HS2 given go-ahead to start construction in 2016

CIE

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

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

"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

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

Run_to_da_hills

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

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

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

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

Run_to_da_hills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dining facitilities?:eek:

Stonewolf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

A Dub in Glasgo

CIE wrote: »

What really is not needed is 250 miles per hour between London and Birmingham; that's a joke.

HS2 is not about running between London and Birmingham, it is about running between London and the major conurbations in Britain. Eventually HS2 will be extended to go to the Northwest of England or Northeast of England and onto the Central belt of Scotland.

robd

LaFlammeRouge wrote: »

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

Yes but you're not looking at the time savings in context. It's 23 minutes on the fastest train which is a 32% time savings. Also most journey times are more like 1:26 which would be a 37 minute or 43% saving. The % saving is the important context.

Also, it really comes into its own when high speed is extended to Manchester and Leeds. Manchester would be 48 mins or 38% quicker. Leeds would 60 mins or 43% quicker.

Lines as they are are at capacity so improving track is unlikely to truly increase journey times for majority of journeys. Also HS2 is designed for larger loading (as in double decker) trains which couldn't run on current lines.

But yes, cost per mile is very high.

corktina

blackdog2 wrote: »

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!

air travel is about as un-green as you can get, very short haul even more so. ALso most airports are miles from where people want to be.

HS2 will be (as has been said) about moving people to Liverpool manchester Leeds and Sheffield and more importantly beyond to places like DUBLIN. This will benefit us at no cost.

murphaph

robd wrote: »

Also, it really comes into its own when high speed is extended to Manchester and Leeds. Manchester would be 48 mins or 38% quicker. Leeds would 60 mins or 43% quicker.

Exactly. This first phase (though very expensive looking alright) will provide a spine with very high speed capacity. The relatively short distance between London and Birmingham won't exploit this to the full BUT if/when it's extended to the northwest and even Scotland it will be absolutely essential.

This investment should be viewed in the context of European high speed rail as Britain is physically connected to the European high speed network. Indeed, not opening up the rest of the island to HSR when the Channel Tunnel already exists, seems to me to be a far bigger waste.

Manchester-Paris should be entirely possible on the train with this. Germany is steadily building its own HSR network, no fanfair, no politics. The biggest project currently underway is the improvement/new build of the Berlin-Munich corridor, which at present is easily beaten by the plane and is barely comparable with driving sometimes. They are building some very large structures to keep the line straight and the speed up. It'll connect into the Munich-Ingoldstadt section which was built for 300km/h and so that section will only start to show its true value in 4 years or so.

CIE

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

HS2 is not about running between London and Birmingham, it is about running between London and the major conurbations in Britain. Eventually HS2 will be extended to go to the Northwest of England or Northeast of England and onto the Central belt of Scotland

...at an even greater cost than the colossal €21 billion being spent on London-Birmingham. Total costs are to come to the ludicrous sum of €39 billion at least, and perhaps even higher.

corktina wrote: »

This will benefit us at no cost

For one, I don't see how a new railway that is not on Irish soil benefits Ireland, whether in the UK or not. For another, are you sure that the funds are all from within the UK? because if there are EU funds involved, it can't be at no cost to Ireland.

corktina

well if it speeds up the flow of freight, that surely will please you, might even get some of it to transfer to rail (in Hollyhead).

and it will benefit hugely anyone wishing to get anywhere in europe if they can get a fast direct train via the Channel Tunnel from (lets say) Crewe.

As for you thinking Ireland may be paying for some of it, since when did we do anthing except TAKE from the EU , not give to it!

CIE

corktina wrote: »

well if it speeds up the flow of freight, that surely will please you, might even get some of it to transfer to rail (in Holyhead)

Why would it do that? High-speed lines are not used for freight. Most of them have grades too steep for heavy freight trains. Reportedly this line is being built not to transfer capacity from the traditional lines but to add to it, which means no additional capacity is to materialise on the traditional lines but they stay just as busy as before.

corktina wrote: »

and it will benefit hugely anyone wishing to get anywhere in Europe if they can get a fast direct train via the Channel Tunnel from (let's say) Crewe

You still have to get there from Ireland. How's the Rosslare connectivity nowadays? any better? Holyhead or Liverpool?

corktina wrote: »

As for you thinking Ireland may be paying for some of it, since when did we do anything except TAKE from the EU , not give to it

I see you bought the propaganda out of the EU. Ireland's given way too much to the EU; it's part of the reason Germany went from being the "sick man of Europe" to its leading nation in about half a decade. There's a reason why the EU tries to shut up its whistle-blowers.

corktina

where do i start?

well, as you are a Rail Enthusiast, you will know that discussions are taking place right now to run freight on HS1 using 92 class electrics.

Most passenger traffic from Ireland heading for the continent is likely to come via Dublin as thats a quarter of the population on its own never mind all that could flow from the North and West that way. As a knowledgeable person on Railways you will also know that that the line from Holyhead runs direct to Crewe, which is a major junction from where you can get more or less anywhere in the UK and will certainly be linked to HS2. SO you get the LUAS to the port, the ferry to Hollyhead and the train to Paris or beyond with perhaps a change at (say) Crewe. Sounds simple to me.

Ireland has given away nothing to EU, it has been a net beneficiary on a huge scale.

L1011

corktina wrote: »

Ireland has given away nothing to EU, it has been a net beneficiary on a huge scale.

Not for any year recently, net contributor for some time

And when you take away CAP - without which, the non agrisufficient nations of Europe such as the UK would starve - we've been a net contributor for decades.

People believe some level of pro-EU propaganda without looking at the figures.

corktina

show us the figures then... Ireland has been a net beneficiary from EU membership OVERALL, I didnt say it was for any particular year,

L1011

corktina wrote: »

show us the figures then... Ireland has been a net beneficiary from EU membership OVERALL, I didnt say it was for any particular year,

CAP excluded, we're *still* a net contributor overall.

I've done the maths before, I'm not doing it again. We received very little more than we paid out from day 1, when CAP is left out of the equation. Since the mid 1990s we've paid out more than we got back, growing to about 2Bn *per annum* more now.

foggy_lad

corktina wrote: »

where do i start?

well, as you are a Rail Enthusiast, you will know that discussions are taking place right now to run freight on HS1 using 92 class electrics.

Most passenger traffic from Ireland heading for the continent is likely to come via Dublin as thats a quarter of the population on its own never mind all that could flow from the North and West that way. As a knowledgeable person on Railways you will also know that that the line from Holyhead runs direct to Crewe, which is a major junction from where you can get more or less anywhere in the UK and will certainly be linked to HS2. SO you get the LUAS to the port, the ferry to Hollyhead and the train to Paris or beyond with perhaps a change at (say) Crewe. Sounds simple to me.

Ireland has given away nothing to EU, it has been a net beneficiary on a huge scale.

Most people will avoid the very expensive trains and bring their car either via the uk or direct sailing to France.

corktina

MYOB wrote: »

CAP excluded, we're *still* a net contributor overall.

I've done the maths before, I'm not doing it again. We received very little more than we paid out from day 1, when CAP is left out of the equation. Since the mid 1990s we've paid out more than we got back, growing to about 2Bn *per annum* more now.

You may as well say if you excluded the wages costs, the Railways run at a profit!

corktina

foggy_lad wrote: »

Most people will avoid the very expensive trains and bring their car either via the uk or direct sailing to France.

Most people maybe but that doesnt change the fact that this is a no cost to Ireland option for people who DO want to travel by train.

Have you seen the cost of taking your car on the ferry lately?

L1011

corktina wrote: »

You may as well say if you excluded the wages costs, the Railways run at a profit!

CAP is required if the Brits want to continue having people not die of malnutrition on their welfare levels.

corktina

MYOB wrote: »

CAP is required if the Brits want to continue having people not die of malnutrition on their welfare levels.

Rubbish.The Brits would be first to tell you how they were happily importing stuff from their Commonwealth pre-cap and how much they;d love to go back to that

L1011

corktina wrote: »

Rubbish.The Brits would be first to tell you how they were happily importing stuff from their Commonwealth pre-cap and how much they;d love to go back to that

Costs wouldn't be any lower than they would be sans CAP. The UK has got itself convinced of something that doesn't add up.

Victor

Threads merged

corktina

CAP is designed to keep prices up not reduce them. Hence farmers being paid NOT to produce things

L1011

corktina wrote: »

CAP is designed to keep prices up not reduce them. Hence farmers being paid NOT to produce things

Paid not to produce things which are in ridiculous over supply.

If CAP ended, food prices would likely double in a week, particularly in countries that don't grow enough of their own. Like Britain.