Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A perspective from an American. Normal government officials rapidly become insane babbling idiots when talking about trains.
For instance, the city of San Diego was considering building a new airport in the desert 120 miles from downtown. As the existing road curves through a narrow mountain pass, they proposed building a maglev high speed rail at top speeds of roughly 250 mph.
1) London and other cities have high speed rail to the airport.
Answer) London has an express train that peaks at 100 mph, and it is the most expensive per mile train in the world. And it is London! London- San Diego (get it!).
2) Shanghai has a train to the airport that peaks at 268 mph.
Answer) Part the answer is the same as before: Shanghai- San Diego (get it!). But the other part of the answer is nobody needs to achieve 268 mph on a 19 mile trip and get there in 7.5 minutes. What possible practical difference would it make if the trip took 15 minutes. The Shanghai Maglev was built at a huge loss which was subsidized by the German government because it was hoping the publicity would get them a contract for a 1000-2000 mile intercity line then being considered by the Chinese government. It was basically a billion dollar advertisement.
The majority of people who live in San Diego have never been on a train or any other form of public transportation in their life.
But the sheer ridiculousness of the proposal didn't keep it from being funded for studies, discussed in public forums, or from sending people to Shanghai to evaluate the existing maglev.
The new proposed high-speed rail lines are in red. The grey are existing classic lines. High-speed train can run on both but at lower speeds on the existing classic lines. Only London, Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester will have HS2 run right into the city centres. They will run slower than existing tilting trains as high-speed trains do not tilt. per the The Guardian
The Biggest Loser is Liverpool
The current rail times from Liverpool Manchester to London are equal, about 2 hours. This proposal will give Manchester just over 1 hour to London and Liverpool will be over half an hour slower. This will put the Liverpool City Region (similar sized to the Manchester region) at an economical disadvantage. HS2 trains from London will run to the rail junction at Crewe and then onto slower existing track to Liverpool.
HS2 track will run only 20 miles from Liverpool and it is not being run into the city. This is ludicrous planning. To a far lesser degree Sheffield can say the same, although their HS2 station is on the city outskirts, which is a real dumb idea.
HS2 bosses are detached from reality. Firstly, in its current form of only serving FOUR cities directly, essential Liverpool is omitted. Liverpool is the "only" deep water port on that coast and vital to the economies of the North West, West Yorks, north Midlands, etc.
The big question ......Is HS2 going to succeed in its current form?
HS2 Regional Cities Have Poor Access
The glaring flaw is having a HS2 station per region, not one in each major city, which few commentators have picked up on. HS2 stations require the surrounding populations to have simple and easy access to the HS2 stations to maximize usage, that means being served directly by rapid-transit metros. Of the four HS2 cities only London has such a transport network. Manchester has slow street trams and Leeds and Birmingham slower buses. Liverpool, Glasgow and Newcastle have such metros which are underground in their centres, but of course are left off HS2. How clever. HS2 will only benefit the cities it serves, not the regions these cities are in.
Liverpool City Region Served by THREE Inter-City Stations
The Liverpool City Region currently is served by THREE existing inter-city stations with London services: Lime St, Runcorn and Chester. Lime St and Chester are terminal stations. Manchester has only one. HS2 bosses never took into account Wirral passengers in the Liverpool City Region as they access the London train via Chester. All north Wirral use Liverpool Lime Street as it is nearer. Lime St and Chester stations are served by the Liverpool-centric Merseyrail metro network linking the two stations. Having a HS2 station directly into Liverpool will mean the Chester and Runcorn to London service can be abandoned releasing capacity on the West Coast Main Line (WCML). A number of express Merseyrail metro trains, with limited stops, can be run from Chester to Lime St between the "stoppers" - as does the Metropolitan Line in London. Runcorn can have a local Lime St train serving the town. It will be quicker to get to London from Runcorn, Chester and the Wirral via Liverpool using HS2 than using the current Inter-cities from Chester and Runcorn.
HS2 Will Hinder Port of Liverpool
HS2 bosses state CAPACITY is the prime issue, as the existing network is running out. The WCML is currently running at 52% of capacity, which seems strange. The Port of Liverpool has stated that not taking Liverpool and Chester London trains off the WCML and onto HS2 will clog up the existing lines which they will need for increased freight use. They are predicting a 70% rise in freight when the existing port is expanded (the Gladstone locks are being widened right now) and the new post-panamax container terminal, Liverpool2, is built in a few years time coinciding with the widening of Panama Canal. Freight of all types will increase in and out of the port - transportation of eco wood-pellets from the southern states will increase dramatically as power stations convert to this type of eco fuel from coal - and the pellets will go by rail from Liverpool's docks. Most UK exports are from the north of England. 50% of the goods consumed are in the north, yet 90% of consumer goods currently come through southern ports. Liverpool's port is to rapidly expand to correct the imbalance needing the WCML capacity. The port officials are raising major concerns on this capacity point as HS2 in its current form will curtail the port's throughput. HS2 bosses never took any of this into account and it was clear they never knew of then expansion.
Liverpool Needs Future HS2 Capacity
Liverpool has "major" projects in the pipeline besides the container port expansion. Like Liverpool Waters, Wirral Waters, cruise terminal expansion, a further cruise terminal proposed at Central Docks and airport expansion. No other city outside of London has such expansion projects. These will improve the economy again in a city which is the only city outside London with an expanding economy. Travel to and from the city will increase and these extra passengers will clog the WCML reducing freight CAPACITY. It all point that Liverpool NEEDS a HS2 station for a multitude of reasons. The HS2 bosses never thought any of this through.
HS2 took the view of a vested interest lobby group, Greenguage, who suggested only one HS2 station per "region" and all the region will access that HS2 station. Unless a fortune is spent upgrading and introducing new local rail networks this one HS2 station per region it will fail. For most in Liverpool it is quicker door to door using the existing inter-city to London than traveling to Manchester, with all the inconvenience of changing, and taking a HS2 train. As previously been stated, unlike Liverpool, Manchester does not even have an urban metro to maximise access to its proposed HS2 station.
HS2 Needs to Serve Cities NOT Regions
France and Spain can justify high-speed rail as they have one defined large city in each region. The UK is unique in having clusters of cities only 30 or 40 miles apart. Run a high-speed line to one city and you instantly economically disadvantage another as in the case with Liverpool vs Manchester. By the time HS2 is built, in 20-25 years time, Liverpool's container port, major regeneration projects and cruise liner terminals will be under full way and short of space on the WCML way before any HS2 trains run.
The flawed HS2 plan needs to be amended to have HS2 lines serve the centres of major cities, not regions. Sheffield, Newcastle and Liverpool need city centre HS2 stations. HS3 should serve Glasgow and Edinburgh directly. This will cost, but the expensive tunnel into Manchester can be scrapped using slower existing overground lines for the last few miles as the train is slowing anyhow, so HS2 track directly to the station is irrelevant and an unneeded expense. The 14 miles of expensive "green" tunnels under fields in Buckinghamshire NIMBYland can be in cheap open cuttings.
Cheaper to Build Freight Only Lines
If capacity is the real reason for HS2, it is far cheaper to use existing little used lines, open lines cut by Beeching in the 1960s, and build new lines linking it up to form a freight only network, keeping freight off passenger lines. Opening up the Great Central Line may be a viable option. Freight does not need to travel at 300 mph.
HS2 Will NOT Promote Broad Economic Growth
The current setup will not maximise HS2s advantages - quite the opposite. It will keep matters broadly in the regions economically as they are at best and in Liverpool's case, being omitted, will act against the city's economy immediately on HS2 announcement. Once HS2 is set in concrete, the message that Liverpool is a second rate city is set. Investment will flow to Manchester immediately, with no need to wait 20 years for Manchester's HS2 station to be built. this will affect the viability of the city's major projects. HS2 thought of serving "regions" not major "cities". There is the major flaw in the whole scheme.
The whole scheme is for the benefit of London, as high-speed rail will act as giant sluice into London. In France only Paris really gained from high-speed rail.
To justify high-speed rail they looked at existing passenger figures. They never looked at figures then decide they needed high-speed rail, they decided they needed high-speed rail so searched for ways to justify this waste of money. In their wisdom they had high-speed rail serve only three cities centre to centre.
Liverpool and Manchester had one train per hour each to London and both took about the same amount of travel time. Then Manchester had THREE trains per hour and Liverpool still with one. Had Manchester overnight increased in size by three times? Had Manchester become overnight an economic miracle? The answer to both is NO.
Manchester's seats per day to London were about 8,5000 and 5,000 were taken up. Seats available increased to over 20,000. Yet Manchester still only uses 5,000 of them. The only train that was and still is overcrowded is the 7 a.m. London to Manchester service. All the rest have well more seats than passengers. 1st class cars are generally empty.
Meanwhile Liverpool still has the one train per hour. Virgin Trains requested more trains to Liverpool because of overcrowding and were refused with "lack of capacity on the West Coast Main Line (WCML)" as an excuse. The WCML is currently running at 52%. Virgin applied for a train service to Blackpool and were similarly turned down again. There are too many trains on the WCML not passengers. It is NOT running short of capacity right now, well not by passengers. It may when the Port of Liverpool's expansion is complete.
Why was Manchester given far too many train services clogging up the WCML, when it was obvious these trains were running well below capacity and not needed? It can only be a ploy to push though HS2 and to ensure Manchester gets a HS2 station over Liverpool, which when assessing the future of the two cities Liverpool is more deserving.
A perspective from an American. Normal government officials rapidly become insane babbling idiots when talking about trains.
An airport 120 miles away? They would not be serving San Diego! It would be cheaper and more convenient to built an artificial island in the sea near the city than put an airport so far away with an expensive rail line. It could be accessed by fast rail lines as well.
London has 5 airports. The prime is Heathrow which is 15 miles from the centre, but still inside the London conurbation. The Paddington link to Heathrow is not cheap at all. The Underground rail also runs into Heathrow but much slower, and cheaper, as it is a metro and stops at stations all the way.
Wasn't California considering a high-speed SF to LA line? Over 300 miles distance the advantages of high-speed rail fall off and then air is faster and cheaper. However their are gains for the intermediate towns to say just LA. I can see a high-speed line from San Diego to LA working, but it must be inter-modal and run direct to airport terminal buildings and city centres.
I have every sympathy with Liverpool and can see the need for better local connections in many regions of the country. However in terms of HS2 nothing is going to happen for a long time yet, and there will be elections, different governments and pressure groups including Anti-HS2 groups all having their say before anything concrete is decided, in fact this is likely to become an on going saga like the controversial third runway at Heathrow or the lack of coherent future energy policy over the last decade.
In the meantime, I would welcome better investment in regional services including Liverpool, the North, the Midlands, South West, Scotland, Wales, NI etc and would also like to see Government try and keep a cap on train fare prices which in some cases are becoming ridiculous.
HS2 has the go ahead from parliament. It is the final form that matters. The one I posted on the map is ridiculous with only 4 cities reach from centre to centre. There is no need for it as I have outlined in tackling local and regional rail leaving 150mpg expressways. But HMG appears to be set on this folly because the French and Spanish have it.
HS2s new top man Higgins sees the protests coming out of the Liverpool region and wants a HS2 hub at Crewe with classic lines off this hub. HS2 stops at Crewe for phase 1 of HS2. While phase 2 is being built, so he says, Liverpool and Manchester will have fast HS2 to the Crewe hub and classic lines into each city 29 miles away. Journey times from London to the cities is vastly improved while phase 2 is being built. But!! The cost of extending HS2 to Manchester and Preston would be phenomenal to gain a few minutes in time, that it would be abandoned under protest. Liverpool says all it wants us parity with Manchester in travel times. When analysing Liverpool with major city expansion projects and the expansion of the container port Liverpool is the city that should be given preference if it is only one city that can have a full dedicated HS2 station
The times from Liverpool to Manchester is less than in Victorian times. And there is two line between the cities. They chronically overcrowded at peak times. There was three lines however the third is cut in half needing a change (on the same platform). It takes many hours to get between many of the large northern cities. That is what needs addressing not vanity projects creating another economic sluice into London.
An airport 120 miles away? They would not be serving San Diego! It would be cheaper and more convenient to built an artificial island in the sea near the city than put an airport so far away with an expensive rail line. It could be accessed by fast rail lines as well.
Of course! The artificial island proposal was flat out rejected as too risky since it has never been done. The team that wrote the proposal was extremely upset.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
Wasn't California considering a high-speed SF to LA line? Over 300 miles distance the advantages of high-speed rail fall off and then air is faster and cheaper. However their are gains for the intermediate towns to say just LA.
They have actually begun work. I see the 300 mile limitation as being broken if the airports are at capacity. The Atlanta to Orlando air route is one of the busiest in the country and is about 400 miles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
I can see a high-speed line from San Diego to LA working, but it must be inter-modal and run direct to airport terminal buildings and city centres.
A proposal was made to connect LAX, LONG BEACH, JOHN WAYNE, and SAN airports via MAGLEV along with a spur to the docks and to Tijuana. There is a lot of high priority mail that flies into LAX that must be trucked to San Diego. It was believed that the combination of freight delivery, plus overall efficiency improvements in having the four airports coordinating flights would pay for the train.
In June 2013 a series-hybrid plane flew for the first time, using a small, light Wankel engine generator and a small electric motor turning the propeller. The plane is very quiet using state-of-the-art electric batteries to take-off and land with the engine coming in when cruising, so no noise or pollution problems in built up areas. This setup uses far less fuel. The batteries of the planes can be quickly charged while on the ground to make them even more eco. The planes as small airliners are suitable for inner-city airports. The setup is scalable to 200 seater airliners. The problem with trains is that they are energy efficient when full, but when less than half full they are very inefficient. These small semi-electric airliners would be far more eco overall than HS2. Using small airliners means inter-city transport is highly flexible and no city is left out as the planes and small airports are cheap to build.
Using these airliners will eliminate the need for super expensive to build and maintain high speed rail lines, as planes use the air which needs no maintenance. The planes could be in shuttles taking off by the minutes. The local shuttle airports will replace the HS2 stations. These cheap short take off planes could take off from small inner city airports with ski-jump runways served by metro rail stations at the airports for direct ease of access. The shuttles could link with major airports for long haul flights. Ticketing with the supporting local rail lines can be integrated. Easy transfer - off the metro and across to the plane.
The likes of Liverpool near water, could build an artificial island in the River Mersey off the city centre to accommodate a small shuttle airport, with an underground station cut into the metro tunnel under the river. It could also double as a cruise liner terminal. Cities near water can easily accommodate small city shuttle airports near the centres with fast metro access to the surrounds. London already has one with the City airport. Others could be built in London. Rundown Inner-city sites can be cleared in many cities to accommodate the small shuttle airports in other inland cities.
There are then no super expensive rail lines to build and maintain, just the cost of very small airports with local metro links and buy the cheap shuttle planes. The private sector can purchase the planes and run them and the public sector build and run the small airports and rail links to the them, reducing taxpayers costs. The cost will be a fraction of the cost of HS2 running into every city centre in every major city. Even far cheaper than the existing ill-conceived plan of having just FOUR cities directly served by HS2.
Technology has overtaken HS2, which will be 80 year old French technology when it comes fully on-line. All it needs is some sensible thought viewing technology advances. HS2 is planned for 20 years time. In that time small shuttle airports can be built and the small planes developed and built. As most cities in the UK are not great distances from each other, these small planes make a lot of sense.
A proposal was made to connect LAX, LONG BEACH, JOHN WAYNE, and SAN airports via MAGLEV along with a spur to the docks and to Tijuana. There is a lot of high priority mail that flies into LAX that must be trucked to San Diego. It was believed that the combination of freight delivery, plus overall efficiency improvements in having the four airports coordinating flights would pay for the train.
A Maglev may mean an airport or two can be eliminated.
In June 2013 a series-hybrid plane flew for the first time, using a small, light Wankel engine generator and a small electric motor turning the propeller.
I have to admit I have never heard of this concept before.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
