On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:41:38 -0800
Aurora wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 19:18:18 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 17:24:25 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:04:08 on
Wed, 1 Jan 2014, Aurora remarked:

HMG in the UK is funding the largest program of rolling
electrification to date. This may be the biggest rail investment
since the 1950s modernization.

More than the £9bn on the WCML upgrade or £15bn on Crossrail?

Investment funding across the network for the next 5 years, which
includes money to complete Crossrail and Thameslink, comes to £9bn

Which will be small change compared to the costs of HS2 if it goes ahead.

That money could do so much good if spent elsewhere on the UK network.
The Welwyn bottleneck would be a good start.

If the government had been honest and said simply that the west coast main
line has reached capacity and a new parallel line is needed I suspect most
people would be for HS2 or some version of it. But selling it as a way just to
shave 15 mins off a trip to brum was moronic and quite rightly people said it
would be a waste of money.

I wonder if it would be possible to increase the loading gauge on the WCML
to allow double deck trains and increase capacity that way? Would be bloody
expensive but perhaps not quite HS2 expensive.

--
Spud

On 03/01/2014 20:32, d wrote:


If the government had been honest and said simply that the west coast main
line has reached capacity and a new parallel line is needed I suspect most
people would be for HS2 or some version of it. But selling it as a way just to
shave 15 mins off a trip to brum was moronic and quite rightly people said it
would be a waste of money.

The official stuff did say that. Unfortunately no-one official seems to
have stepped to shout about it once NIMBYs and the media decided to run
with "OMFG 100 million billion quid to cut 20 minutes off London -
Birmingham and who wants to go to anywhere outside the M25 anyway".

It doesn't help that much of the official position seems to come from
engineering types, so is accurate and sourced but not headline-grabbing
like the rival scaremongering is. I heard something on the radio a while
ago, to the effect of "HS2 will take up all the land which could ever be
used by any employers in the West Midlands forever, so if is it built
your children will be reduced to begging on the streets!", and the HS2
response was along the lines of "page 94 of study A shows that within a
95% confidence interval there are no plans for Class B development of
this zone C in region D within a timeframe comparable to Phase E of the
project element F", which might be perfectly true but won't win the
argument.



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Engineering types" have blown their credibility with the general public.

On so many big infrastructure projects, over so long a period of time,
"engineering types" have got it so ludicrously wrong in so many ways: the cost
of The British Library, the capacity of the M25, the time required to build aircaft
carriers, the cost of nuclear power . . . .

On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 10:37:10 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
"Engineering types" have blown their credibility with the general
public.

On so many big infrastructure projects, over so long a period of time,
"engineering types" have got it so ludicrously wrong in so many ways:
the cost
of The British Library, the capacity of the M25, the time required to
build aircaft
carriers, the cost of nuclear power . . . .

You're being rather unfair - its not engineers who do costings , its
accountants. And they'll always underestimate the cost of any government
project due to political pressure. Whatever the current cost of HS2 is
quoted as , you can guarantee the true cost will be double even taking
inflation into account.

--
Spud

In article , d
() wrote:

On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 10:37:10 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
"Engineering types" have blown their credibility with the general
public.

On so many big infrastructure projects, over so long a period of time,
"engineering types" have got it so ludicrously wrong in so many ways:
the cost of The British Library, the capacity of the M25, the time
required to build aircaft carriers, the cost of nuclear power . . . .

You're being rather unfair - its not engineers who do costings , its
accountants. And they'll always underestimate the cost of any government
project due to political pressure. Whatever the current cost of HS2 is
quoted as , you can guarantee the true cost will be double even taking
inflation into account.

You're being unfair. They got HS1 right.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 03/01/2014 20:32, d wrote:


If the government had been honest and said simply that the west coast
main
line has reached capacity and a new parallel line is needed I suspect
most
people would be for HS2 or some version of it. But selling it as a way
just to
shave 15 mins off a trip to brum was moronic and quite rightly people
said it
would be a waste of money.

The official stuff did say that. Unfortunately no-one official seems to
have stepped to shout about it once NIMBYs and the media decided to run
with "OMFG 100 million billion quid to cut 20 minutes off London -
Birmingham and who wants to go to anywhere outside the M25 anyway".

It doesn't help that much of the official position seems to come from
engineering types, so is accurate

Except that it's not. By comparison with other commuter lines into London,
Euston services are not "full"

tim

On 05/01/2014 08:54, tim...... wrote:

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 03/01/2014 20:32, d wrote:


If the government had been honest and said simply that the west coast
main
line has reached capacity and a new parallel line is needed I suspect
most
people would be for HS2 or some version of it. But selling it as a
way just to
shave 15 mins off a trip to brum was moronic and quite rightly people
said it
would be a waste of money.

The official stuff did say that. Unfortunately no-one official seems
to have stepped to shout about it once NIMBYs and the media decided to
run with "OMFG 100 million billion quid to cut 20 minutes off London -
Birmingham and who wants to go to anywhere outside the M25 anyway".

It doesn't help that much of the official position seems to come from
engineering types, so is accurate

Except that it's not. By comparison with other commuter lines into
London, Euston services are not "full"

Load factors on the central section of the Central Line are low[1] in
comparison with Bangladesh Railways at a religious festival = Crossrail
isn't needed.

[1] At least I assume so, on the basis that not many people travel on
the outside of Central Line trains.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Wouldn't it be cheaper to have longer trains? Before privatisation, trains on all
main routes, not just WCML, were longer than they are now. As one who
travelled frequently by train in the '60s, '70s and '80s, I am always struck by
how short today's trains are. I am not at all surprised that there is
overcrowding at peak times.

In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

d;140333 Wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:41:38 -0800 Aurora wrote:-
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 19:18:18 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:
-
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 17:24:25 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:-
In message , at 09:04:08
on Wed, 1 Jan 2014, Aurora remarked:

HMG in the UK is funding the largest program of rolling
electrification to date. This may be the biggest rail investment
since the 1950s modernization.

More than the £9bn on the WCML upgrade or £15bn on Crossrail?

Investment funding across the network for the next 5 years, which
includes money to complete Crossrail and Thameslink, comes to £9bn-

Which will be small change compared to the costs of HS2 if it goes
ahead.-

That money could do so much good if spent elsewhere on the UK network.
The Welwyn bottleneck would be a good start.-

If the government had been honest and said simply that the west coast
main line has reached capacity and a new parallel line is needed I
suspect most people would be for HS2 or some version of it. But selling
it as a way just to shave 15 mins off a trip to brum was moronic and
quite rightly people said it would be a waste of money.

I wonder if it would be possible to increase the loading gauge on the
WCML to allow double deck trains and increase capacity that way? Would
be bloody expensive but perhaps not quite HS2 expensive.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to have longer trains? Before privatisation, trains
on all main routes, not just WCML, were longer than they are now. As one
who travelled frequently by train in the '60s, '70s and '80s, I am always
struck by how short today's trains are. I am not at all surprised that
there is overcrowding at peak times.

While the Sprinter revolution proved that frequent short trains were better
than a few cross-country trains a day, the current East Coast trains for
example are more or less all that can fit into the platforms. Remember the
White Rose services that could only use platforms 1 and 6 at the Cross?

and when in loco-hauled days did Cambridge-London trains extended to 12 20m
coaches?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In "my day" The Flying Scotsman was a loco-hauled 12 coach train with an
extra coach added on Fridays. It did leave from platform 1. How long is the
equivalent train today? My point is that if in those B.R. days the train had
been reduced to eight coaches, it too would have been massively
overcrowded.

The Cambridge Buffet Express was a loco-hauled five coach train. FCC trains
are frequently only four coaches long.

Some other examples: Victoria to Brighton; Waterloo to Portsmouth via
Guildford; Waterloo to Bournemouth & Weymouth: all used to be 12 coach
trains. They're not today.