It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Trains have solid axles so they don't corner well. They go around corners because their wheels are slightly conical. The wheel on the outside of the corner starts to ride up onto the larger part of the cone, while the inner wheel goes onto the smaller part. The difference in circumference enables the train to corner.
However, you also need to cant (slope) the track to get gravity working in your favour. Otherwise you wind up with the wheel flange grinding big time against the rail. The tighter the curve, and the faster you want to travel, the bigger the cant you need. However, there is a limit to how much you can cant the track. In the worst case because you don't want the train to topple off the track if it become stationary.
To run at current speeds, railways run massive "cant deficiencies" which means the wheel flange is putting large stresses on the outside rail of the curve. This costs a fortune in maintenance. In a well managed case you have to spend lots of money replacing rails (and wheels) on a regular basis. In an badly managed case you wind up with the Hatfield crash (where they were running at 115mph on track designed for 80mph).
I work for London Underground Track, and we spend a fortune maintaining ancient infrastructure. We have a lot of very tight curves. Until we improved our track lubrication, there was a time when we were replacing rails at some sites every six months. Even now, they will need replacing every few years. I know of locations of straight track where rails lasted 60 years! If you run a railway on with lots of curves it is a lot more expensive to maintain.
If you keep the existing lines for trains doing less than 100mph the maintenance on those lines becomes a lot cheaper because you are not running way beyond the design of the track curvature. If you build a new line for the high speed train passenger trains you can do this on the existing lines.
Also, the capacity argument is valid because you currently have 120mph passenger trains on the same lines as local trains and freight trains. Because of the difference in speeds, you have to leave big very gaps in service. If you were to slow the existing passenger trains you could add more capacity but no-one would be willing to accept that. With the fast trains elsewhere, you can run everything on the existing lines at similar speeds, and increase capacity for local trains, and freight services. This means that the capacity increase is not just the extra capacity of HS2 but the extra capacity you have created on the existing lines by removing the need for big gaps in the service.
Having said all that, the business case benefits for HS2 have almost certainly been exaggerated over the 30 or 50 year time frame that they have put on it - if nothing else because the costs will overrun. However, we need to think long term like the Victorians. They built lines we are we are still using 150 years later. If we build a new line now, you would expect it to still be there long after the term used in the official business case ends - and you would still be getting benefit from it. This is what is being missed in a lot of the debate.
Personally, I think you might be better off designing for 160mph rather than 200mph+. I'm not sure the extra costs justify the benefits of the extra speed, but you do need to build it.
No doubt each area could make a case for or against routes being reinstated based on whether it will create wealth and jobs versus despoiling an area.
It is a very complex situation and I think that is why we need to be careful about getting the best possible solution/solutions as what happens here will resonate down the years for good or ill.
I am afraid based on all the info out there I cannot in all honesty accept HS2 is the right way to go, in fact I believe that it will create more problems than it will solve.
Party lines and loyalties shouldn't enter into it and any organisation/lobby groups too close to it as to have an agenda or profit too much from it should be distanced from the process.
Descending to insults would not be productive at all, a dispassionate gather and collating of the facts would be better.
The difficulty as I see it is finding a truly independent arbiter to make sensible recommendations given how high the stakes are.
I live nearer the current West Coast mainline (I can see it form the bedroom) - so if anything I should be for all it on a NIMBY basis, but I can't see the argument myself - there's so many fundamental errors (like forgetting a Heathrow link, ripping up Camden & Middx, Bucks, Beds, Northants and points north).
Still don't know why they don't resurrect Great Central line- it exists - so there's little environmental issues to get in the way, and costs are similar.
Feedback
"To run at current speeds, railways run massive cant deficiencies"
Easily solved. Our current government has plenty of cants they could spare.
It the Telegraph AND Mandleson agree - there has to be something fundamentally wrong
Feedback
Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
maybe they could spend a tiny percentage of that 80bn by comming up with some plague that will wipe out 4 in 10 people..
saves loads of money, and won't need to expand anything at all
plenty of jobs, houses, roads, trains, NHS etc for everyone that's left..
Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
Feedback
HS2 is an answer to the wrong question ("If the French have one why can't we?") - UK is a lot smaller, the population centres are also smaller & more numerous, and they are much closer together.
Feedback
Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
That's one of the reasons I said I prefer to would build it for a speed of 160mph and not 200mph plus. It's a high enough speed to get anywhere in the UK in a sensible time, and it would save on your costs. Not sure how much it would save on construction costs but it would definitely save on maintenance and ongoing energy costs.
You do need to build it because of the capacity issue (which I covered in my post above).
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
does this also mean that Mandleson is not curved, but fundamentally bent too?