recognised that “for some people, £20 is an overwhelming amount which can stop them putting in a petition”.

David Padfield, the council’s HS2 programme director, said the matter had been raised “at every single public meeting” on HS2 that the council had organised, adding: “people do feel very, very strongly about it.”

Individuals and organisations can petition against the hybrid bill in spring 2014, after its second reading in the House of Commons.

Those residents who are “specially and directly affected” by the HS2 proposals will then be able to submit a petition opposing or seeking amendment of the Bill, but will be charged £20 for the privilege by the House of Commons Fee Office.

Parliament describes the £20 cost, introduced at that level in 1988, as being “partly a token of good faith” to ensure that petitions are genuine, as well as helping to pay administrative costs of running the select committee.

But despite the cost, the council said they are still encouraging residents to prepare petitions against the Bill.

“We want to encourage as many residents, community groups, businesses to petition,” said Sarah Hayward, Leader of Camden Council.

“We must start preparing for petitioning – it is a complex, lengthy and detailed process and if we don’t start now, we will miss the boat on being able to have a cogent petition.”
dimlys1994 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2013, 12:09 AM   #812
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Isn't HS2 mostly in tunnel under Camden until it emerges in front of Euston?


Personally I think selling off the King's Cross railway lands for flats is one of the most shortsighted, stupid decisions for a generation. Wouldn't it have been much easier to have the southern terminus in a new build right next to St Pancras and King's Cross, with all the concentration of local lines and direct walking connection this would have allowed?
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2013, 12:26 AM   #813
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,465

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
Wouldn't it have been much easier to have the southern terminus in a new build right next to St Pancras and King's Cross, with all the concentration of local lines and direct walking connection this would have allowed?
But the problem is the concentration of local lines.

Euston needs at least a refurbishment, if not a rebuild, anyway (it's butt ugly on the outside) but, most vitally, it allows dispersal of traffic from the north across two tube stations (a Kings Cross/St Pancras site for the HS2 terminus would focus it all there) and has the bonus of making the link that will, by then, have been on the todo list for 163 years - direct Met access to Euston station!
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2013, 02:34 AM   #814
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,878
Likes (Received): 289

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
Isn't HS2 mostly in tunnel under Camden until it emerges in front of Euston?


Personally I think selling off the King's Cross railway lands for flats is one of the most shortsighted, stupid decisions for a generation. Wouldn't it have been much easier to have the southern terminus in a new build right next to St Pancras and King's Cross, with all the concentration of local lines and direct walking connection this would have allowed?
Local services to St Pancras and Kings Cross will be almost entirely absorbed by the Thameslink network which runs underground below the two termini leaving almost all of the platform capacity of the train sheds to intercity services.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2014, 07:11 AM   #815
dimlys1994
Moderator
 
dimlys1994's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dniepropetrovsk
Posts: 16,230
Likes (Received): 25834

Interesting article for environmentalists:

Quote:
http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2014...e-hs2-railway/

Why it will take 6,000 dead goats to build the HS2 Railway
JANUARY 1, 2014

If, or when the High Speed 2 railway is constructed, it will require roughly 6,000 dead goats.

This curious statement comes from an old technicality as Acts of Parliament, when passed into law are still printed on vellum, which is typically made from goat skins.

Two copies are printed, one for storage in the Victoria Tower, and another is sent to the National Archives in Kew. Now, it has proven surprisingly difficult to work out the average number of pages of A4 that can be extracted from a single hide of skin, but I finally found a page that uses sheepskins as an example.

That shows that the average sheep produces a single sheet that can be folded 8 times to produce 16 sides of vellum of roughly A4 size.

All parliamentary bills need to be printed onto vellum, but the reason I am commenting on HS2 though, is because at 49,814 pages in length, the bill is the largest one ever presented to Parliament.

Oh, and it’s a railway and I write about railways a lot.

Two copies of the Act means nearly 100,000 pages of nearly A4, which is roughly 6,000 animal skins.

Thanks to the frustratingly unreliable nature of animals when it comes to their size, I am having to make some very wide generalizations here, and could easily be massively over or under estimating the number of dead goats needed.

We would after all require far fewer fatted calfs than anorexic goats.

To be fair, whether HS2 needs 1,000 dead sheep or 10,000 dead goats probably doesn’t make that big a difference, it’s still a lot of dead animals to build a railway.

There have been attempts in the past to scrap the use of animal skin for printing Parliamentary Bills on, but they stick to vellum as it is known to last longer than the longest presumed life of archive paper, which at a mere 500 years (in theory) is really not good enough for an archive that needs to last thousands of years.

Fortunately, the goat skin is a by-product of the animal industry, so it’s not quite as if there will be a massive sacrifice just outside Euston as thousands of goats are slaughtered to the great railway gods.

Then again, maybe they could rebuild the Euston arch, and turn the top into a giant altar for the burnt offerings?

It’d be more interesting than watching a government minister cut a red ribbon.
__________________

Sopomon, big-dog, ScuderiaVincero liked this post
dimlys1994 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2014, 09:33 AM   #816
Sopomon
Hideous and malformed
 
Sopomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 867
Likes (Received): 151


I just love these antiquated laws and traditions found throughout the UK
__________________
And he kicked so many rosebushes at her that eventually, Sasuke turned into a log.
Sopomon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2014, 10:07 AM   #817
dimlys1994
Moderator
 
dimlys1994's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dniepropetrovsk
Posts: 16,230
Likes (Received): 25834

Today:

Quote:
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/h...h-speed-1.html

More freight to run on High Speed 1
16 Jan 2014

UK: DB Schenker Rail (UK) introduced additional freight services on High Speed 1 from January 13, carrying automotive components and refrigerated containers of perishable foodstuffs from Spain to London via the Channel Tunnel.

DB Schenker Rail (UK) has a track access contract with HS1 for an initial six months, and both parties intend this to continue. DB Schenker Rail (UK) already operates twice-weekly return services to and from Poland.

'This is a big step up for freight on HS1, and is an area in which we continue to grow', said HS1 Ltd Chief Executive Nicola Shaw. The contract 'demonstrates the value of the high speed network in the UK', with the ability to provide a seamless service to the shippers using standard European wagons which are too large for the rest of the UK national network.
dimlys1994 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2014, 02:49 PM   #818
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,328
Likes (Received): 20828

Question:

- what speed does these trains run at?

- what is the loading gauge per axle on HS1?
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2014, 08:51 PM   #819
XAN_
Registered User
 
XAN_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,034
Likes (Received): 760

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
- what is the loading gauge per axle on HS1?
It's called load per axle, and measured in t/axle
Loading gauge per axle makes no sense, and if it existed, it woul be measured in m2/axle
__________________
"I'm lost but still I know//There is another world"
-H. Kürsch, 1995
"Well, we all know there's no other side"
-H. Kürsch, 2002
XAN_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2014, 12:37 AM   #820
AlexNL
Registered User
 
AlexNL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,609
Likes (Received): 531

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Question:

- what speed does these trains run at?

- what is the loading gauge per axle on HS1?
A lot of freight trains don't go faster than 80 kph, altho 100 and 120 kph variants exist. Regarding your other question, you can find answers in the High Speed 1 Network statement: http://www.highspeed1.com/regulatory/network-statement/


Maximum Operating Speed and Maximum Static Loads
Section 1*: 300km/h, 17t/axle
Section 2**: 230km/h, 17t/axle
Loco hauled freight train***: 140km/h, 22.5t/axle

* Section 1 is the part of HS1 between Fawkham Junction/Southfleet Junction and Cheriton (Channel Tunnel boundary).
** Section 2 is the part of HS1 between St Pancras International Station and Southfleet Junction.
*** Includes loco assisting a passenger train.
__________________
We are shaping the future
AlexNL no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
high speed rail, hs2, railways, scotland, trains

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu