https://neuroquiet-us.sites.kaltura.com/
Food & Drink1 min ago
Are The Hs2 Plans Unravelling ?
http://
A new Chairman appointed, Labour throwing doubt on whether it will proceed when they win the next election.
Are we looking at the death throws of HS2 ?
A new Chairman appointed, Labour throwing doubt on whether it will proceed when they win the next election.
Are we looking at the death throws of HS2 ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//I don't see why the Government ................ don't add a track to the existing network, widening that where they need to. //
not so easy, that. for instance, a serious pinch-point on the west coast line is between rugby and nuneaton, where currently there are 3 tracks. To add a 4th (for northbound freight trains) will be unbelievably expensive (and disruptive) because the present M6 bridge over the railway will have to be demolished and rebuilt, plus the canal that passes adjacent will have to be diverted.
not so easy, that. for instance, a serious pinch-point on the west coast line is between rugby and nuneaton, where currently there are 3 tracks. To add a 4th (for northbound freight trains) will be unbelievably expensive (and disruptive) because the present M6 bridge over the railway will have to be demolished and rebuilt, plus the canal that passes adjacent will have to be diverted.
Zeuhl
// The idea that shaving 30 minutes off a train journey is somehow the most important factor is the same muddled and lazy thinking that produced the air transport white elephant that was Concorde. //
Four points.
1. Concorde was not a white elephant because it was fast or even that it was expensive. Concorde failed because it was too small, couldn't carry enough freight or passengers. HS2 wants to be the jumbo jet of rail. Longer trains, more passengers, more often.
2. The problem with the existing route is that it is clogged up with slow local trains, slowing up the fast trains and congesting the system. Also it is too windy for the fast trains to safely travel fast on. Imagine a motorway with 20mph speed bumps, and that is the situation we have with the current track. Calling the route High Speed 2 is misleading. Really it is not slow speed 2.
3. Getting more journeys made by rail will actually keep the roads useable for longer. The trains carry 500+ passengers, so if you do that 4 or even 8 times an hour you keep 2000-4000 vehicles off the motorways and out of the City.
4. Carrying 500 people on one electric train causes vastly less emissions than 500 cars doing the same journeys.
// The idea that shaving 30 minutes off a train journey is somehow the most important factor is the same muddled and lazy thinking that produced the air transport white elephant that was Concorde. //
Four points.
1. Concorde was not a white elephant because it was fast or even that it was expensive. Concorde failed because it was too small, couldn't carry enough freight or passengers. HS2 wants to be the jumbo jet of rail. Longer trains, more passengers, more often.
2. The problem with the existing route is that it is clogged up with slow local trains, slowing up the fast trains and congesting the system. Also it is too windy for the fast trains to safely travel fast on. Imagine a motorway with 20mph speed bumps, and that is the situation we have with the current track. Calling the route High Speed 2 is misleading. Really it is not slow speed 2.
3. Getting more journeys made by rail will actually keep the roads useable for longer. The trains carry 500+ passengers, so if you do that 4 or even 8 times an hour you keep 2000-4000 vehicles off the motorways and out of the City.
4. Carrying 500 people on one electric train causes vastly less emissions than 500 cars doing the same journeys.
//4. Carrying 500 people on one electric train causes vastly less emissions than 500 cars doing the same journeys. //
that's only true at point of use, unless the electricity was itself generated by a clean means, which at present in the UK, in general it isn't.
when the west coast upgrade was planned, diesel engine technology had advanced so far that Railtrack (as they were then) seriously encouraged Virgin to look at opting for combustion engines over electric traction - overall emissions about the same, maybe slightly better, plus huge savings on replacement electric traction infrastructure.
that's only true at point of use, unless the electricity was itself generated by a clean means, which at present in the UK, in general it isn't.
when the west coast upgrade was planned, diesel engine technology had advanced so far that Railtrack (as they were then) seriously encouraged Virgin to look at opting for combustion engines over electric traction - overall emissions about the same, maybe slightly better, plus huge savings on replacement electric traction infrastructure.
Mushroom
Trains are far less polluting than cars per passenger.
http://
Comparing modern electric trains and modern deisel trains, electric train CO2 emissions are about 30% less per passenger mile than deisel trains.
There is a strategy to decarbonise electricity generation in the UK. By the time HS2 is built, the cO2 at point of generation should be down on what it is today.
Trains are far less polluting than cars per passenger.
http://
Comparing modern electric trains and modern deisel trains, electric train CO2 emissions are about 30% less per passenger mile than deisel trains.
There is a strategy to decarbonise electricity generation in the UK. By the time HS2 is built, the cO2 at point of generation should be down on what it is today.
At the moment you can go to Birmingham for 50p but I cant think of any reason to go there, even if it only costs pennies!
http://
http://
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.