HS2, is it right for the UK?

TruckerT

cells wrote: »

Self drive tech is going to be thw first real intelligence revolution tech

It will make transport considerably cheaper quicker and better

Cars already are net providers to the treasury while trains are net takers

I would imagine once self drive tech is common a lot of the train lines will be abandoned and converted into roads for self drive cars.


Also a common misconception is to think trains are green. They are not. Wven the london underground effectively one of the worlds most green 'train' systems uses more energy than a modern car. The reason is becuase the stations use a lot of energy too

kabayiri wrote: »

I agree.

Time to innovate. A novel "road train" system which hooked up cars in close proxmity convoy fashion would make our motorways even more efficient. A lot of modern cars have the comms and control guidance onboard to make this a reality in the future. Auto-guided long distance road journeys would be much less stressful, making employees more relaxed at work and at home.

As a freelancer I struggle to justify a £300 trip to London from Manchester by train as it is. I can't see how a £500 high speed trip will change matters. I'm not alone in this. Just look at the thousands of cars commuting up and down the country every day.

Now, if you will excuse me, I'm going to have a poke around in my wife's new German car; see if I can adapt self park to self drive

GingerSte wrote: »

I quite like the idea of this automated road train, except for the fact that everyone would have to buy new cars with the technology for it to work, it would remove control from the drivers, it only work on long stretches of road with no features (as against in the cities where it would be pretty useless). People don't like getting on trains with automated drivers, as it makes them feel unsafe. And that's with tracks to guide them!

Also, you're on a money-saving website and you think it costs £300 to get to London on the train? How cute! :rotfl: I could do it for a quarter of the price, just by looking online for five minutes.

I have been saying for years to anyone who would listen (ie - nobody...) that Beeching was right, and that motorways are the way forward. We now have the technology which is needed.

I would envisage a 'matrix' buried under the carriageway which would be in total control of motorway traffic. As a driver comes down the slip road, he or she would speak a destination into the system, and the computer would take over until the appropriate motorway exit was reached. There would be no need for speed limits, and queuing would be much reduced. Tail-gating would cease to become a problem. Wide Loads? - no problem, the computer will allocate the required road space, and other traffic will pass by (at much closer tolerances than are currently feasible). Rush Hours? - no problem, the computer will allocate road space according to demand, and there will be no need for a central reservation . Break Downs? - no problem, the computer will re-organise itself. Public Transport? - it will be given priority at all times, and will be able to travel at seriously high speeds. Crashes? - a thing of the past...

This is what I would call a flexible system, infinitely superior to a railway.

The Darlington railway was a total shot in the dark, but it probably changed the world. Bring it on...

TruckerT

People don't like getting on trains with automated drivers, as it makes them feel unsafe. And that's with tracks to guide them!

At the beginning of the railways, there was serious doubt as to whether the human race would be able to survive speeds in excess of 20mph.

cells

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

TruckerT wrote: »

I have been saying for years to anyone who would listen (ie - nobody...) that Beeching was right, and that motorways are the way forward. We now have the technology which is needed.

[FONT=&quot]The car is the public transport that won and looks likely to win even more with computer tech advances.

Companies are working on fully automated computer driven vehicles, so even blind people could use cars. Most notably google is investing in them but so too are a lot of the big car manufacturers

With self drive tech everything changes. Road congestion, especially on motorways will disappear.

Fuel efficiency will also drastically improve. Currently you purchase a vehicle to meet your maximum needs. That may be a 1.5 tonne car to seat 5 people and luggage even if 98% of the time the car just carries the driver. With computer tech the car fleet can match actual requirements.

For instance

90% of cars could be small 1 seater 300kg cars
5% of cars could be a small 2 seater 600kg car
4% of cars could be normal 5 seater 1500kg cars
1% could be larger yet.

You hit a button on your smartphone giving a postcode of where you want to go and number of passengers. An algorithm selects the closest relevant car which arrives in seconds, picks you up, takes you to where you want to go and drops you off to then go and pick up another customer.

Also worth noting that predictive algorithms will be employed. so if you always take a car monday-friday to get to work it will be waiting for you outside before you even call for it.

Fuel usage should more than halve
Max speeds increase a little
Average speeds increase a lot
Safety much improved[/FONT]

TruckerT

cells wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]The car is the public transport that won and looks likely to win even more with computer tech advances.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Companies are working on fully automated computer driven vehicles, so even blind people could use cars. Most notably google is investing in them but so too are a lot of the big car manufacturers[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]With self drive tech everything changes. Road congestion, especially on motorways will disappear. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Fuel efficiency will also drastically improve. Currently you purchase a vehicle to meet your maximum needs. That may be a 1.5 tonne car to seat 5 people and luggage even if 98% of the time the car just carries the driver. With computer tech the car fleet can match actual requirements.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For instance[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]90% of cars could be small 1 seater 300kg cars[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5% of cars could be a small 2 seater 600kg car[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4% of cars could be normal 5 seater 1500kg cars[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1% could be larger yet.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You hit a button on your smartphone giving a postcode of where you want to go and number of passengers. An algorithm selects the closest relevant car which arrives in seconds, picks you up, takes you to where you want to go and drops you off to then go and pick up another customer.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Also worth noting that predictive algorithms will be employed. so if you always take a car monday-friday to get to work it will be waiting for you outside before you even call for it.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Fuel usage should more than halve[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Max speeds increase a little[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Average speeds increase a lot[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Safety much improved[/FONT]

I think you'd better warn Sir David Higgins!

TruckerT

cells

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

TruckerT wrote: »

I think you'd better warn Sir David Higgins!

TruckerT

There is little doubt that if computer driven vehicles arrive it will be the end of trains and short distance flights.

The unknown is when such vehicles will arrive. 10 years, 20 years 50 years or 100 years from now

Even now self hire cars are often more affordable and faster than trains. You can hire a car and do a return trip from London to Birmingham far cheaper than you can get a ticket for 4 people and the total journey time is equivalent if not faster. With computer driven cars the above becomes far more convenient and cheaper too.

There is no need for the government to consider computer driven vehicle tech in the decision for HS2. At a cost that will likely exceed £50B the proposed line would cost more than all the homes in Birmingham an absurd figure for a train line with little benefit.

cells

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

wotsthat wrote: »

AIUI UK railways have failed to deliver any significant shareholder return but they have been vital to Britain's economic growth.

The whole process is highly politicised which adds cost and risk. As a standalone project it may never make a profit and will take many years to recoup the build cost. As a private investor I wouldn't touch it.

We need grown up politicians to decide whether the taxpayer should fund this and convince us that the return (profit + economic benefit) is worth it.

It is silly to compare the train lines of today to the train lines before say 1950.

Today you have two options not really available back then. The airplane and the car (and the HGV).

The airplane is far more effective and far cheaper on longer routes, for instance about 300 miles plus

The car is far more effective and far cheaper on shorter routes, for instance about sub 100-150 miles.

The train only becomes useful in the niche 150-300 mile route and only when you

1: Are a single person doing the trip, multiple people sharing a car still wins at 150-300 miles
2: Use tax payer subsidised ticket pricing to make the train look better
3: Use fuel duty burden to make the car look worse
4: Don’t need to carry anything heavy
5: Are lucky enough to start and finish your journey relative close to the point stations.
6: I’m sure there are plenty more



Sadly intercity train lines don’t offer many benefits now with the aeroplane and car as competition

TruckerT

cells wrote: »

There is little doubt that if computer driven vehicles arrive it will be the end of trains and short distance flights.

The unknown is when such vehicles will arrive. 10 years, 20 years 50 years or 100 years from now

If the government were to spend our £50billion on developing a non-rail computer driven transport system, then it would arrive sooner rather than later.

High Speed Rail is a bit like Moon Landings and Concorde Supersonic Flight - a nice idea, but not economically viable.

What other European countries are planning to widen their existing High Speed Rail networks?

TruckerT

cells

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

TruckerT wrote: »

If the government were to spend our £50billion on developing a non-rail computer driven transport system, then it would arrive sooner rather than later.

High Speed Rail is a bit like Moon Landings and Concorde Supersonic Flight - a nice idea, but not economically viable.

What other European countries are planning to widen their existing High Speed Rail networks?

TruckerT

It is not just high speed rail, it is rail

It is weak past 300 miles where the aeroplane wins, and the aeroplane provides lots of tax income for the country

It is weak sub 150 miles where the car wins, and the car provides lots of tax income for the country.

Take costs into account and even the 150-300 mile range becomes dificult to justify


Computer vehicles will be so much better. I would imagine that even existing rail lines will close (ie £0 cost to build lines, becuase they already exist). Who is going to pay £100 for a train ticket when a computer car will pick you up from your office/home door and take you to your destination office/home door for a fraction of the price twice as fast?

John_Pierpoint

Don't forget the carbon taxes and commitment to phase out fossil fuels.
There us still some way to go before we have effective electric cars and jet engines running on a mixture of methanol and rape seed oil.

kabayiri

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

Google would jump at the chance to be involved in the biggest pilot project in the world - autoguidance and control on Britain's primary motorway network.

I think people will pay a reasonable premium to take their compliant car onto an autoguided road. Anyone who has experienced the M25 or parts of the M6 recently will know they are a complete joke in rush hour(s).

blinko

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

THe problem for me is the sheer cost of the project with the benefits seemingly minimal. BUT what is also worrying is the blindness of the politicians that are trying to push through the project