HS2

[fullupandslowingdown]

As for extending train lengths, thats a none starter because many stations aren't long enough. Already some HST and even fast local sevices using modern trainsets with more than 4 coaches have to operate with a locked door system at stations along the way because the platforms are too short. Upgrading stations for more passengers on longer trains is a massive process because it needs every aspect attending to. The trackwork has to be relaid on the approach to the station, not in the station because trains can't bend around corners like a bus or taxi does. Concourses and exits have to extended to allow for greater peak flow of people. Hardly much point of having longer trains if the passengers have to wait 20 minutes to leave the station! This then impacts on the streets immediately around the station. Where do the people go? If they cross the road then the crossing needs to be changed. etc etc etc.

The UK railway system was built up around the block system of train control. Each train would travel in a section of line, have a block empty between it and the next, and they would be signalled along keeping a safe distance to allow for the much longer braking distance that steel wheel on rail needs, in the dry, let alone in the wet or when there is leaf fall. We are now moving over to electronic means of controlling trains which should mean more efficient and dynamic use of the lines, but except for the flagship lines i.e the west coast and east coast lines, many lines are still a haphazard mix of signalling dating as far back as the 50s with only upgrades due to maintenance. Running longer trains will be great once the new system is in place everywhere, but at the moment, a longer train means that it has fewer options. It might not fit into passing loops if it needs to avoid another service. Trains aren't perfectly reliable, they do break down, and one failure can stop dozens of other trains from moving for hours

The main advantage of electrifying the rest of the network is the environmental boost. It does offer faster acceleration but the difference isn't that great now, modern diesels with anti slip technology can accelerate quite quickly too, and when a line is running to capacity anyway, it doesn't always make sense to accelerate from a station or a signal only to have to brake to avoid catching up the service in front.

Basically we need more lines, separated from existing lines as much as possible so there is less gridlock. It is like thinking you can improve city traffic flow by allowing everyone to do 60mph instead of 30 or 20. All you achieve is a great sprint between each junction.

[mjr]

Never mind HST and fast locals, even some regular local trains with 3 carriages have to use selective door opening at some stations that were built or rebuilt for only 2 carriages. I think the legendary Berney Arms is one such station.

Such things are used because extending stations is difficult, but even that's simpler than adding tracks alongside existing lines, converting single to double, 2 to 4, or 4 to 6. Lots of stuff is built really close beside railways and every single bridge, tunnel, cutting and embankment has to be widened. It's very easy to say we should just add the capacity in the current routes but it'll cost far more and probably disrupt current services for longer than any upgrade project ever undertaken in this country.

[Tangled Metal]

Sorry if this is unfair but there's a feeling I have that opponents to hs2 view anyone supporting it as blindly supporting it then trying to find a excuse after excuse to support it. I would like to say this isn't the case with me and I suspect most people who see it as not ideal but it's better than anything else proposed.

On the flip side it appears to me that the opponents are starting from a base of not liking one aspect of it (or just not liking it because it's a Tory project) and then finding reason it isn't right to proceed. Possibly also unfair.

One reason I'm thinking this is because the opposing argument uses single interest groups looking at single aspects of this outright project. For example, woodland trust knows a lot about Woodlands but nothing about the other aspects. Three differences with the review that ultimately recommended to proceed is that evidence from experts in different fields were consulted to get an overarching view of the cases on both sides.

It's great to propose alternatives, but as the more train knowledgeable on here are showing, they simply don't offer the same level of benefits vs cost. Or they aren't actually possible.

The effects on ancient Woodlands isn't ideal but unfortunately there's always going to be such negatives. Indeed other smaller developments probably provide more impact when added up around the country the difference is larger, more high profile developments have to carry out mitigation. Also, their damage is recorded. A lot of smaller levels of damage isn't recorded. Even the records of ancient woodland isn't complete. Small sites aren't even recorded. This means they could be cleared very readily without control. If there's no record of them theres not going to be a record of their loss.

Below is an old article claiming ancient woodland is being lost at a higher rate than the Amazon! I found a few more recent articles but they weren't very informative tbh. Simply reporting the headlines of smoother woodland trust report.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/oct/21/forests-conservation

Forestry commission says there's been an increase in forestry , woodland trust says wong type. At least three hs2 project has already started things as right as they can. They've started getting the mitigation trees grown in a large tree nursery. They're picking native species and local species to where they're going to end up. As I said above, loss of ancient woodland is necessary ideal but compromise is needed over reaching targets in other areas.

[Jdsk]

Sorry if this is unfair but there's a feeling I have that opponents to hs2 view anyone supporting it as blindly supporting it then trying to find a excuse after excuse to support it. I would like to say this isn't the case with me and I suspect most people who see it as not ideal but it's better than anything else proposed.

It's impossible to get anything like an optimal solution without an integrated national (and in some bits international) multimode transport policy.

And, yes, logical decision making is always going to end up with an option appraisal rather than textual arguments about single issues.

Jonathan

[Psamathe]

faster trains need more headway which .....

But I thought the important justification was capacity not speed

Ian

[mjr]

faster trains need more headway which .....

But I thought the important justification was capacity not speed

Faster there was in comparison to other trains on the same line, but 10/10 for leaping on a misunderstanding and cutting its context.

Anywhere you mix train speeds on the same line, you cut capacity. Yes, if we slowed everything on the WCML to the speed of the slowest freight (50 mph daytimes, as I understand it) then it'd maximise capacity, but the average speed after station stops may be 30-40 mph and so lots more people would drive or fly and so it'd cause more pollution than now, as well as effectively binning the billions spent about 20 years ago to enable 125 mph tilting trains. Is that what you'd prefer?

Once you're building new fast lines, it becomes simpler in some ways to put them on new alignments with occasional interconnections to the slower ones. This can be seen with France's LGV network amongst others.

[Psamathe]

faster trains need more headway which .....

But I thought the important justification was capacity not speed

Faster there was in comparison to other trains on the same line, but 10/10 for leaping on a misunderstanding and cutting its context.

Anywhere you mix train speeds on the same line, you cut capacity. Yes, if we slowed everything on the WCML to the speed of the slowest freight (50 mph daytimes, as I understand it) then it'd maximise capacity, but the average speed after station stops may be 30-40 mph and so lots more people would drive or fly and so it'd cause more pollution than now, as well as effectively binning the billions spent about 20 years ago to enable 125 mph tilting trains. Is that what you'd prefer?

Once you're building new fast lines, it becomes simpler in some ways to put them on new alignments with occasional interconnections to the slower ones. This can be seen with France's LGV network amongst others.

Whilst I disagree with the project for many reasons, if speed is not so crucial

If a new railway is required, the costs could be reduced, for example by constructing it to run at a slower speed—say at the same speed as the French TGV—and by reducing the cost of construction closer to French levels.

and (same document)

Lack of consideration of alternative rail investment

6. It is impossible to agree with the Government that HS2 is the only solution to increase capacity on the rail network. Additional capacity could be provided by incremental improvements to the existing network, a new conventional railway line, or a new high-speed line (of which HS2 is only one option). These options have not been assessed equally, with only HS2 receiving serious consideration by the Government.

Ian

[fullupandslowingdown]

as in many projects, a multilayered multifocus approach is needed. I too am very unhappy about ancient woodlands been destroyed. I admit I haven't even started to study in detail the full route, got other things on my mind. However, I'd ask, are some woods being sacrificed in place of more "costly" developed areas? Or indeed influential toffs repeating the mistakes of the 1830s and preventing railways across their land. (even though it sometimes proved a costly mistake once the benefits of rail were fully realised)

Unless a woodland somehow managed to be exactly the width of the HS2 and ran along the route rather than been a square/rectangle etc, why not take land around the woodland and as part of the scheme plant trees on it, say 4 times the area taken is planted. Extend the woodlands outwards using the same tree mix.

Ancient woodland if it's not managed will eventually die back anyway. Trees don't live to be 100,000 years old. Natural changes and challenges can do as much damage as mankind. So reinvigorating the woodland helps preserve it for the future. In the same way that you wouldn't refuse to use a bit of lime mortar on an ancient building to stop it falling to bits. But I'd guess that the locals using the woodlands as an excuse for not in my back garden wouldn't want the woodland extending either for the same reason.

The alternative is that we stop breeding so fast. My manifesto: no procreation before you're 36.7 years old, and then only once. That will start to bring down the population thereby reducing the need for travel and energy and food. In tandem, ban commuting to work, or driving to shops. You have to work and shop within walking distance of your home. end of. And no holidays to Italy or Iran. Or perhaps yes.....

[Oldjohnw]

The trees don't live but the woodland does. The forest floor is part of it and the fungi living underground is, too. The trees are mot all the same age which is important. Planting new trees, even if more than the monoculture some want, will be all the same age.

[Cyril Haearn]

Utter madness.
Have never had a reasonable explanation as to why we cannot extend existing infrastructure & run longer trains, rather than destroying huge swathes of valuable countryside by new line.

How about the "reasonable explanation", repeated, over and over and over again, by people who actually seem to have some clue about how railways work, that having slow commuter trains and high speed long distance trains ON THE SAME TRACK, reduces capacity:

"A mix of train speeds is particularly damaging to route capacity"
..

A couple of routes in Germany have been upgraded to three tracks, one up, one down
What runs on the third track is an interesting philosophical problem, up or down or both? Groups of trains, then change of direction?

Better maybe to upgrade to four tracks

[Cyril Haearn]

Never mind HST and fast locals, even some regular local trains with 3 carriages have to use selective door opening at some stations that were built or rebuilt for only 2 carriages. I think the legendary Berney Arms is one such station.
..

And the legendary Charlbury near Adlestrop

[mikeymo]

Utter madness.
Have never had a reasonable explanation as to why we cannot extend existing infrastructure & run longer trains, rather than destroying huge swathes of valuable countryside by new line.

How about the "reasonable explanation", repeated, over and over and over again, by people who actually seem to have some clue about how railways work, that having slow commuter trains and high speed long distance trains ON THE SAME TRACK, reduces capacity:

"A mix of train speeds is particularly damaging to route capacity"
..

A couple of routes in Germany have been upgraded to three tracks, one up, one down
What runs on the third track is an interesting philosophical problem, up or down or both? Groups of trains, then change of direction?

Interesting idea. Which routes in Germany have been upgraded?

[Cyril Haearn]

Hamburg/Maschen - Rotenburg (Wumme), the middle track is used in both directions for stopping trains
Hamburg/Maschen - Lueneburg, not sure how that is run
If trains are grouped on the three-track section they can be shoved through onto quieter lines (to Denmark for example) that are not so busy

Thing is of course, a third track does not increase capacity by 50%, one could think of it as a single line like between Talerddig and Moat Lane

Maschen is a gigantic marshalling yard, worth a look. There is a lot of rail freight from the North Sea ports to Italy, Spain etc
But an awful lot of road freight too

[mikeymo]

Utter madness.
Have never had a reasonable explanation as to why we cannot extend existing infrastructure & run longer trains, rather than destroying huge swathes of valuable countryside by new line.

How about the "reasonable explanation", repeated, over and over and over again, by people who actually seem to have some clue about how railways work, that having slow commuter trains and high speed long distance trains ON THE SAME TRACK, reduces capacity:

"A mix of train speeds is particularly damaging to route capacity"
..

A couple of routes in Germany have been upgraded to three tracks, one up, one down
What runs on the third track is an interesting philosophical problem, up or down or both? Groups of trains, then change of direction?

Better maybe to upgrade to four tracks

My (very limited) transport engineering experience is only with building roads, so I'd be interested to hear from somebody like yourself who clearly knows more about railways than I do. When building a new track next to an existing one, is there any disruption at all? Does the existing track need to be closed to trains, for instance? Are there any dangers to workers?

[fullupandslowingdown]

couple of routes in Germany have been upgraded to three tracks, one up, one down
What runs on the third track is an interesting philosophical problem, up or down or both? Groups of trains, then change of direction?

Better maybe to upgrade to four tracks

There was/is a section of railway between erm Barnetby and Brocklesbury where it's 3 lines due to the heavy freight usage as the mainlines from Lincoln and Scunthorpe converge on the way to Grimsby docks. There is significant oil and refined products flowing from the Phillips Refinery to places as far away as Heathrow (aviation fuel). Imported iron ore and coal for the scunny steel works. And passenger services from Grimsby to Lincoln and Sheffield or wherever the locals can apply for asylum at