UK energy
Re: UK energy
Why set improvements to other rail services against an extensive national or international high-speed network?
What's the limited resource that prevents us having both?
Thanks
Jonathan
What's the limited resource that prevents us having both?
Thanks
Jonathan
Re: UK energy
Very good summary - I can remember in the seventies making a regular weekly return trip from London to Glasgow.Carlton green wrote: ↑7 Jan 2023, 10:43am Interesting thoughts about the railways and the conflict, with shared line use, between: long distance / express services; regional local services; and freight. Having some super wizzo service that with cover 200 or more kilometres per hour is all very well but to my mind it misses the needs of many ordinary folk who just need to get from A to B in a reasonable time, at a reasonable cost and in reasonable comfort. We need mass transit not elitist transport.
As a youth (over five decades ago) I occasionally traveled say 200 miles on a long distance train and the journey took say four to five hours, not a fantastic average speed but the journey was fine enough - at one point we understood that 60 miles per hour was actually quite fast. As an older person I see that relatively simple rolling stock, as used on local and regional services, is now more than capable of travelling at an average (journey) speed of say 60 miles per hour and really I don’t really need more than that. However what I do need is a service that isn’t compromised by the needs of super fast trains that conflict for track use and other resources.
Who is it that makes and needs super fast services? Into the big cities, and London in particular, I suspect that it is commuters who live stupid distances away from work; IMHO let them live nearer to work or let the work be sited near to them … and then there’s working over the internet too. Sadly ordinary people need to commute too but they do it locally, each week millions use the London Underground and Overground trains. Folk also do similar journeys in the metropolitan areas of Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester, Cardiff, Glasgow and West Yorkshire. All those people need efficient services and at an affordable cost, etc., none need express services which are the rich man’s delight and toy.
So, HS2, a complete diversion of resources from what’s really needed and a service that is there to support folk who really shouldn’t need the super fast services that HS2 could supply.
If memory serves the trip took around 5 1/4 hrs - which HS2 isn't going to improve.
I think it was in the time of the pendelinos.
I did fly on a couple of occasions - I wasn't staying far from Glasgow airport but the trip into central London meant that it wasn't much quicker door to door - probably greater now with increased check in times.
-
- Posts: 3699
- Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm
Re: UK energy
Good question Jonathan. I don’t set the financial resources, governments do such things and the population then has to somehow fund the build. Of course there are environmental issues too and whilst train journeys might be amongst the most environmentally sound not taking the journey at all is potentially the biggest environmental saving. Accepting that resources are limited I’d like to see them more wisely spent and that would be on local and regional transport rather than focussed on very high speed rail.
I really would question that we need very high speed transport, freedom of movement can be good but it’s not without problems.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Re: UK energy
Look to other countries for ways to increase capacity. They have carriages like this in Lithuania - make the carriage a bit wider and increase the capacity by 50% . The 6 across seats are more comfortable than the seats in the dreadful Azuma carriages . Do like Lithuania and use double decker carriages - 100% increase in capacity.Stevek76 wrote: ↑6 Jan 2023, 2:32pm At quieter stations it's far less of an issue but at busier ones, and there are plenty that can't support the sort of increased train lengths that would be needed to even get close to the capacity release of HS2, it's really a very poor solution which further increases dwell times and is, in practice, fairly unworkable.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Re: UK energy
HS2 (as currently planned) isn't a high speed rail service between London and Glasgow.ANTONISH wrote: ↑7 Jan 2023, 11:04amVery good summary - I can remember in the seventies making a regular weekly return trip from London to Glasgow.
If memory serves the trip took around 5 1/4 hrs - which HS2 isn't going to improve.
I think it was in the time of the pendelinos.
I did fly on a couple of occasions - I wasn't staying far from Glasgow airport but the trip into central London meant that it wasn't much quicker door to door - probably greater now with increased check in times.
But what journey times are you using in that comparison between before and after its completion?
And what's your estimate of what the journey time would be if there were a high speed rail service?
Thanks
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 3699
- Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm
Re: UK energy
I’m sympathetic to your thoughts above but:pete75 wrote: ↑7 Jan 2023, 11:20amLook to other countries for ways to increase capacity. They have carriages like this in Lithuania - make the carriage a bit wider and increase the capacity by 50% . The 6 across seats are more comfortable than the seats in the dreadful Azuma carriages . Do like Lithuania and use double decker carriages - 100% increase in capacity.Stevek76 wrote: ↑6 Jan 2023, 2:32pm At quieter stations it's far less of an issue but at busier ones, and there are plenty that can't support the sort of increased train lengths that would be needed to even get close to the capacity release of HS2, it's really a very poor solution which further increases dwell times and is, in practice, fairly unworkable.
Double decker trains won’t fit through existing tunnels.
Double decker trains won’t fit under existing overhead electrification.
Wider trains won’t fit through existing stations (the platforms will get in the way) and there may well not be enough clearance between adjacent tracks for two wide trains to pass each other.
I think think that longer trains could work, the logistics aren’t rocket science.
Ah, perhaps I see the problem. People are approaching the issue of travel time from the wrong side of the issue. The idea should not be to compete with domestic air travel times - though trains already arguably do so - but rather for it to be either comparable or a little faster to take the train than drive and for it to be easier too. Google tells me that it’s roughly a seven hour drive and a nine hour train journey from London to Glasgow. However you can’t drive for seven hours without food and comfort breaks so expect a longer journey time than seven hours and you can work on the train or have time reading a book or just chill by playing your favourite computer game. So on that basis I’d put the train ahead. However the train time is arguably much quicker than that, with some journeys taking just four and a half hours, see: https://www.thetrainline.com/travel/london-to-glasgowJdsk wrote: ↑7 Jan 2023, 11:23amHS2 (as currently planned) isn't a high speed rail service between London and Glasgow.ANTONISH wrote: ↑7 Jan 2023, 11:04amVery good summary - I can remember in the seventies making a regular weekly return trip from London to Glasgow.
If memory serves the trip took around 5 1/4 hrs - which HS2 isn't going to improve.
I think it was in the time of the pendelinos.
I did fly on a couple of occasions - I wasn't staying far from Glasgow airport but the trip into central London meant that it wasn't much quicker door to door - probably greater now with increased check in times.
But what journey times are you using in that comparison between before and after its completion?
And what's your estimate of what the journey time would be if there were a high speed rail service?
Thanks
Jonathan
The object shouldn’t be to single mindedly minimise train journey times (because they can already be quite reasonable) but rather to make them more affordable, more accessible and more enjoyable.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Re: UK energy
Carlton green wrote: ↑7 Jan 2023, 11:43amI think think that longer trains could work, the logistics aren’t rocket science.Stevek76 wrote: ↑6 Jan 2023, 2:32pm At quieter stations it's far less of an issue but at busier ones, and there are plenty that can't support the sort of increased train lengths that would be needed to even get close to the capacity release of HS2, it's really a very poor solution which further increases dwell times and is, in practice, fairly unworkable.
It appears that train splitting and combining is already a thing,
"The practice of portion working has been followed for a long time on the third rail network of lines in the South East of England, and has been more widely practised in continental Europe. Elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the practice has been less common, because of a general reluctance to design the necessary modern signalling systems, and because of legal constraints on competition between operators.
Dividing trains operate on several lines on the British railway network, commonly (although not exclusively) in the south of the country. To ensure consistent journey times, the front part of a dividing train usually becomes the rear of the returning service when it reunites.
In addition, some services discard carriages part-way along the route, & pick them back up on the return journey. This may be because a portion of the line has short platforms at a number of its stations, or because of demand being much higher on one section than another."
Increasing pressure on route capacity, less available money and hybrid traction could yet make this a reality.
"it's a useful practice - allows more destinations to be served directly from capacity constrained major stations and reduces the carriage of "fresh air" at the extremities of services.
I gather in Japan there are services that split that have specific orientation - eg these have 9 car and 2 car units. The outer ends have full width cabs, the Tokyo end of the 9 car has a proper cab with gangway and the country end of the 2 car has a shunting cab with gangway."
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tr ... st-3201353
As our network is increasingly 'nationalised' once again and trains are increasingly with hybrid traction, barriers to implementing this on a significantly larger, more organised scale come down.
Re: UK energy
None of which will fit in the loading gauge our Victorian infrastructure is built to. The amount of structures, station and other work required would be not far off, possibly more than the cost of hs2 plus years of disruption to current services. Hs2, like hs1 has, is being built to the same larger UIC GC loading gauge as these examples.
Do people really think that this sort of thing or longer trains haven't been thought about? I find it remarkable that the same people who will criticise the dismissal of experts when it comes to matters like climate change are suddenly happy to do so in fields like this.
Yes it is? Hs2 trains will run on to both Edinburgh and Glasgow, obviously limited to the running speed of those ones. I thought most of that was actually 200kph though so technically qualifies as 'high speed'Jdsk wrote: ↑7 Jan 2023, 11:23amHS2 (as currently planned) isn't a high speed rail service between London and Glasgow.ANTONISH wrote: ↑7 Jan 2023, 11:04amVery good summary - I can remember in the seventies making a regular weekly return trip from London to Glasgow.
If memory serves the trip took around 5 1/4 hrs - which HS2 isn't going to improve.
I think it was in the time of the pendelinos.
I did fly on a couple of occasions - I wasn't staying far from Glasgow airport but the trip into central London meant that it wasn't much quicker door to door - probably greater now with increased check in times.
Jonathan
No one's single mindedly minimising travel times but there are multiple benefits to doing so, also I'm not sure why competing with domestic air shouldn't be an aim, high speed rail has been quite successful at that in parts of Europe. The main point is why on earth would build it to decades old speeds to save at most 10%. The lower on rail time, the wider the catchments in each city are competitive with cars (given you have to get to and from the stations)Carlton green wrote: ↑7 Jan 2023, 11:43am People are approaching the issue of travel time from the wrong side of the issue. The idea should not be to compete with domestic air travel times - though trains already arguably do so - but rather for it to be either comparable or a little faster to take the train than drive and for it to be easier too.
The object shouldn’t be to single mindedly minimise train journey times (because they can already be quite reasonable) but rather to make them more affordable, more accessible and more enjoyable.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
-
- Posts: 3699
- Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm
Re: UK energy
H’mm, that’s a point that’s rarely made: HS2 trains will run on standard UK gauge track and they are not the same as HS1 trains that run on standard continental gauge track. HS1 terminates at Euston and HS1 terminates at St Pancras, the two are about half a mile from each other and linked by the Underground network.
So HS2 is about adding higher speed lines and capacity to the existing network such that people can get to and from <insert rude word here> London. Did I mention that we’re overly London centric and that it’s not a good idea to be so.
If we want to compete with airlines flying to Europe (not unimportant but still a diversion of resources from much better uses) then HS2 trains should be of the continental gauge and, if they stop in London at all, use St Pancras (like HS1). Alternatively competing with internal airline routes (typically short compared to our continental cousins) really isn’t one of the better uses of resources, there are other rail projects that will give a better return to society.
A side note here on the fuel efficiency of Aircraft. It’s worth noting that Aircraft can be powered by piston engine, turbo prop, turbo fan and jet (thrust) engines; as I understand it fuel efficiency follows that order too (jets being the least efficient but the fastest; piston engines being the most efficient but constrained in use). If we’re serious about the environmental impact of flight then we could simply demand that fuel efficiency was both maximised and met minimum criteria, that would probably result in slower flights and the use of turbo prop engines. Changes to wing and airframe design might be needed too.
Personally I think that lengthening flight durations to improve fuel consumption towards some practical ideal is not too unreasonable; such fuel efficient aircraft could still travel very significantly faster than ships, cars and the vast majority of trains. Of course the aviation industry might not like that restriction and they are happy to externalise the costs of (their) pollution - via surcharges they are happy to externalise fluctuations / rising fuel costs onto their passengers too. From the airline companies perspective: higher speeds -> more journeys / transactions per day -> greater rate of return in investment … funny how that transfers to across to other high speed travel, it’s not all about satisfying the customer.
An interesting read: https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp ... ciency.pdf
Plus: https://travelradar.aero/why-are-propeller-planes-rare/
and https://www.atr-aircraft.com/our-aircraft/atr-72-600/
and https://www.atr-aircraft.com/our-aircra ... 2022-2041/
and https://www.rocketroute.com/aircraft/atr-72-200-2
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-22 - so very big is possible too.
Now if the idea of HS2 is to give more capacity to the rail network then let that line compete with others for the funding (which it being a White Elephant and Vanity Project it won’t really have done). HS2 will have undoubtedly meant that more deserving lines elsewhere in the country have not had much needed funding spent on them.
With all railway lines we come down to who will use them and why they do so. I would put it to readers that The Season Ticket - which is strongly associated with travel into and out of London - might well deserve a (booby) prize for being non-green: the Season Ticket encourages and (financially) allows long distance daily travel to places of work whereas we should be making sure that such structural travel is both unnecessary and not done.
Ref.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterCity_125 Diesel Electric, designed for 125 mph running but are capable of more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterCity_225 Electric, designed for 225 kpm running (140 mph) but are capable of more.
Note that without in cab signalling (which the 125’s and 225’s don’t have) running speeds are limited to 125mph.
The InterCity 225 was designed to achieve a peak service speed of 140 mph (225 km/h); during a test run in 1989 on Stoke Bank between Peterborough and Grantham, an InterCity 225 was recorded at a speed of 162 mph (260.7 km/h).[9] Its high speed capabilities were again demonstrated via a 3hr 29mins non-stop run between London and Edinburgh on 26 September 1991.[6] British regulations have since required in-cab signalling on any train running at speeds above 125 mph (201 km/h) preventing such speeds from being legally attained in regular service.
So HS2 is about adding higher speed lines and capacity to the existing network such that people can get to and from <insert rude word here> London. Did I mention that we’re overly London centric and that it’s not a good idea to be so.
HS2 does focus on speed, the big clue is in the name, and HS2 trains on HS2 track will be able to go very much faster than existing rolling stock. The object is to minimise particular travel times and these trains will be expensive to ride on: elitist transport. If the line had been built for lower train speeds (like say the somewhat successful intercity 125’s and 225’s) then a small but useful saving might have been made and it might have been possible to use other less invasive routes too; also one of the biggest time savings for trains is not having to slow or stop and that’s gained regardless of top speed.No one's single mindedly minimising travel times but there are multiple benefits to doing so, also I'm not sure why competing with domestic air shouldn't be an aim, high speed rail has been quite successful at that in parts of Europe. The main point is why on earth would build it to decades old speeds to save at most 10%. The lower on rail time, the wider the catchments in each city are competitive with cars (given you have to get to and from the stations)
If we want to compete with airlines flying to Europe (not unimportant but still a diversion of resources from much better uses) then HS2 trains should be of the continental gauge and, if they stop in London at all, use St Pancras (like HS1). Alternatively competing with internal airline routes (typically short compared to our continental cousins) really isn’t one of the better uses of resources, there are other rail projects that will give a better return to society.
A side note here on the fuel efficiency of Aircraft. It’s worth noting that Aircraft can be powered by piston engine, turbo prop, turbo fan and jet (thrust) engines; as I understand it fuel efficiency follows that order too (jets being the least efficient but the fastest; piston engines being the most efficient but constrained in use). If we’re serious about the environmental impact of flight then we could simply demand that fuel efficiency was both maximised and met minimum criteria, that would probably result in slower flights and the use of turbo prop engines. Changes to wing and airframe design might be needed too.
Personally I think that lengthening flight durations to improve fuel consumption towards some practical ideal is not too unreasonable; such fuel efficient aircraft could still travel very significantly faster than ships, cars and the vast majority of trains. Of course the aviation industry might not like that restriction and they are happy to externalise the costs of (their) pollution - via surcharges they are happy to externalise fluctuations / rising fuel costs onto their passengers too. From the airline companies perspective: higher speeds -> more journeys / transactions per day -> greater rate of return in investment … funny how that transfers to across to other high speed travel, it’s not all about satisfying the customer.
An interesting read: https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp ... ciency.pdf
Plus: https://travelradar.aero/why-are-propeller-planes-rare/
and https://www.atr-aircraft.com/our-aircraft/atr-72-600/
and https://www.atr-aircraft.com/our-aircra ... 2022-2041/
and https://www.rocketroute.com/aircraft/atr-72-200-2
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-22 - so very big is possible too.
Now if the idea of HS2 is to give more capacity to the rail network then let that line compete with others for the funding (which it being a White Elephant and Vanity Project it won’t really have done). HS2 will have undoubtedly meant that more deserving lines elsewhere in the country have not had much needed funding spent on them.
With all railway lines we come down to who will use them and why they do so. I would put it to readers that The Season Ticket - which is strongly associated with travel into and out of London - might well deserve a (booby) prize for being non-green: the Season Ticket encourages and (financially) allows long distance daily travel to places of work whereas we should be making sure that such structural travel is both unnecessary and not done.
Ref.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterCity_125 Diesel Electric, designed for 125 mph running but are capable of more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterCity_225 Electric, designed for 225 kpm running (140 mph) but are capable of more.
Note that without in cab signalling (which the 125’s and 225’s don’t have) running speeds are limited to 125mph.
The InterCity 225 was designed to achieve a peak service speed of 140 mph (225 km/h); during a test run in 1989 on Stoke Bank between Peterborough and Grantham, an InterCity 225 was recorded at a speed of 162 mph (260.7 km/h).[9] Its high speed capabilities were again demonstrated via a 3hr 29mins non-stop run between London and Edinburgh on 26 September 1991.[6] British regulations have since required in-cab signalling on any train running at speeds above 125 mph (201 km/h) preventing such speeds from being legally attained in regular service.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Re: UK energy
Article in the Guardian on UK car culture :- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... rt-poverty
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Re: UK energy
An interesting article. One interesting observation is that it's the less well-off sections of society who are most "inconvenienced" by having to own a car to get from home to work and back or whatever. The proportion of their household income devoted to the blasted car is much higher than the proportion needed of the better-off person's income.reohn2 wrote: ↑9 Jan 2023, 7:42am Article in the Guardian on UK car culture :- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... rt-poverty
From this point of view, the people living in small terraced houses because that's all they can afford, mentioned by another poster somewhere, would benefit most from a switch away from gas-guzzlers to modes such as an electric bike or a vastly improved public transport of the kind that the Thatcher Thing killed off.
When I were a lad, 492 years ago, I could walk 50 - 100 yards from the house to get one of several buses going just about anywhere in the Tyneside conurbation, as well as to Wearside, for fares that were easily affordable even for a poor lad like me. Thatcher's "Great Car Culture" killed all that off.
Cugel
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
John Maynard Keynes
Re: UK energy
If anyone can find the Bike is Best study please could they add a link.reohn2 wrote: ↑9 Jan 2023, 7:42am Article in the Guardian on UK car culture :- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... rt-poverty
Thanks
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 3699
- Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm
Re: UK energy
The study, not so sure and if you haven’t spotted it then it’ll be hard to find. Bike is best: https://www.bikeisbest.com/Jdsk wrote: ↑9 Jan 2023, 9:31amIf anyone can find the Bike is Best study please could they add a link.reohn2 wrote: ↑9 Jan 2023, 7:42am Article in the Guardian on UK car culture :- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... rt-poverty
Thanks
Jonathan
Interesting article. I’m now better off than I once was but I can certainly relate to transport poverty and the crushing cost of running a car out of necessity - been there and got the tea shirt, and hope never to return. IMHO there’s a desperate need for better public transport and for cycling infrastructure, not only will it help the poor but it will also make the country more resilient - which will surely have a wide range of economic benefits.reohn2 wrote: ↑9 Jan 2023, 7:42am Article in the Guardian on UK car culture :- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... rt-poverty
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Re: UK energy
The experts on climate change appear to be serious academics with years of research under their belts. The people running the rail system don't appaer to be overly competent. Examples are things like trains late or failing to run because of leaves on the track or the wrong kind of snow and financial mismanagement of franchises meaning the taxpayer has to step in and take over to relieve them of their financial responsibilities.Stevek76 wrote: ↑7 Jan 2023, 5:00pmNone of which will fit in the loading gauge our Victorian infrastructure is built to. The amount of structures, station and other work required would be not far off, possibly more than the cost of hs2 plus years of disruption to current services. Hs2, like hs1 has, is being built to the same larger UIC GC loading gauge as these examples.
Do people really think that this sort of thing or longer trains haven't been thought about? I find it remarkable that the same people who will criticise the dismissal of experts when it comes to matters like climate change are suddenly happy to do so in fields like this.
No, the rail system is run by people with a long time in the industry but whether or not they are experts or competent is a different matter entirely.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Re: UK energy
Cugel wrote: ↑9 Jan 2023, 9:17am
An interesting article. One interesting observation is that it's the less well-off sections of society who are most "inconvenienced" by having to own a car to get from home to work and back or whatever. The proportion of their household income devoted to the blasted car is much higher than the proportion needed of the better-off person's income.
From this point of view, the people living in small terraced houses because that's all they can afford, mentioned by another poster somewhere, would benefit most from a switch away from gas-guzzlers to modes such as an electric bike or a vastly improved public transport of the kind that the Thatcher Thing killed off.
Perhaps one question we might ask ourselves is whether or not personal wealth should determine ease of movement so enormously? Perhaps it's those with least who most need the flexibility for travel in their lives to keep the pennies coming in? Maybe they prefer not to have to wait at a bus stop on a cold, wet and windy night to travel home late in the evening, from their second job?
The bigger question is how to reduce our overall energy consumption. Should we all have the same amount of energy made available to us, millionaires and billionaires included?