|
|
| Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail (487840) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (488370) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sun Sep 9 19:15:27 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Sep 9 19:08:28 2007. Yes, I know. That's the point I'm trying to make. A nation-wide HSR network in Europe would probably be smaller than one would be just for the northeastern United States. You can't use Europe as an example for a national HSR system over here.But we're going toward a Europe-wide HSR network, so that criticism is invalid... |
|
|
| (488372) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Sep 9 19:24:00 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Rail Blue on Sun Sep 9 19:15:27 2007. But we're going toward a Europe-wide HSR network, so that criticism is invalid...When it's been built and/or it successfully competes with air travel without governmental interference, you win this argument. Until then ... |
|
|
| (488461) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 22:38:19 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Sep 9 19:24:00 2007. When it's been built and/or it successfully competes with air travel without governmental interferencePlease tell us what airports do not owe their existence to and are being sustained completely and utterly without governmental interference first. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (488462) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 22:39:42 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by BIE on Sun Sep 9 14:12:17 2007. You're counting on Russia and Europe being like the USA during its glory days, i.e. benevolent. That's not going to happen. |
|
|
| (488463) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 22:41:27 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Rail Blue on Sun Sep 9 10:02:33 2007. The 500K estimate appears to have been chosen at random and sans research. TGVs serve towns that are far below those numbers (e.g. Marseille, Tours, Le Mans, many others). |
|
|
| (488465) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Sun Sep 9 22:48:34 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 22:39:42 2007. Is there a choice, idiot. I repeat, the US does not rule the world. |
|
|
| (488466) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 22:48:49 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Sep 9 12:08:47 2007. I don't think HSR can compete with driving on most levelsWhy not? Commuter rail competes with driving. No highway in the USA is going to let you drive at 200 mph (and in Germany, who does allow that, HSR still competes nicely). too many Americans cling to the freedom the car culture affords them Please stop with the either/or canard. Europeans and Japanese drive a lot as well, and enjoy the same kind of |
|
|
| (488467) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Sun Sep 9 22:49:10 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 22:41:27 2007. as intermediate points. |
|
|
| (488468) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Sep 9 22:55:22 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Sep 9 19:24:00 2007. Two wrongs don't make a right. |
|
|
| (488469) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 22:56:54 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Sep 9 19:12:28 2007. Check again.Just did. No plane does less than five hours. Unless you're counting Miami-San Diego? Nobody will use it Right, like nobody uses Amtrak. Those sleepers never sell out. 5 hours or 2 days? Americans will choose the airplane Some will. Others will choose the train. Second-fastest is still competitive. And no, not two days—try less than ¾-day. (A two-day transcon trip is an average speed of circa 60 mph—nowhere near high-speed rail! Didn't you do your calculations before you replied to me??) Gate to gate on the plane is not five hours! City center to city center is worse still! Rail, unless it's supersonic rail, cannot compete with air travel outside a certain distance Blanket statements will not work. |
|
|
| (488470) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Sun Sep 9 22:58:30 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 03:50:28 2007. Even with stops, an special overnight express with last stop of Orlando and next stop at DC would be great. Or first train of the morning. I'm more than sure there's a way to route that sucker through to make it really quick. |
|
|
| (488471) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Sun Sep 9 22:59:19 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by UWS Greg on Sun Sep 9 02:45:05 2007. "But I've lost track of the number of times it's taken 12 or more"Google says philly to tampa 17 hours. You still saved 5!!! |
|
|
| (488472) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Sun Sep 9 23:00:08 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Sep 9 22:55:22 2007. SLASH THE AIRLINE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX WELFARE. |
|
|
| (488476) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Sun Sep 9 23:02:44 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 22:48:49 2007. Lemme see, Get to the airport 2 hours before flight so the TSA drones can see that you aren't on the no fly list and hope to God some bank robber dcesn't share your name, then have to take your shoes off and go through other degrading rituals because of the innately very dangerous potential that a crazed Muslim fundamentalist can convert your airplane into a weapon of mass destruction and then squeeze into a TINY space for the flight itself. If the weather is unfavorable ANYWHERE on your route, you face the real potential for either departure or arrival delays at any of the airports you originate from, land at or take off from during the flight. When you MERCIFULLY are allowed to leave the plane at the end of your trip, you have to collect your luggage (if it got there and wasn't sent to another place 2000 miles away. Between the time your landing gear slams into the runway and the time your taxi leaves the airport property can EASILY be another 45 minutes. Then, if you are going downtown, expect a LONG ride. ALL this to insure that the aerospace industry can have enough business volume to stay in business to serve the military. Let them build HSR trains instead. |
|
|
| (488477) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 23:03:18 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by BIE on Sun Sep 9 22:48:34 2007. Knock off the internet tough guy BS. That's not what I was talking about. You can deny reality all you want, but it's gonna come crashing in on you whether you like it or not. Russia and Europe are already at loggerheads. The USA's lost its power to mediate and we all know why. Leave it at that. |
|
|
| (488479) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 23:04:20 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Sep 9 10:53:13 2007. Stop being a baby. They reinforce the very opposite of your claims. |
|
|
| (488480) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 23:06:54 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Sep 9 22:55:22 2007. Were you trying to reply to this post? Sorry, but one wrong also doesn't make a right. The correct cliché is "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", and "level playing field". Go ahead and privatize all airports first and see how they do, followed by highways, and then we can talk about private HSR, which exists absolutely nowhere in the world yet exudes benefits you continue to deny would exist in the USA were it built here. |
|
|
| (488481) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 23:09:29 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by BIE on Sun Sep 9 23:02:44 2007. Things were actually better immediately post-9/11 than now when it came to flying, frankly. They've steadily degraded.And yes, the aerospace industry ought to prove that it doesn't need a guaranteed source of income, and that all over the world. |
|
|
| (488482) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Sun Sep 9 23:09:52 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 23:03:18 2007. That why don't you STFU. Nothing can be done about the fact that the US has thrown away its world leadership. As for the terrorists, they also are a problem for Europe, Russia, India and China. Working with those entities, the world can EASILY rid itself of those troublemakers. What the US has to assert is the Monroe Doctrine. The Americas can provide a fine standard of living for ALL Pan Americans. |
|
|
| (488484) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Sep 9 23:12:48 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 03:56:27 2007. Marseille: 820K, 1.3M urban area :)Places like Tours and Le Mans wouldn't even have a chance, under your plan . . . SNCF's current policy works. Regional stations to connect with smaller cities, separate stations on the LGV and spurs off the LGVs to connect with places that are worth serving. |
|
|
| (488485) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Sun Sep 9 23:13:41 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 23:09:29 2007. Actually, I support the space program TO THE HILT. GO NASA! Their technology benefits the military BIG TIME and ends up serving ALL other industries as well. |
|
|
| (488499) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Sep 9 23:49:06 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Rail Blue on Sun Sep 9 10:02:33 2007. Actually, I was thinking of a London-centric HSL model with a LGV basically running along a London-Birmingham-Manchester or Liverpool axis. I'd leave Leeds and Newcastle as a spur off the mainline with some improved tracks. If you're really bored, you could always run a HSL from Main Line LGV from Birmingham and run a spur to serve places like Nottingham and Sheffield on an M42/A42 axis.BTW, why a HSL to Bristol? You're almost as optimistic as the planners at RENFE. OTOH, my plan reeks of the "Paris as hub of the universe" model that SNCF has operated under for nearly 25 years. This includes factors like the basic fact that getting in and out of Birmingham would kill all the time savings of HSR You do realize that you don't have to run into the existing terminals, and you can build new stations along the outskirts of towns with connections to local transport to avoid having to run into classical terminals? SNCF uses this with Lille Europe, the Interconexion LGV, and the LGV Rhone Alpes Bypass of Lyon. If your non-conventional trains are beating the high speed trains, your high speed line wasn't designed correctly or you placed way too many stops on the line. SNCF goes from Paris to Marseille in 3:30, the least we can do is London to Glasgow in 2:45. Erie, PA, (102,036) probably deserves an HSR stop. Erie, PA is *pissant*. There's much there except for a couple of abandoned factories and a manufacturing centre for locomotives.* More significantly, as land is severely limited in London, it would essentially make a central Birmingham location as good for business as being shunted out to the Isle of Dogs. Hey, I like Canary Wharf! It's pretty, shiny, modern, and new! |
|
|
| (488503) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 23:55:00 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by BIE on Sun Sep 9 23:09:52 2007. why don't you STFUMake me. I ain't going to clam up on this matter, so deal with it. None of it is a personal attack against you, so I don't even understand you reactions towards it. Nothing can be done about the fact that the US has thrown away its world leadership I'm aware of that. I'm not in denial over that. All I can do is point out what's going on in the world thanks to the Neocon abandonment of it (while they claimed to assert it). As for the terrorists, they also are a problem for Europe, Russia, India and China. Working with those entities, the world can EASILY rid itself of those troublemakers. Yup, but the laugh is, they're all saying that the USA is a greater danger to world peace than the terrorists and the supporting nations. That's gotta be erased before we can even cooperate with these nations on an even level. However, Russia's selling weapons to Iran, China's spreading communism in Africa and South America, the SCO is being set up as a counter-NATO, all that jazz; all stuff intended to shut the USA out of the picture eventually. What the US has to assert is the Monroe Doctrine. The Americas can provide a fine standard of living for ALL Pan Americans Indeed. Substituting "XXFTA" ain't working, and it's sucking our economy dry while enriching them. |
|
|
| (488504) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 23:59:32 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by BIE on Sun Sep 9 23:13:41 2007. Poor choice of words; should have said commercial aviation. |
|
|
| (488511) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Mon Sep 10 00:28:38 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 23:55:00 2007. "Yup, but the laugh is, they're all saying that the USA is a greater danger to world peace than the terrorists and the supporting nations. That's gotta be erased before we can even cooperate with these nations on an even level. However, Russia's selling weapons to Iran, China's spreading communism in Africa and South America, the SCO is being set up as a counter-NATO, all that jazz; all stuff intended to shut the USA out of the picture eventually."Once the republicans are out of power we can repair relations with those countries relatively easily. |
|
|
| (488528) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by UWS Greg on Mon Sep 10 01:11:28 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 03:50:28 2007. The one disappointment of many people who ride a HSR for the first time is that you can't really call it a "scenic" ride. Unless there's WIDE open space trackside, you can't see anything. Anything even close to the track is just a blur.I've been on the TGVs many times and once on EuroStar. Absolutely amazing what can be done when the WILL to do it is there. ("Will," of course, includes the money to pay for it.) Here, we grumble endlessly about traffic, gas prices, congestion, airports, etc. Yet- as we've seen even on this board- people grumble with the same intensity at solutions. I think that's called NOT having your cake and NOT eating it either. |
|
|
| (488530) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by UWS Greg on Mon Sep 10 01:16:22 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Sun Sep 9 22:59:19 2007. ".. you still saved 5!!"HAHAHA! True, bro, but being stuck in an airport overnight with NO amenities, no place to go, nothing to eat, no place to get comfortable is a special kind of hell. And WORST of all-- the damn P.A. never, never, never stops. "Florida is an indoor clean air state...." "Do not leave packages or suitcases unattended...." That goes on every 5 minutes all night long. I thought I'd go mad.... |
|
|
| (488555) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 10 04:27:31 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 8 18:44:54 2007. 'They [= us in the UK}do have one such line, finally, but the resistance to others is remarkable and makes no sense.'It isn't resistance. It's unwillingness to find the money. |
|
|
| (488556) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 10 04:38:19 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by WillD on Sat Sep 8 19:05:20 2007. 'That's very true, but that one line is also fairly usless for intranational travel, and the UK's draconian immigration policies on that line limit its utility for that role. IMHO if the first British HSR line had been say London to Birmingham/Manchester then there would be a bigger push for other lines. Instead it can be written off by the conservative MoT folks as an invasion of French thinking which won't be allowed to expand.'There arer several misconceptions in that statement. First, I don't think there is much positive opposition to HSR in the UK; it's more negative, an unwillingness to give it priority for public expenditure over other things like schools and hospitals (and fighting stupid wars at George W. Bush's insistence). Public opposition to new highway and airport proposals tends to be greater, in fact, than to rail proposals. Secondly, the new line will be some, not no, use for internal travel, though obviously not as much use as one going northwards from London would be. Thirdly, UK immigration rules have little to do with the amount of passenger traffic between the UK and the continent; the vast majority of travellers are not immigrants, but UK or other EU citizens on legitimate business or vacation trips, returning to their homeland after a few days or weeks, and the overall number of travellers between the UK and continental Europe continues to grow. The security precautions are a pain, to be sure, but they are actually a worse pain for air travel than for rail travel, so relatively speaking that should benefit HSR over airlines. Finally, the problem with the Department of Transport bureaucrats is not that they are anti-French, but that they are pro-road. |
|
|
| (488557) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 10 04:50:13 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by WillD on Sat Sep 8 23:26:25 2007. That's an excellent list, which shows that the USA *could* make a success of rail as much of Europe has done. Rail can be competetive on city-centre-to-city-centre times over a range of roughly 150 to 400 miles, or maybe 500 with genuine HSR. Shorter than 150 miles, it's just as easy to drive in your own car, unless parking and/or traffic congestion at your destination is bad. Longer than 400/500, even after taking into account travel to the airport, check-in and security delays, and travel from the airport at the destination, air is likely to be quicker. And don't forget, most people don't live at Penn Station or Kings Cross/St Pancras; they live in suburbs, so time of travel from home *to* the main line terminus needs to be factored in for rail too.Within rail's competitive range, other factors come into play: price is clearly important, but so is convenience (e.g. having a direct one-seat ride from A to B, not having to change vehicle en route). In my view, the growth of low-cost airlines in the UK for doemstic and short-range European travel is mainly down to these two factors. |
|
|
| (488558) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 10 04:55:56 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 22:38:19 2007. 'When it's been built and/or it successfully competes with air travel without governmental interference'You can't build any highway, railway or airport without government 'interference'. You need compulsory purchase (in US English, eminent domain) powers to get the necessary areas of contiguous land assembled before you can start, and there is an obvious relationship between transportation facilities (whether publicly or privately funded) and land-use policies. |
|
|
| (488559) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 10 05:01:50 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Charles G on Sun Sep 9 11:58:43 2007. 'It is worth considering, though, that for many of the corridors you describe HSR is not competing with air travel but rather with auto travel.'That's an important point, and Americans do seem to be more willing to contemplate very long drives than Europeans are. A drive of 300 miles in a day isn't bad - say six hours inclusive of one or two pit-stops. But I wouldn't want to do the round trip in the day, which I could do by air. And not all possible journeys are provided with high-speed highways all the way. New Zealand, where I had a holiday in January of this year, has virtually none outside of Auckland and its suburbs, and I never planned trips of more than 300 miles in a day, despite empty roads. |
|
|
| (488560) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 10 05:16:48 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Rail Blue on Sun Sep 9 10:02:33 2007. 'K60200 Greater London Urban Area - - - 8,278,251G90700 West Midlands Urban Area - - - 2,284,093 D90200 Greater Manchester Urban Area - - - 2,240,230 (erroneously published as 2,244,931 (the Helsby error); still the definitions are a bit suspect compared to other Urban Areas -- I believe the true figure to be around 1,530,746) D41300 West Yorkshire Urban Area - - - 1,499,465 . G90708 Birmingham (Urban Area Subdivision) - - - 970,892 B81100 Tyneside - - - 879,996 D84100 Liverpool Urban Area - - - 816,216 F90800 Nottingham Urban Area - - - 666,358 E17000 Sheffield Urban Area - - - 640,720 K24600 Bristol Urban Area - - - 551,066' It all depends how you define the urban areas, doean't it? In a small densely populated country, the definitions get difficult. Already you have Birmingham counted by itself as well as within the overall West Midlands figure. Arguably Manchester plus Liverpool is all one urban area, which gets you to over three million. The Nottingham figure given must include Derby, to get to that number, but given the distances concerned you could equally well include Leicester too and get well past a million. Midland Mainline has already proposed an 'East Midlands Parkway' station in the middle of the Nottingham-Derby-Leicester triangle, which could hypothetically be served by a future HSR system for connections with other services. As your 'Impossible Ideal HSR' map shows, the problem in the UK is not a lack of large enough centres of population, or their distances apart, it is that the layout of them is not conducive to serving them all by one, or even two HSR lines. |
|
|
| (488574) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 10 06:34:33 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by UWS Greg on Mon Sep 10 01:11:28 2007. 'Here, we grumble endlessly about traffic, gas prices, congestion, airports, etc. Yet - as we've seen even on this board - people grumble with the same intensity at solutions. I think that's called NOT having your cake and NOT eating it either.'Noce way of putting it, UWS Greg. IAWYP. |
|
|
| (488598) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 10 08:20:29 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Rail Blue on Sun Sep 9 10:02:33 2007. 'Impossible Ideal HSR Diagram [of England]'Not totally impossible, just expensive and disruptive to existing land-uses, if you: (a) adopt the system of building it in stages, with links to existing highish speed lines to use in the meanwhile, or indeed forever if you don't wnat to be nice to the Scots; and (b) build the new lines alongside motorways. Leaving aside the question of where you London terminus should be - the British Library having snaffled the obvious site, alongside the Eurostar terminus - you start off alongside the M1 to Watford Gap. Lay in a connection to the existing WCML where it's alongside the M1 already. Stage 2, you continue from Watford Gap alongside the M6 to Birmingham (new station near Spaghetti Junction somewhere) and Liverpool - *but see below. You also continue a second route from Watford Gap Junction, alongside the M1 to East Midlands Parkway, Sheffield (Meadowhall), Leeds (station location to be decided), and then following the M1 again northeastwards back to the A1 corridor near York. Then make a link to the existing ECML to reach Newcastle and Edinburgh (and maybe Glasgow) - if you make the junction south of York station the HSTs can stop there too, and at Darligton, for Teesside, if you like. *Alternatively to running B'ham-Liverpool, run up the M6 to a Manchester/Liverpool Parkway station near where it crosses the M62, and continue to Preston, where you rejoin the existing WCML south of the station, to allow through running to Glasgow. Stage 3, follow the M4 to Bristol Parkway and South Wales (exact location of the Greater Cardiff station to be determined). Stage 5, follow the M5/M6 from Bristol Parkway to Birmingham (Spaghetti Junction station) then the M42 to East Midlands Parkway, before heading north of the aformentioned route to Sheffield etc. That's done most of it. The East-West route in the Leeds-Manchester vicinity could probably be accommodated by upgrading existing lines to give a fastish Hull-Leeds-Manchester(centre)-Manchester/Liverpool Parkway-Liverpool (centre) route. The country isn't actually very wide at that point, and the distances from one major city to the next barely exceed 40 miles. |
|
|
| (488613) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 10 09:21:17 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by BIE on Sun Sep 9 22:49:10 2007. Errr... no. If you tried using Tours station as an intermediate point, there would be an almighty crash. |
|
|
| (488636) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 10 10:27:56 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Sep 9 23:49:06 2007. Actually, I was thinking of a London-centric HSL model with a LGV basically running along a London-Birmingham-Manchester or Liverpool axis. I'd leave Leeds and Newcastle as a spur off the mainline with some improved tracks.The north-east was served by a branch off the WCML in the 1840s. There wasn't enough capacity then, and there isn't now. BTW, why a HSL to Bristol? You're almost as optimistic as the planners at RENFE. OTOH, my plan reeks of the "Paris as hub of the universe" model that SNCF has operated under for nearly 25 years. Well, it's no more absurd than TGV Atlantique... And Paris-hub-of-the-universe only works because France is so centered on Paris. "This includes factors like the basic fact that getting in and out of Birmingham would kill all the time savings of HSR" You do realize that you don't have to run into the existing terminals, and you can build new stations along the outskirts of towns with connections to local transport to avoid having to run into classical terminals? SNCF uses this with Lille Europe, the Interconexion LGV, and the LGV Rhone Alpes Bypass of Lyon. Of course I realize that, but there are limitations to such a strategy given the population distribution of England. If your non-conventional trains are beating the high speed trains, your high speed line wasn't designed correctly or you placed way too many stops on the line. SNCF goes from Paris to Marseille in 3:30, the least we can do is London to Glasgow in 2:45. That would be at a far faster speed than the SNCF does (you'd be looking at at least 3 hours in terms of mileage), and the population distribution is totally different (two thirds of the population live in urban areas in the rough shape of the letter "Q", with London on the tail, Birmingham at the join, and Leeds at the top). What you think are "way too many stops" are the basics needed to serve England before absurd money-wasting trains to Scotland (and quite frankly, London Euston, Watford Junction, Birmingham International, Stoke-on-Trent, Warrington Bank Quay High Level, Wigan North Western, Preston, Lancaster, is not exactly a vast number of stops for the distance -- it's equivalent to an average spacing of about 35 miles). The conventional/HSL equation is a special case: it's a big problem with any concept of HSL in Britain that getting back out of Birmingham to the north-west involves 36 painfully slow miles to Stafford. The way that the numbers work out are that Stafford would be the same time from London by the conventional route and by an HSL to Birmingham. And even then you couldn't prefer the route via Birmingham in this case anyway, as there are massive capacity constraints, particularly between New Street station and Grand Junction. But this is ultimately just why what looks like the hypothetical ideal network would never work. There are actually good ways of using HSL in England, but the result looks somewhat different from that map. "Erie, PA, (102,036) probably deserves an HSR stop." Erie, PA is *pissant*. There's much there except for a couple of abandoned factories and a manufacturing centre for locomotives.* I'm sure it could be a perfectly nice place to live. It's at least a serious old city. And it plugs what would otherwise be a 190 mile gap between Buffalo and Cleveland. "More significantly, as land is severely limited in London, it would essentially make a central Birmingham location as good for business as being shunted out to the Isle of Dogs." Hey, I like Canary Wharf! It's pretty, shiny, modern, and new! Oh, I totally agree, but that doesn't get around the big problem of a finite quantity of land between the Chiltern Hills and the North Downs. |
|
|
| (488641) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 10 10:41:12 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 10 04:50:13 2007. Shorter than 150 miles, it's just as easy to drive in your own car, unless parking and/or traffic congestion at your destination is bad.Or if the drive is totally sleep-inducing. And don't forget, most people don't live at Penn Station or Kings Cross/St Pancras; they live in suburbs, so time of travel from home *to* the main line terminus needs to be factored in for rail too. True, but it's rarely as bad as getting to some goxforsaken airfield. And if you live on the main line, one might be lucky enough to be able to ride a local train out to Peterborough or Trenton to pick up that high speed train. And, of course, quite a few people do live in remarkably great central locations. |
|
|
| (488642) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 10 10:43:57 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 10 10:27:56 2007. 'The north-east [of England] was served by a branch off the WCML in the 1840s. There wasn't enough capacity then, and there isn't now.''...it's a big problem with any concept of HSL in Britain that getting back out of Birmingham to the north-west involves 36 painfully slow miles to Stafford'. But we are discussing building new High Speed lines! |
|
|
| (488644) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 10 10:48:16 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 10 05:01:50 2007. That's an important point, and Americans do seem to be more willing to contemplate very long drives than Europeans are.With one exception: I know plenty of people who will drive 800+ miles in a day to get back to England from doing a tour of caves cooperatives in the south of France. I do think they're all slightly bonkers though. |
|
|
| (488648) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 10 10:58:51 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 10 10:48:16 2007. 'With one exception: I know plenty of people who will drive 800+ miles in a day to get back to England from doing a tour of caves cooperatives in the south of France.'I did that once, without a break in the driving except for the time on the ferry between Calais and Dover. It was a bad mistake; I was definitely not safe on the road for the last 100 miles or so to Nottingham, where I lived then. I've also done Bedford-Edinburgh round trip in the day (about 700 miles). Even though I had help with the driving on the way back, this was also a mistake, as I was far too tired to be driving on the M1 on the last leg of the journey back to Bedford. |
|
|
| (488674) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 10 12:18:20 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 10 05:16:48 2007. It all depends how you define the urban areas, doean't it?Well, they all seem to be pretty tight, apart from Greater Manchester, where they seem to have found every place they could affix a neighbouring urban area by a single street. In a small densely populated country, the definitions get difficult. Even so, the official urban area stats are pretty good. They at least generally indicate the same sort of thing, albeit with problems for the Urban Area figure for Manchester (which is inconsistent with other Urban Areas' definitions) and the subdivision figures for London (which are worse than useless*). Already you have Birmingham counted by itself as well as within the overall West Midlands figure. It's indented, as it's a subdivision (you might also have noticed that Urban Area codes end in 00). It just happens to be the largest subdivision by such a long way that it's larger than all but four urban areas. And, yes, that does exclude Sutton Coldfield. Arguably Manchester plus Liverpool is all one urban area, which gets you to over three million. Actually there's a better case for joining the Liverpool Urban Area and the Birkenhead Urban Area (see what I mean about the definitions being tight?). But if we're going to create any meta-urban areas, we might as well admit that the randstad phenomenon exists, whereby you might as well join Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, Coventry, Birmingham, etc etc etc. The Nottingham figure given must include Derby, to get to that number Actually, they're separate too: F90800 Nottingham Urban Area - - - 666,358 . F90808 Arnold - - - 37,402 . F90811 Beeston and Stapleford - - - 66,683 . F90814 Breaston - - - 7,305 . F90809 Carlton - - - 48,493 . F90817 Clifton - - - 22,312 . F90804 Eastwood - - - 18,612 . F90803 Heanor - - - 22,620 . F90801 Hucknall - - - 29,188 . F90815 Ilkeston - - - 37,270 . F90805 Kimberley - - - 11,027 . F90812 Long Eaton - - - 46,490 . F90806 Nottingham - - - 249,584 . F90802 Ripley - - - 18,523 . F90807 Ruddington - - - 6,264 . F90810 West Bridgford - - - 43,395 F80300 Derby Urban Area - - - 236,738 . F80302 Borrowash - - - 5,621 . F80301 Derby - - - 229,407 . F80303 Ockbrook - - - 1,710 but given the distances concerned you could equally well include Leicester too and get well past a million. Leicester is even distinguished from Loughborough. H07200 Leicester Urban Area - - - 441,213 . H07212 Beaumont Leys - - - 5,579 . H07204 Birstall - - - 11,480 . H07210 Blaby - - - 6,163 . H07211 Cosby - - - 3,647 . H07206 Groby - - - 6,256 . H07208 Kirby Muxloe - - - 9,500 . H07201 Leicester - - - 330,574 . H07203 Oadby - - - 22,679 . H07205 Queniborough - - - 2,257 . H07207 Ratby - - - 3,862 . H07209 Whetstone - - - 6,100 . H07202 Wigston - - - 33,116 F92900 Loughborough - - - 55,258 Midland Mainline has already proposed an 'East Midlands Parkway' station in the middle of the Nottingham-Derby-Leicester triangle, which could hypothetically be served by a future HSR system for connections with other services. IMHO, that would be very silly indeed. The idea of riding a bus from anywhere in Leicester to a field outside Loughborough fills me with horror. As your 'Impossible Ideal HSR' map shows, the problem in the UK is not a lack of large enough centres of population, or their distances apart, it is that the layout of them is not conducive to serving them all by one, or even two HSR lines. The other aspect is that the conventional lines are generally quite good, with the main exception of severe capacity problems in the centres of Birmingham, Leeds, and Manchester, plus a long stretch of the southern portion of the WCML. * Here are the worse than useless subdivision figures for London. Actually, that's slightly cruel: they've only made a totally lazy mess-up within the GLC boundary: K60200 Greater London Urban Area - - - 8,278,251 . K60261 Addlestone - - - 14,652 . K60254 Banstead/Tadworth - - - 38,664 . K60230 Barking and Dagenham - - - 163,944 . K60207 Barnet - - - 314,019 . K60239 Bexley - - - 211,802 . K60214 Brent - - - 263,464 . K60256 Bromley - - - 280,305 . K60204 Bushey - - - 17,001 . K60223 Camden - - - 198,020 . K60257 Caterham and Warlingham - - - 31,649 . K60245 Chertsey - - - 10,323 . K60209 Cheshunt - - - 55,275 . K60218 Chigwell - - - 10,128 . K60258 Chorleywood - - - 11,657 . K60227 City of London - - - 7,185 . K60255 Croydon - - - 316,283 . K60240 Dartford - - - 56,818 . K60220 Ealing - - - 300,948 . K60241 Egham - - - 27,666 . K60208 Enfield - - - 273,203 . K60251 Epsom and Ewell - - - 64,493 . K60248 Esher/Molesey - - - 50,344 . K60270 Gravesend - - - 53,045 . K60238 Greenwich - - - 219,263 . K60225 Hackney - - - 202,824 . K60221 Hammersmith and Fulham - - - 165,242 . K60215 Haringey - - - 216,507 . K60206 Harrow - - - 206,643 . K60231 Havering - - - 223,193 . K60201 Hemel Hempstead - - - 83,118 . K60213 Hillingdon - - - 242,755 . K60211 Hoddesdon - - - 35,235 . K60232 Hounslow - - - 212,341 . K60224 Islington - - - 175,797 . K60222 Kensington and Chelsea - - - 158,439 . K60202 Kings Langley - - - 7,072 . K60249 Kingston upon Thames - - - 146,873 . K60235 Lambeth - - - 267,785 . K60252 Leatherhead - - - 42,885 . K60237 Lewisham - - - 248,922 . K60217 Loughton - - - 41,078 . K60250 Merton - - - 187,908 . K60229 Newham - - - 243,891 . K60269 Northfleet - - - 23,457 . K60262 Ottershaw - - - 3,376 . K60219 Redbridge - - - 240,796 . K60233 Richmond upon Thames - - - 172,335 . K60212 Rickmansworth - - - 11,781 . K60260 Shepperton - - - 9,886 . K60205 South Oxhey - - - 16,918 . K60236 Southwark - - - 243,749 . K60243 Staines - - - 50,538 . K60244 Sunbury - - - 27,415 . K60242 Sunningdale/Ascot - - - 17,509 . K60253 Sutton - - - 177,796 . K60268 Swanscombe - - - 15,389 . K60228 Tower Hamlets - - - 196,106 . K60259 Virginia Water - - - 8,368 . K60210 Waltham Abbey - - - 17,675 . K60216 Waltham Forest - - - 218,341 . K60246 Walton and Weybridge - - - 52,890 . K60234 Wandsworth - - - 259,881 . K60203 Watford - - - 120,960 . K60267 West End - - - 4,135 . K60226 Westminster - - - 181,766 . K60263 Windlesham - - - 4,103 . K60247 Woking/Byfleet - - - 101,127 However, a vaguely useful aggregate figure can be obtained for a sort of "London" that approximates to the quality of definition of "Birmingham" as a subdivision: . K60223 Camden - - - 198,020 . K60227 City of London - - - 7,185 . K60225 Hackney - - - 202,824 . K60221 Hammersmith and Fulham - - - 165,242 . K60224 Islington - - - 175,797 . K60222 Kensington and Chelsea - - - 158,439 . K60235 Lambeth - - - 267,785 . K60237 Lewisham - - - 248,922 . K60236 Southwark - - - 243,749 . K60228 Tower Hamlets - - - 196,106 . K60234 Wandsworth - - - 259,881 . K60226 Westminster - - - 181,766 TOTAL 2,107,696 This is of course equivalent to the former LCC boundary minus Greenwich. Oh, and in case anyone thinks "hahaha, he missed the West End", West End is a village in Surrey near Esher. So, taking this figure for London and discarding all other subdivisions inside the GLC boundary as utter nonsense, the largest subdivisions (i.e. cities) in England and Wales are (with division lines at 1 million, and then recursive division by the cube root of 10, cut off at 100,000): 1) K60### London - - - 2,107,696 (217%) 2) G90708 Birmingham - - - 970,892 (100%) 3) D84104 Liverpool - - - 469,017 (48%) 4) D41306 Leeds - - - 443,247 (46%) 5) E17003 Sheffield - - - 439,866 (45%) 6) K24601 Bristol - - - 420,556 (43%) 7) D90235 Manchester - - - 394,269 (41%) 8) H07201 Leicester - - - 330,574 (34%) 9) H07002 Coventry - - - 303,475 (31%) 10) D70400 Kingston upon Hull - - - 301,416 (31%) 11) D41309 Bradford - - - 293,717 (30%) 12) K12202 Cardiff - - - 292,150 (30%) 13) E83203 Stoke-on-Trent - - - 259,252 (27%) 14) G90701 Wolverhampton - - - 251,462 (26%) 15) F90806 Nottingham - - - 249,584 (26%) 16) N11100 Plymouth - - - 243,795 (25%) 17) M66602 Southampton - - - 234,224 (24%) 18) K56801 Reading - - - 232,662 (24%) 19) F80301 Derby - - - 229,407 (24%) 20) G90704 Dudley - - - 194,919 (20%) 21) B81104 Newcastle upon Tyne - - - 189,863 (20%) 22) I28201 Northampton - - - 189,474 (20%) 23) M61703 Portsmouth - - - 187,056 (19%) 24) J60702 Luton - - - 185,543 (19%) 25) D21501 Preston - - - 184,836 (19%) 26) B81901 Sunderland - - - 177,739 (18%) 27) G46101 Norwich - - - 174,047 (18%) 28) G90702 Walsall - - - 170,994 (18%) 29) I91801 Swansea - - - 169,880 (17%) 30) M54502 Bournemouth - - - 167,527 (17%) 31) K80405 Southend-on-Sea - - - 160,257 (17%) 32) K35000 Swindon - - - 155,432 (16%) 33) D41320 Huddersfield - - - 146,234 (15%) 34) M54501 Poole - - - 144,800 (15%) 35) J41400 Oxford - - - 143,016 (15%) 36) C35004 Middlesbrough - - - 142,691 (15%) 37) D20304 Blackpool - - - 142,283 (15%) --) G90707 Oldbury/Smethwick - - - 139,855 (14%) ***NONSENSE RESULT -- ARBITRARY 1966-74 BOUNDARY*** (Assuming consistent proportions from 1939, Smethwick should be about 64,381, with the rest roughly halved between Oldbury and Rowley Regis) 38) D90206 Bolton - - - 139,403 (14%) 39) J94501 Ipswich - - - 138,718 (14%) 40) D50300 York - - - 137,505 (14%) 41) G90705 West Bromwich - - - 136,940 (14%) 42) H20700 Peterborough - - - 136,292 (14%) 43) D90247 Stockport - - - 136,082 (14%) 44) M83708 Brighton - - - 134,293 (14%) 45) K61001 Slough - - - 126,276 (13%) 46) J25301 Gloucester - - - 123,205 (13%) 47) K60203 Watford - - - 120,960 (12%) 48) I41203 Cambridge/Milton - - - 117,717 (12%) 49) E17002 Rotherham - - - 117,262 (12%) 50) K11401 Newport (South Wales) - - - 116,143 (12%) 51) M20600 Exeter - - - 106,772 (11%) 52) M91200 Eastbourne - - - 106,562 (11%) 53) G90706 Sutton Coldfield - - - 105,452 (11%) 54) D31201 Blackburn - - - 105,085 (11%) 55) J80800 Colchester - - - 104,390 (11%) 56) D90221 Oldham - - - 103,544 (11%) 57) D84106 St. Helens - - - 102,629 (11%) 58) K60247 Woking/Byfleet - - - 101,127 (10%) 59) L71402 Crawley - - - 100,547 (10%) |
|
|
| (488727) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 10 14:09:09 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 10 08:20:29 2007. 'Impossible Ideal HSR Diagram [of England]'Not totally impossible, just expensive and disruptive to existing land-uses, if you: (a) adopt the system of building it in stages, with links to existing highish speed lines to use in the meanwhile, or indeed forever if you don't wnat to be nice to the Scots; and (b) build the new lines alongside motorways. Well, the bigger problem is probably that it's not desirable in that form. It doesn't pay any attention to existing lines, and Urban Areas have a distinct bias against large compact stand-alone cities (e.g. Leicester (rank: 8), Coventry (9), Hull (10), Cardiff (12), Stoke (13), Plymouth (16), Southampton (17), Reading (18), and Derby (19)) and against major secondary centres of conurbations (e.g. Bradford (11) and Wolverhampton (14)). For instance, could one justify Wolverhampton losing its through service to London on the grounds of HSR to Birmingham? (And Greengauge 21's plan would pose exactly this question). And dare we repeat the BR/GNER "ignore Hull" mistake? Leaving aside the question of where you London terminus should be - the British Library having snaffled the obvious site, alongside the Eurostar terminus - you start off alongside the M1 to Watford Gap. Lay in a connection to the existing WCML where it's alongside the M1 already. Stage 2, you continue from Watford Gap alongside the M6 to Birmingham (new station near Spaghetti Junction somewhere) and Liverpool - *but see below. You also continue a second route from Watford Gap Junction, alongside the M1 to East Midlands Parkway, Sheffield (Meadowhall), Leeds (station location to be decided), and then following the M1 again northeastwards back to the A1 corridor near York. The Y-shaped network idea is tempting, but ultimately it's asking for capacity problems between the junction and London. *Alternatively to running B'ham-Liverpool, run up the M6 to a Manchester/Liverpool Parkway station near where it crosses the M62, and continue to Preston, where you rejoin the existing WCML south of the station, to allow through running to Glasgow. That would lengthen journey times to Liverpool and (especially) Manchester. Stage 3, follow the M4 to Bristol Parkway and South Wales (exact location of the Greater Cardiff station to be determined). In the middle of the proposed Severn Barrage? But seriously, I don't actually think all those lines are necessary. I'd go for something more like this: HS2 - part "a" EUSTON (existing) WATFORD JUNCTION (existing) (existing Fast Lines to a point south of King's Langley) [get under the Chilterns for free] (the old Fast Lines north of this point would merge into the Slow Lines to London) then roughly parallel the A41 to Quainton Road then on the GCR trackbed to Woodford Halse [get under the Watershed of England for free] then north-westwards, utilizing a section of Stratford & Midland Junction past Southam and the Kenilworth - Berkswell Line then parallel the existing London and Birmingham Line line gains extra pair of tracks with access from Coventry and from HS2 South then turning north parallel to the M42 BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL "B" (new) (non-Cov pair of tracks to HS2b / Cov pair continue as HS2a) continue parallel to M42 to J7, then parallel M6 to a point west of Water Orton then parallel Midland Railway tracks to: BIRMINGHAM CURZON STREET (new) (some trains continue to Wolverhampton via Birmingham New Street) HS2 - part "b" (from HS2a - BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL "B") continue parallel to M42 to a point between J8 and J9 curve from Midland Railway Water Orton - Kingsbury curve in Birmingham direction to HS2 north (effectively forming triangular junction) then parallel to M6 Toll to a point south of Lichfield then diagonally to join existing North Staffs line near Hixon (Hixon-Colwich service withdrawn) then on new tracks parallel to existing ones from Stone to Kidsgrove STOKE-ON-TRENT (expanded) Kidsgrove Junction (for Manchester via Macclesfield and Stockport) Then to Weaver Junction (variety of possible routes) (line diverges to Liverpool via Runcorn and Scotland/Lancaster via Warrington) HS2.5 intermediate project assorted simplification/segregation of fast/slow track layouts in the Stockport area HS3 (bit of a misnomer, but a new line is needed) LIVERPOOL LIME STREET (existing) LIVERPOOL SOUTH PARKWAY (existing) Ditton Junction (existing) then via former LNWR line to: WARRINGTON BANK QUAY LOW LEVEL then parallel to the Manchester Ship Canal then a short link in the Eccles/Salford borderlands then parallel to the original Liverpool & Manchester Railway MANCHESTER OXFORD ROAD then quadruple the viaduct (possibly by putting the local services underground) MANCHESTER PICCADILLY flyover the entire formation new tracks on north side of GCR/MSLR various potential routes to Diggle utilize the spare Standedge Tunnels utilize the spare ROW through: HUDDERSFIELD then, after Bradley, run north to reach the M62 at Hartshead Moor then parallel the M62 potential junction near Cleckheaton for HS3 services to Bradford continue to parallel the M62/M621 swing north alongside the GNR to pick up the Farnley Viaduct LEEDS CITY then quadruple (including the viaduct, possibly putting local services underground) to Micklefield Junction HS4 Should do something about the ECML. Who knows what though... Whatever it is will be horrendously expensive. Other things 1) Sort out the level crossings between Birmingham and Bristol, and raise the line-speed. 2) Rebuild the Reading station area. 3) Possibly re-open Ambergate main line platforms, allowing a Derby to Sheffield local service to be overtaken. |
|
|
| (488730) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 10 14:21:51 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 10 10:43:57 2007. 'The north-east [of England] was served by a branch off the WCML in the 1840s. There wasn't enough capacity then, and there isn't now.''...it's a big problem with any concept of HSL in Britain that getting back out of Birmingham to the north-west involves 36 painfully slow miles to Stafford'. But we are discussing building new High Speed lines! 1) The network of the 1840s was analogous to this situation. The results were the GN and Midland Main Lines. There is simply too much fast long-distance traffic for the get everyone to Hampton-in-Arden/Rugby for London solution. 2) This is a (badly expressed, I admit) scenario, whereby an HSL would reach Birmingham. The point is that any through train from London to beyond Birmingham is only fit for Wolverhampton (and possibly Shrewsbury), as the line through the Black Country is slow enough to lose the advantage of the HSL section versus the ordinary WCML by Stafford. This really means that Birmingham has to be on a branch, which has interesting implications for service patterns. |
|
|
| (488731) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 10 14:24:36 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 10 10:58:51 2007. 'With one exception: I know plenty of people who will drive 800+ miles in a day to get back to England from doing a tour of caves cooperatives in the south of France.'I did that once, without a break in the driving except for the time on the ferry between Calais and Dover. It was a bad mistake; I was definitely not safe on the road for the last 100 miles or so to Nottingham, where I lived then. Funny how no-one ever decides they'll stay in a hotel in Kent... |
|
|
| (489001) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 11 04:24:22 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 10 12:18:20 2007. 'Midland Mainline has already proposed an 'East Midlands Parkway' station in the middle of the Nottingham-Derby-Leicester triangle, which could hypothetically be served by a future HSR system for connections with other services.''IMHO, that would be very silly indeed. The idea of riding a bus from anywhere in Leicester to a field outside Loughborough fills me with horror.' I wasn't suggesting a bus: I was assuming existing train services would stop there and a TGV station would be added. I was hypothesizing a French-style TGV network with a new 'out-of-town' station for the East Midlands (also serving the airport, which is why Midland Mainline proposed East Midlands Parkway in the first place). I'm not convinced about including Leicester in its catchment, but it doesn't seem as if your minimal TGV network would cover Leicester otherwise. I do think the TGV concept requires new thinking about trains, treating the stations more like airports, which a lot of people will drive to (hence 'Parkway' stations), while others will get there on local trains running on the 'old' railways. |
|
|
| (489002) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 11 04:37:09 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 10 14:09:09 2007. You're still not adopting the TGV/Shinkansen concept of a brand new line for high-speed rail, you're still thinking about improving the existing network in the UK. I got castigated on this board before for doing that - I wastold that we Brits were being unambitious, etc. So I took your 'Impossible Ideal' map and tried to see what we could do by putting brand new lines alongside motorways. Your alleged capacity problem between London and Watford Gap Junction, for example, would be avoided because the new line would be designed from the start with sufficient capacity to carry trains to both the northwest and he northeast. Similarly, you are still not embracing the TGV idea (also adopted by Amtrak, actually!) of having out-of-town stations that behave more like airports. I admit my Manchester/Liverpool Parkway idea was a bit extreme, but I did only offer it as an alternative. However, if carefully placed in relation to the road network, it could serve most of greater Liverpool (except the Wirral bit) and the whole west side of greater Manchester quite well as a park-and-ride station. |
|
|
| (489043) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Tue Sep 11 08:57:16 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 10 14:24:36 2007. "Funny how no-one ever decides they'll stay in a hotel in Kent..." I've done my Grandparent's house in Margate, though for non-day trips we tended to do the Portsmouth-St Malo overnight ferry, as we were on that side of France (this was before the A28, A29, etc). We did stay near Tours and do Dover-Calais - we got lost in Paris as the directions we were told to follow were out of date and the map we had was totally inadequate.Have stayed in a B&B overlooking the Western Docks, and also a hotel halfway between the Eastern and Western Docks. However these were for family things, rather than getting the ferry. As far as I could tell, very few people used this accommodation to get an early ferry - the B&B seemed to make most of it's money by being a 24 hour bar for dock workers as well, and has shut since I stayed there. I think the longest drives I have had in Europe were to Loch Lomond from Amersham (we stopped off overnight on the way back near Chester, as we were coming from Fort William) and Amersham to near the Lizard, Calais to Tours was also a long one. You hear of coach trips to the Alps and so on as well. |
|
|
| (489053) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Sep 11 09:09:58 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 11 04:37:09 2007. You're still not adopting the TGV/Shinkansen concept of a brand new line for high-speed rail, you're still thinking about improving the existing network in the UK.Well, the TGV at least uses parts of existing lines. I got castigated on this board before for doing that - I wastold that we Brits were being unambitious, etc. I think new London - Liverpool and Liverpool - Leeds lines are quite ambitious and are actually all that is needed in terms on longish distance new lines at the moment. So I took your 'Impossible Ideal' map and tried to see what we could do by putting brand new lines alongside motorways. Your alleged capacity problem between London and Watford Gap Junction, for example, would be avoided because the new line would be designed from the start with sufficient capacity to carry trains to both the northwest and he northeast. Well, let's think about the numbers. I would say that this would be a fairly minimalistic arrangement of West Coast HSR trains: 4tph - London - Birmingham 2tph - Continent - Birmingham 2tph - South Coast - Birmingham 2tph - London - Liverpool 2tph - London - Manchester 2tph - London - Lancaster/Blackpool 1tph - London - Glasgow 1tph - London - Edinburgh 16tph TOTAL Already, we're getting quite close to the capacity of an HSL track. Then add the predictable East Coast stuff: 2tph - London - Newcastle/Edinburgh 2tph - London - Leeds/Bradford 2tph - London - Hull/Middlesbrough 2tph - London - Nottingham probably several other things I haven't thought of There's another 8tph for starters, and AIUI no TGV track in France operates more than 20tph, as the stopping distances at TGV speeds are such that the signal system cannot allow more capacity than this. So a line with adequate capacity to the railway version of M1 J19 would have four tracks. Alternatively, two tracks could go on an optimal alignment for the West Coast and two for the East. Similarly, you are still not embracing the TGV idea (also adopted by Amtrak, actually!) of having out-of-town stations that behave more like airports. I think it's actually an idea of extremely limited utility in the context of England, and that going to central stations is one of the big advantages of rail. And besides, you could drive to certain stations easily enough anyway: Watford Junction's just off the M25, Birmingham International is on the M42, and Stoke-on-Trent is on the A500. The only station I would want to make more accessible from out of town is Warrington Bank Quay, as Warrington is annoyingly surrounded by motorways on all sides except the useful one! I admit my Manchester/Liverpool Parkway idea was a bit extreme, but I did only offer it as an alternative. However, if carefully placed in relation to the road network, it could serve most of greater Liverpool (except the Wirral bit) and the whole west side of greater Manchester quite well as a park-and-ride station. Do we really want to be attracting people off existing rail services onto the roads? |
|
|
| (489069) | |
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Sep 11 10:12:51 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 11 04:24:22 2007. I wasn't suggesting a bus: I was assuming existing train services would stop there and a TGV station would be added. I was hypothesizing a French-style TGV network with a new 'out-of-town' station for the East Midlands (also serving the airport, which is why Midland Mainline proposed East Midlands Parkway in the first place). I'm not convinced about including Leicester in its catchment, but it doesn't seem as if your minimal TGV network would cover Leicester otherwise. I do think the TGV concept requires new thinking about trains, treating the stations more like airports, which a lot of people will drive to (hence 'Parkway' stations), while others will get there on local trains running on the 'old' railways.I'm sorry, but this is reminiscent of mistakes from the 1840s again: this time, the tirades against the Midland Railway in the local press of Sheffield, for making them ride a local train to Masborough (then a village NW of Rotherham) to catch a southbound train. I think a more German model would be better, where the ICE stations are in cities (even Kassel-Wilhelmshoehe isn't all that bad -- at least it's got five tram lines -- and, besides, the layout of Kassel-Hbf isn't exactly conductive to high-speed through running). Probably more significantly, the NBS to relieve the Riedbahn and Main-Neckar-Bahn has been altered to serve Mannheim-Hbf (and may yet be altered to serve Darmstadt-Hbf) after the locals told the Bundesbahn quite what they thought of the original scheme. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
