Hs2

Froggitt

As TPTB are now claiming that HS2 is more about capacity than speed, why not save the £50bn or whatever it will cost, and instead go double-decker on the existing West Coat Mainline.


Bridges.......just dig down a few feet to lower the level of the track so that the double decker trains will fit under the bridges. They aren't that much taller than normal trains.


Double the capacity for minimal cost.

Tilt

HS2 should never happen IMHO. The cost of it (which seems to increase every day even though nothing has been built yet) far out ways the advantages.

A hell of a lot of money to spend just to shave 20 minutes off the traveling time between Birmingham and London when we have patients waiting for up to 4 hours in the back of ambulances outside A & E.

yorkie2

Froggitt wrote: »

As TPTB are now claiming that HS2 is more about capacity than speed, why not save the £50bn or whatever it will cost, and instead go double-decker on the existing West Coat Mainline.


Bridges.......just dig down a few feet to lower the level of the track so that the double decker trains will fit under the bridges. They aren't that much taller than normal trains.


Double the capacity for minimal cost.

Q1) Do you double passenger capacity using this method, or is some space lost for stairs?
Q2 How much would it cost to do this, including the cost of arranging alternative transport and revenue loss for the many months the West Coast route would have to be closed for?
Q3 If you are reducing the level of tracks, how will you ensure drainage is not a problem?
Q4 How would you cater for increase in freight traffic?

yorkie2

Tilt wrote: »

HS2 should never happen IMHO. The cost of it (which seems to increase every day even though nothing has been built yet) far out ways the advantages.

A hell of a lot of money to spend just to shave 20 minutes off the traveling time between Birmingham and London when we have patients waiting for up to 4 hours in the back of ambulances outside A & E.

You just "thanked" a post which stated the main reason for requiring HS2 is capacity, and now you say it's "just" about saving 20 minute journey time?:rotfl:

maniacmartin

Having an alternative route has many benefits. Firstly, as yorkie2 says, there will be less disruption to services on the existing line whilst the works are being carried out. It also means that for future engineering work they can close a whole line down and still route trains between London and Birmingham, and there is more capacity.

Freight and local stopper services are important to consider as they travel much slower than intercity services, so clog things up. When you're building a new line for extra capacity, it makes sense to build it as a high speed line from the very start.

In my opinion, the government hasn't really done a good job at selling HS2 to the public, choosing to focus on the 20 minute journey saving, rather than the extra capacity and resiliance that a second route provides.

I don't agree with everything about HS2 (such as terminating at Euston, and the Old Oak Common interchange plans), but I think on thee whole it's a good idea. A lot of the extra costs that are appearing are dealing with legal challenges and adding more tunnels to placate those who live near the proposed route (and who won't see a direct benefit from the line)

yangptangkipperbang

Froggitt wrote: »

As TPTB are now claiming that HS2 is more about capacity than speed, why not save the £50bn or whatever it will cost, and instead go double-decker on the existing West Coat Mainline.


Bridges.......just dig down a few feet to lower the level of the track so that the double decker trains will fit under the bridges. They aren't that much taller than normal trains.


Double the capacity for minimal cost.

You must be a politician - say any old rubbish and people will believe you !

Your silly statement reminds me of when Lew Grade was told how much it cost his company to make the movie "Raise the Titanic" - he said "it would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic"

Froggitt

yorkie2 wrote: »

Q1) Do you double passenger capacity using this method, or is some space lost for stairs?
Q2 How much would it cost to do this, including the cost of arranging alternative transport and revenue loss for the many months the West Coast route would have to be closed for?
Q3 If you are reducing the level of tracks, how will you ensure drainage is not a problem?
Q4 How would you cater for increase in freight traffic?

Yes its not directly double, but increasing the length of the trains could compensate for the space lost to stairs.


Alternatively, build a bunch of new bridges, which sounds more expensive, but will result in less disruption.


Sent the freight at night.


The photo below is of the old Digbeth Flyover, which allegedly was built by the Army over a weekend.

Froggitt

There is an alternative route.....the Great Central Railway, which would likely be a much cheaper route to HS2, as much of the route is still there.


It does have the same flaw as HS2 though......it doesn't start at Kings Cross, and link up with HS1 and the continent.

C_Mababejive

Forget HS2.

Just sell the whole lot to DB Bahn who clearly know what they are doing.

http://www.bahn.com/i/view/GBR/en/

Froggitt

Longer trains. Passenger trains can easily be 400m these days. Yes you can increase the length of the platforms, as with Thameslink, without any real disruption. OR as with railways I've been on in the USA, they say "the first 8 carriages are not stopping at certain stations", and only the rear 8 carriage doors open at those stations.

Froggitt

maniacmartin wrote: »

Having an alternative route has many benefits.

You ignore the basic fact that this country is bust and cannot afford these big HS2 type projects. Boris Island is another.


Wasn't that long ago under Maggie that a deficit of £8bn was seen as too large. Now we have overall debt of over £1,000,000,000,000 caused by massive financial mis-management by Gordy Brown, and the interest on that debt is say £50bn per annum.....and that's not paying off any of the capital!!!