HS2 given go-ahead to start construction in 2016

CIE · 07-01-2012 6:44am #1

Daily Telegraph

Colossal cost, at £170 million per mile or €206 million per mile. They would have been better off reopening the entire GCML with some upgrades, and not worry about an unheard-of speed like 400 km/h (stick with 300 km/h...even 250 km/h is fast enough for distances like that).

corktina · 07-01-2012 9:56am

the problem with re-opening the GCR is that it doesnt do away with conflicts were it would meet the existing lines. HS2 is the way to go...it will drive improvements in the UK economy (which wont do ours any harm at all)

Run_to_da_hills · 07-01-2012 2:46pm

"A controversial high-speed rail line between London and Birmingham will be given the go-ahead by Transport Secretary Justine Greening next week.

The biggest rail project in over a century will cut the journey time between Britain’s two biggest cities from one hour 24 minutes to just 49 minutes.
T
he 100-mile, 250mph link will eventually be extended to north-west and north-east England and on to Scotland, bringing Britain’s creaking rail infrastructure up to the level of other major economies such as those of Japan and France".

What's the chances of similar happening in Ireland?.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083433/Rails-high-speed-future-Fast-link-UKs-biggest-cities-green-light.html

amacachi · 07-01-2012 2:47pm

How many dozen more times will it get a "green light" before it gets going?

Run_to_da_hills · 07-01-2012 2:55pm

amacachi wrote: »

How many dozen more times will it get a "green light" before it gets going?

We have heard the very same thing said over here LOL.

foggy_lad · 07-01-2012 3:38pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

What's the chances of similar happening in Ireland?.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083433/Rails-high-speed-future-Fast-link-UKs-biggest-cities-green-light.html

How could it ever happen in Ireland? By the time the cork train gets up to that speed it would have run out of room to stop:)

Ireland is just a tiny little country on the edge of Europe whose main industry is farming, there is no place here for such nonsense!

corktina · 07-01-2012 3:39pm

HS1 is up and runnig so Id see this going ahead.

Chances in Ireland? Absolutely Nil if not less than that. We can't afford a Hornby line never mind any real investment in Rail (or almost anything else)

LaFlammeRouge · 07-01-2012 4:07pm

Wait to you see the air travel taxes been hiked to pay for this white elephant.

Run_to_da_hills · 07-01-2012 4:46pm

LaFlammeRouge wrote: »

Wait to you see the air travel taxes been hiked to pay for this white elephant.

With the rip off fares for current standard snail rail travel in the UK one could imagine what the cost will be to travel on this thing. My guess is that only the elite will be able to afford it.

Terrontress · 07-01-2012 4:50pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

LaFlammeRouge wrote: »

Wait to you see the air travel taxes been hiked to pay for this white elephant.

With the rip off fares for current standard snail rail travel in the UK one could imagine what the cost will be to travel on this thing. My guess is that only the elite will be able to afford it.

I certainly think they will manage demand by having very expensive fares at peak times. I see no reason though why it shouldn't be more accessible at off peak times and weekends.

I also presume it would lead to reduced demand on the existing fast services to Birmingham resulting in a lower cost to travel on them.

dublinman1990 · 07-01-2012 5:03pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

With the rip off fares for current standard snail rail travel in the UK one could imagine what the cost will be to travel on this thing. My guess is that only the elite will be able to afford it.

It would never cost as much as £34 billion (€43 billion) over here in Ireland. Not a chance that will ever happen here in the reality of a certain agreement that we must follow.

robd · 07-01-2012 5:07pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

What's the chances of similar happening in Ireland?.

Birmingham Metropolitan Area: 3,683,000
London Larger Urban Zone: 11,900,000

Then their's Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford etc for further connection.

Greater Dublin Area: 1,045,769
Metropolitan Cork: 397,800
Belfast Larger Urban Zone: 641,638

The numbers should give a very good indication of why this won't happen in our lifetimes in Ireland.

CIE · 07-01-2012 5:40pm

I certainly didn't mean reopen the GCML as it was when it was closed.

€206 million per mile is a ridiculous sum, especially when the French are doing brand-new-build 320 km/h alignments for €16 million per mile on the LGV Est. Claiming 400 km/h top speed is dishonest.

CIE · 07-01-2012 5:46pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A controversial high-speed rail line between London and Birmingham will be given the go-ahead by Transport Secretary Justine Greening next week.

The biggest rail project in over a century will cut the journey time between Britain’s two biggest cities from one hour 24 minutes to just 49 minutes.

The 100-mile, 250-mph link will eventually be extended to north-west and north-east England and on to Scotland, bringing Britain’s creaking rail infrastructure up to the level of other major economies such as those of Japan and France.

What's the chances of similar happening in Ireland?

Daily Mail article

You mean spend €206 million per mile on a superfluous railway link that won't see 400 km/h as claimed? One should hope that the answer is "never", especially when France is still holding costs of such alignments down to €16 million per mile.

Upgrading the traditional Dublin-Cork (former GSWR) main line for 140-mph (225-km/h) tilt-train operation is realistic, and more than fast enough. (The BR Mark 4 was built with the intent of running at 140 mph.)

LaFlammeRouge · 07-01-2012 7:18pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

With the rip off fares for current standard snail rail travel in the UK one could imagine what the cost will be to travel on this thing. My guess is that only the elite will be able to afford it.

Megatrain.com is pretty good value for train travel in England.

£17billion for a 20min reduction to Birmingham is a disgusting waste.

London to/from... Current timings on existing lines Proposed (with HS2 completion to Birmingham) Proposed (with HS2 completion to Manchester and Leeds)
Birmingham 1 hour 12 minutes (fastest) 49 minutes
Manchester 2 hours 8 minutes 1 hour 40 minutes 1 hour 20 minutes
Liverpool 2 hours 8 minutes 1 hour 50 minutes 1 hour 36 minutes
Leeds 2 hours 20 minutes 2 hours 20 minutes 1 hour 20 minutes
Newcastle 3 hours 30 minutes 3 hours 30 minutes 2 hours 30 minutes
Edinburgh 4 hours 30 minutes 4 hours 30 minutes 3 hours 30 minutes
Glasgow 4 hours 31 minutes 4 hours

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2

Jehuty42 · 07-01-2012 7:34pm

Christ, it can take me 49 minutes to get from Clonsilla to Pearse, getting to and from Birmingham in that times seems incredible.

foggy_lad · 07-01-2012 7:38pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

With the rip off fares for current standard snail rail travel in the UK one could imagine what the cost will be to travel on this thing. My guess is that only the elite will be able to afford it.

With everyone else paying extra to keep their premium service operating!

Do current first class and enterprise fares pay for the extra staff and dining facilities free newspapers etc on the Cork and Belfast trains?

corktina · 07-01-2012 8:41pm

Dining facitilities?:eek:

Stonewolf · 07-01-2012 11:43pm

Building it with a design maximum speed of 400km/h even though trains to travel at that speed are unavailable makes sense.

The problems with their (and our) current system is that it was constructed by Victorians who would have laughed at you for suggesting trains might travel at half that.

CIE · 07-01-2012 11:53pm

Stonewolf wrote: »

Building it with a design maximum speed of 400km/h even though trains to travel at that speed are unavailable makes sense.

The problems with their (and our) current system is that it was constructed by Victorians who would have laughed at you for suggesting trains might travel at half that

?

France built LGVs that have hosted trains running at 575 km/h for a fourteenth of the cost per unit length that is supposed to be spent on HS2. The amount of money doesn't dictate what the maximum permissible speed can be.

The problems with the traditional railway system don't stem from its age, but deferring of maintenance. Tilt train technology does have its advantages, especially in terms of average speed improvements; where distances are short (especially over that minuscule 100 miles being talked about here), there is no advantage to even bothering with a 300-km/h railway.

CIE · 07-01-2012 11:58pm

LaFlammeRouge wrote: »

Megatrain.com is pretty good value for train travel in England.

£17 billion for a 20-min reduction to Birmingham is a disgusting waste.
London to/from... Current timings on existing lines Proposed (with HS2 completion to Birmingham) Proposed (with HS2 completion to Manchester and Leeds)
Birmingham 1 hour 12 minutes (fastest) 49 minutes
Manchester 2 hours 8 minutes 1 hour 40 minutes 1 hour 20 minutes
Liverpool 2 hours 8 minutes 1 hour 50 minutes 1 hour 36 minutes
Leeds 2 hours 20 minutes 2 hours 20 minutes 1 hour 20 minutes
Newcastle 3 hours 30 minutes 3 hours 30 minutes 2 hours 30 minutes
Edinburgh 4 hours 30 minutes 4 hours 30 minutes 3 hours 30 minutes
Glasgow 4 hours 31 minutes 4 hours

Truly is a waste, since you already have triple-digit average speeds between the two cities that could be improved on the existing alignment further.

A Dub in Glasgo · 07-01-2012 11:59pm

So why is it costing so much and what can be done to reduce the price? There is already talk that the government midn fold to NIMBY opposition and tunnel a large section which will increase the cost even more

dowlingm · 08-01-2012 12:28am

yes, but what that table doesn't say is how much extra CAPACITY is added. People fixate on speeds but having mixed running is the kind of half measure which gets you the Northeast Corridor/Acela.

CIE · 08-01-2012 1:39am

It's not going to be that much extra. The termini have to be kept in mind, remember; and the higher the speed, the longer the blocks get. The cost remains way out of whack with HSR alignment costs to boot.

As far as the northeastern USA's Northeast Corridor goes, even the existing London-Birmingham route is way out ahead, with average speeds well over 20 mph faster.

Stonewolf · 08-01-2012 2:45am

CIE wrote: »

France built LGVs that have hosted trains running at 575 km/h for a fourteenth of the cost per unit length that is supposed to be spent on HS2. The amount of money doesn't dictate what the maximum permissible speed can be.

I never said the cost was sensible, I said that designing it for higher speeds than are currently practical was sensible.

DDigital · 08-01-2012 3:16am

I only have one thing to say....Go Britannia and I don't mean that in any political sense. I mean it in a way that reinforces my understanding of our nearest neighbour doing what it had to do when it came to its railways. This is the next step.

However I do agree that 120mph running on our Dublin-Cork-Belfast routes would at least justify having railways. Otherwise we may as well close them and enjoy the road investment.

Jehuty42 · 08-01-2012 4:24am

Stonewolf wrote: »

The problems with their (and our) current system is that it was constructed by Victorians who would have laughed at you for suggesting trains might travel at half that.

This is something that bothers me about the railway system in Ireland- it's all so old. Off the top of my head, the only new alignments built after the creation of the republic, are the avoiding curves at Kilkenny(Lavistown) and Limerick Junction and the new IWT siding in Dublin docks. Sure, lines have been upgraded and electrified, viaducts rebuilt, but the alignment and areas served have remained static. When we think of opening new lines, it really comes down to just opening old ones(Pace, WRC, Midleton) rather than proper land acquisition and design of new railways to serve current needs. The plans to do just that have huge problems getting funded- see the original 70s DART plans for lines towards Tallaght and Blanchardstown(funnily enough, these got replicated later via Luas Red and Metro West) and the DART underground.

CIE · 08-01-2012 4:49am

Stonewolf wrote: »

I never said the cost was sensible, I said that designing it for higher speeds than are currently practical was sensible.

OK, but that's supposed to be a given. France's far-cheaper alignments are also designed for higher speeds, was my point.

dowlingm · 08-01-2012 5:18am

England has a density of 395 people/km, France less than a third of that. That means that English railway lines end up running through more urbanisation, especially when you subtract out the southwest the density figure of the central part of England goes even higher. Much of the cost of railway alignments now is driven by proximity of people, both in terms of NIMBY and in terms of avoiding conflicts with utilities, structures and roads. If you're running a line across open country where there are few large towns demanding their own stop (and in France they go so far as to demand a contribution in exchange for a station from small towns such as on LGV Est) then of course cost/mile is going to be lower.

CIE · 08-01-2012 6:08am

The biggest complaint about HS2 was its path through the Chilterns, which is not very populated. Alongside the M1 and M6, I see a lot of unpopulated tracts where a high-speed railway could be built, that is if needed (i.e. in emulation of the NBS corridors in Germany); I do not see how the costs there could climb to the astronomical levels that HS2 have reached (and Germany's average population density greatly exceeds that of England; even they have built such corridors for far cheaper). What really is not needed is 250 miles per hour between London and Birmingham; that's a joke.

blackdog2 · 08-01-2012 6:39am

Is it really worth it? The trains there now seem quite competent, lay on an improved fast track internal air service and that seems like several billion better saved!

HS2 given go-ahead to start construction in 2016

Comments