HS2

Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: HS2

Post by Stevek76 »

mjr wrote:Are you sure about that? The TGV approaches to Lille and Lyon seem to be fenced in the countryside and often lined with big walls in urban areas, except where they're on viaducts so high up it would be an achievement to climb up there. Even the regular lines seem to have at least post-and-wire fencing most of the way, which many of our rural lines don't.


I thought most of our mainlines had minimum basic wire fencing, or a hedge serving the same purpose, it's helpful to keep livestock out.

It's been a while since I've been on a tgv but I was browsing through Google photos and there's certainly fencing but it's no where near the stark dystopian style fortifications on at least parts of hs1.

Steady rider wrote:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/611185/road-lengths-in-great-britain-2016.pdf
29100 miles of A roads,
Assuming £30 billion was spent on cycle paths instead of HS2, should be sufficient to provide a cycle path along side all A Road Paths (ARP) in the UK. How would the cost benefit analysis compare for HS 2 v ARP ?


Would it? That's the same kind of thinking that suggests hyperloop is the next awesome thing. It's easy to think of such things as adding a bit of path to a bit of a road where there's space. The expense comes, as it does with all these things, when you deal with all the tricky bits. The bridges and tunnels that aren't wide enough, all the properties, a fair few of which are almost certainly listed or otherwise protected right on the roadside. The arguments with residents in villages where you're suddenly 'stealing their parking spot'. Or just the many junctions, that many a roads are under local authority control. Or you ignore all that and end up with farcilities where nothing's joined up.

Also the benefits from long distance cycle paths are not going to get close to the kind of return that you can get in urban areas where CB is basing his claims on.

Even in the Netherlands, long distance commuting and other non leisure bike travel is pretty niche and the new built long distance paths came after the city cycling culture was (re) established.

As for local schemes, there's plenty of more immediately available money being wasted chasing tails adding motor capacity to local roads that could be repurposed were there the political will to do so. There isn't because our system encourages short term populism over long term pragmatism.

Re gcr, there seem to be conflicting opinions on this particularly the loading gauge. It seems to be not quite European guage and the catesbury tunnel would still need widening.

old_windbag wrote:So why not with HS2( if it has to happen? ) create it to be fully underground in prefabricated tunnel sections laid like a pipe then covered so we don't see any of it, other than perhaps the odd tunnel access point. It could be made very safe, perhaps even running in a sealed low pressure system to allow high speed with pressurised train cabins as with an airliner.


Prefab works where it's flat, you still have to dig down to where the tunnel will be, in undulating land ( much of the UK) it's not going to be cheaper than using boring techniques and if you want very high speeds things need to be pretty straight unless you want sick passengers, it's transport, not a rollercoaster. And tunnelling is very expensive, one of the reasons hs2 is more expensive per km than other countries lines.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: HS2

Post by Steady rider »

The above does not really help us in knowing the cost effectiveness of the cycling option. Suppose we take an example, Beverley to York, A1079, 31 miles, say 47 km, connects about 10 places roughly - or more with nearby villages and towns. Population on the route, included both ends, say 200,000. Assume this example is near to typical and would applies across the whole of the mainland area. About 4000 people to potentially benefit per km on average. Assume 25% actually benefit, 1000 per km. On occasion there would be issues with providing the most suitable cycle path, but in nearly all cases designs can cater for cyclists, even if short sections may be substandard compared with other parts, these could be signed to say take extra care, passing places if needed etc.


29100 miles of A roads,
Assuming £30 billion was spent on cycle paths instead of HS2, should be sufficient to provide a cycle path along side all A Road Paths (ARP) in the UK. How would the cost benefit analysis compare for HS 2 v ARP ?


29.1k miles, about 47k km, assuming as above 1k population per km to benefit, 47 million people would benefit. This probably is far larger than the HS2 could actually provide in benefitting people, all it will do is make a journey time shorter, not improve their health or provide somewhere safer to cycle or connect small towns and villages. HS2 may save say 30 mins on the average trip, but people can work on their laptops on trains, so this is not wasted time for many travellers. Slower travel provides for better viewing. Technology changes may speed up services even without HS2.

It could be put to a vote, either HS2 or A roads cycle paths, they are spending our money, we should have a say.
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15215
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: HS2

Post by Cyril Haearn »

Got a new line from Berlin to Muenchen, shortest journey is 4 hours. Erfurt has very good connections but boomtown Jena (Carl-Zeiss) has far worse services

Apparently 4 h is still too long, 3 hours is the tipping point for flying

More people will travel altogether, maybe more by train and fewer by air, but more altogether

There is an awful project in Stuttgart, the existing station will be replaced by a smaller one underground, there will be room for shopping and office paradises. The whole thing will cost much more and take much longer than planned
Creates a lot of work and €€€ for the construction industry :(
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3607
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: HS2

Post by The utility cyclist »

By the time you add in the travel time to the node stations the 'savings' are minimal if any. Flying taxis is where companies are going for fast transportation with speeds around 200mph in some cases and be available more locally than high speed train stations.
The same amount of money could have been used to secure a significant wedge of the UKs energy needs by building a tidal barrage but Labour are far too short sighted and inept.
Psamathe
Posts: 17646
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: HS2

Post by Psamathe »

The utility cyclist wrote:By the time you add in the travel time to the node stations the 'savings' are minimal if any.......

A good point. And given there are relatively few "node stations" (necessarily because more stops means longer journey time), the usefulness of the entire project becomes more limited.

Ian
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: HS2

Post by Stevek76 »

The utility cyclist wrote:By the time you add in the travel time to the node stations the 'savings' are minimal if any. Flying taxis is where companies are going for fast transportation with speeds around 200mph in some cases and be available more locally than high speed train stations.
The same amount of money could have been used to secure a significant wedge of the UKs energy needs by building a tidal barrage but Labour are far too short sighted and inept.


Flying taxis sounds like a safety and regulation nightmare! Not to mention noise pollution even if they manage to get them electrically powered. I'm not sure that's a starter until someone invents gravimetric propulsion or whatever they want to call it. Travel times to stations already is a thing so I'm not sure that's any different.

I recall the severn barrage was also rather unpopular amongst certain sections of the population. Any major infrastructure project inevitably is so. Arguments to build <entirely different project here> with the money instead aren't really that useful. If a project is actually beneficial the government can borrow to invest in it (if it were ideologically willing to do so) without problem. A Severn barrage, if viable, is particularly easy as it can be directly repaid from the electricity generated. Other infrastructure payback is rather less direct but still happens (economic growth, reduced health spending pressures etc).
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: HS2

Post by mjr »

Isn't the Severn Barrage unviable on a macroeconomic level because including enough ship gates increases the costs too much and not doing so maims the economies around the huge ports like Avonmouth and Royal Portbury Dock? You can make the project profitable enough for shareholders to build it but only by creative accounting externalising enough of the costs onto the local communities. I seem to recall an assessment that electricity prices needed to more than double in real terms for a whole world view to break even... and that's one heck of an assumption to bet on.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15215
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: HS2

Post by Cyril Haearn »

Maybe the Wash would be suitable for a barrage
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
rjb
Posts: 7199
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 10:25am
Location: Somerset (originally 60/70's Plymouth)

Re: HS2

Post by rjb »

mjr wrote:Isn't the Severn Barrage unviable on a macroeconomic level because including enough ship gates increases the costs too much and not doing so maims the economies around the huge ports like Avonmouth and Royal Portbury Dock? You can make the project profitable enough for shareholders to build it but only by creative accounting externalising enough of the costs onto the local communities. I seem to recall an assessment that electricity prices needed to more than double in real terms for a whole world view to break even... and that's one heck of an assumption to bet on.


At one time there was talk of incorporating a road and wind turbines, but with the cost of ofshore wind now plumeting and a new crossing having been built the economics dont stack up anymore.
At the last count:- Peugeot 531 pro, Dawes Discovery Tandem, Dawes Kingpin X3, Raleigh 20 stowaway, 1965 Moulton deluxe, Falcon K2 MTB dropped bar tourer, Rudge Bi frame folder, Longstaff trike conversion on a Giant XTC 840 :D
User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3413
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Re: HS2

Post by CJ »

mjr wrote:Isn't the Severn Barrage unviable on a macroeconomic level... I seem to recall an assessment that electricity prices needed to more than double in real terms for a whole world view to break even... and that's one heck of an assumption to bet on.

But not such a "heck of an assumption" as the price promised to EDF for new nuclear electricity from Hinkley Point! That is £92.50/MWh (inflation adjusted from 2012), against the comparable going rate of £37.94/MWh (2013 Ineos deal for imported French nuclear electricity). If that's a good deal it would appear more likely than not, that electricity is set to become TWO AND A HALF times more expensive in real terms!
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.
User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3607
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: HS2

Post by The utility cyclist »

I'd rather a barrage in one place (or indeed a few places like the Humber, Thames etc) that provides a huge chunk of the nations energy needs for the next 100 years than having far more destruction to the land and sea with an unstable source or an energy source that has so many negatives and is massively costly.
Tidal barrage projects secure our energy needs, that the government sell us out to over-priced projects from foreign investment is a criminal act that benefits a few at the cost to tens of millions and exposes citizens.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: HS2

Post by thirdcrank »

I heard a suggestion that the principal sponsor of the barrage also just happens to be the owner of the quarry rights where the stone would come from to build it.
AlaninWales
Posts: 1626
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: HS2

Post by AlaninWales »

The idea of a single tidal barrage is pretty much dated now. The current proposals are for (potentially several) tidal lagoons: http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: HS2

Post by Stevek76 »

CJ wrote:But not such a "heck of an assumption" as the price promised to EDF for new nuclear electricity from Hinkley Point! That is £92.50/MWh (inflation adjusted from 2012), against the comparable going rate of £37.94/MWh (2013 Ineos deal for imported French nuclear electricity). If that's a good deal it would appear more likely than not, that electricity is set to become TWO AND A HALF times more expensive in real terms!


I thought the point of the CfD style strike price was that it was fixed for the period of the contract and hence covers the likely inflation beween the start and end of the contract. The inflation adjustment is just to plant/generator opening (which may never happen for HP given Areva's fun with the one they're trying to build currently but that's another matter entirely).

CfD strike prices are similar for other new generation, £50-80ish for PV, £90ish for onshore wind, £110 for offshore (early offshore was as high as £150).

mjr wrote:Isn't the Severn Barrage unviable on a macroeconomic level because including enough ship gates increases the costs too much and not doing so maims the economies around the huge ports like Avonmouth and Royal Portbury Dock?


Quite possibly, I've not looked into the details of it hence adding the 'if viable'. My main point there was that arguments against scheme X by promoting completely different scheme Y instead are rarely useful or helpful since each should be considered own its own merits, it may be that either both or neither should be built. Not to mention that even where headline costs might be similar, the realities of funding profiles over time and sources often aren't.

The utility cyclist wrote:that the government sell us out to over-priced projects from foreign investment is a criminal act that benefits a few at the cost to tens of millions and exposes citizens.


I'd agree but this is a conflation of arguments. The current government selling us out to foreign investment would happen to a barrage scheme or any other major project. It is an ideology of the current government. I've no idea whether it's willing corruption or simple ignorance (mix of both most likely) but it falls to the excuse of not wanting to increase public debt to invest. This is, of course, rubbish as relying on foreign investment is simply moving the debt figures to another column and that sort of trick is not going to fool the current financial markets.
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: HS2

Post by horizon »

More heart-wrenching news about this obscene project (a project that has nothing to do with improving people's lives but everything to do with profiting from contracts all promoted under the under the risible guise of technological improvement):

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ork-to-hs2
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
Post Reply