'Ouses, Greenbelt and stuff
Comments
-
To be fair it is down to the marketing of the scheme when it was announced. The name refers to speed and the talk was always about how much time it would shave a few minutes off a trip from Manchester to London. They should have made much more of how it was going to benefit existing routes and the number of extra trains it would allow to run.
Maybe they got caught up in the car world where speed is everything no matter how practical.0 -
TheBigBean said:
Not a regular on French trains, but I found the frequency of them to be much worse than the UK.briantrumpet said:
It makes a bit more sense in France, as the country is so much bigger, but then they did a whole network, rather than one spine route. I wonder what the total cost of that would equate to now.pblakeney said:I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.The first TGV Sud-Est cost just $4 million per km, the lowest figure worldwide (Table 1). More recent projects cost about $10 million per km and the newest TGV Méditerranée with seven long viaducts (17.155 km) and one long tunnel (12.768 km) still cost only $15 million per km.
Very much depends on where you want to go. Generally heading to and from Paris is good, I think, other routes much more mixed. But the network is extensive.
0 -
BB is right, I remember reading something, can't remember where, about the French model being very different to the UK model with regard to frequency.0
-
As I said upthread, compare Paris to Rouen (roughly one an hour?) with any route out of London. For example, there are probably six trains an hour to Brighton and at least two per hour to York, Sheffield, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester and Bristol.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Not a regular on French trains, but I found the frequency of them to be much worse than the UK.briantrumpet said:
It makes a bit more sense in France, as the country is so much bigger, but then they did a whole network, rather than one spine route. I wonder what the total cost of that would equate to now.pblakeney said:I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.The first TGV Sud-Est cost just $4 million per km, the lowest figure worldwide (Table 1). More recent projects cost about $10 million per km and the newest TGV Méditerranée with seven long viaducts (17.155 km) and one long tunnel (12.768 km) still cost only $15 million per km.
Very much depends on where you want to go. Generally heading to and from Paris is good, I think, other routes much more mixed. But the network is extensive.0 -
On balance I'd prefer less frequent but faster. Obviously not everyone would agree.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
It is largely dependent on existing infrastructure.
Most UK stations are just not long enough to take the volume needed in less frequent, faster trains.0 -
TheBigBean said:
As I said upthread, compare Paris to Rouen (roughly one an hour?) with any route out of London. For example, there are probably six trains an hour to Brighton and at least two per hour to York, Sheffield, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester and Bristol.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Not a regular on French trains, but I found the frequency of them to be much worse than the UK.briantrumpet said:
It makes a bit more sense in France, as the country is so much bigger, but then they did a whole network, rather than one spine route. I wonder what the total cost of that would equate to now.pblakeney said:I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.The first TGV Sud-Est cost just $4 million per km, the lowest figure worldwide (Table 1). More recent projects cost about $10 million per km and the newest TGV Méditerranée with seven long viaducts (17.155 km) and one long tunnel (12.768 km) still cost only $15 million per km.
Very much depends on where you want to go. Generally heading to and from Paris is good, I think, other routes much more mixed. But the network is extensive.
Yes, the downside to the TGV network (which isn't suited to trains running the same routes at 15-minute intervals) is that the general network can be rather rickety and spasmodic, depending on where you want to go. There was a lot to be said for the old 125's running on the general BR network.0 -
A higher spec than the existing line, yes. There is more than one reason for building the thing.surrey_commuter said:
My bad, I thought they were building the new line to a higher spec so that the trains could run faster.rjsterry said:
The new line is a high speed line meaning that everyone else doesn't have to share a line with the high speed services. A moment's thought will tell you why running trains at different speeds on the same track is complicated to say the least.surrey_commuter said:
How can something called High Speed 2 be "oversold on speed"?Jezyboy said:
I would guess partly that's because HS2 was oversold on speed and undersold on capacity. I think the reality is that there probably is (or was) the need for the extra rail line AND better connections within the region.super_davo said:When HS2 was announced, I remember people in Manchester saying that they didn't need to save 45 minutes getting to London, they needed trains that could get them from the surrounding towns to the centre and back again reliably. It's the same right the way across the north, before you even start on getting from one city to the next (relatively close) city. Everyone drives for those sort of journeys, which then means the road network struggles.
The Northern Powerhouse was actually a very good idea, but obviously died a death with Osborne and Cameron (and their rate of progress was similar to "levelling up").
FWIW I think if you're going to expand any regional city in a big way Cambridge is perfect for it; you've got a lot of fen land that could be built on, good transport links all the way across the country, reasonably close decent size airport in Stansted, thriving local economy. But 250,000 houses sounds bonkers; it should be part of the solution, not the entire solution!
I'm not sure what regional city I'd pick!
If they wanted to increase capacity they could have saved a fortune by not speccing it so trains could run so fast.
It feels like a lot of people just look at the big number - which is big, but spread over decades - and then decide that it must be bad/too much/not worth it purely because it's a number too big to relate to. This seems to apply to pretty much all capital expenditure/infrastructure projects. There's often a comparison with how many nurses that could pay - as if nurses can work in an open field with no equipment.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
A higher spec than the existing line, yes. There is more than one reason for building the thing.surrey_commuter said:
My bad, I thought they were building the new line to a higher spec so that the trains could run faster.rjsterry said:
The new line is a high speed line meaning that everyone else doesn't have to share a line with the high speed services. A moment's thought will tell you why running trains at different speeds on the same track is complicated to say the least.surrey_commuter said:
How can something called High Speed 2 be "oversold on speed"?Jezyboy said:
I would guess partly that's because HS2 was oversold on speed and undersold on capacity. I think the reality is that there probably is (or was) the need for the extra rail line AND better connections within the region.super_davo said:When HS2 was announced, I remember people in Manchester saying that they didn't need to save 45 minutes getting to London, they needed trains that could get them from the surrounding towns to the centre and back again reliably. It's the same right the way across the north, before you even start on getting from one city to the next (relatively close) city. Everyone drives for those sort of journeys, which then means the road network struggles.
The Northern Powerhouse was actually a very good idea, but obviously died a death with Osborne and Cameron (and their rate of progress was similar to "levelling up").
FWIW I think if you're going to expand any regional city in a big way Cambridge is perfect for it; you've got a lot of fen land that could be built on, good transport links all the way across the country, reasonably close decent size airport in Stansted, thriving local economy. But 250,000 houses sounds bonkers; it should be part of the solution, not the entire solution!
I'm not sure what regional city I'd pick!
If they wanted to increase capacity they could have saved a fortune by not speccing it so trains could run so fast.
It feels like a lot of people just look at the big number - which is big, but spread over decades - and then decide that it must be bad/too much/not worth it purely because it's a number too big to relate to. This seems to apply to pretty much all capital expenditure/infrastructure projects. There's often a comparison with how many nurses that could pay - as if nurses can work in an open field with no equipment.
Don't go giving Barclay ideas.0 -
It feels like I need to set up a Hornby train set to demonstrate the problems of running high speed intercity, stopping services and goods on the same lines might be tricky.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
As I said upthread, compare Paris to Rouen (roughly one an hour?) with any route out of London. For example, there are probably six trains an hour to Brighton and at least two per hour to York, Sheffield, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester and Bristol.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Not a regular on French trains, but I found the frequency of them to be much worse than the UK.briantrumpet said:
It makes a bit more sense in France, as the country is so much bigger, but then they did a whole network, rather than one spine route. I wonder what the total cost of that would equate to now.pblakeney said:I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.The first TGV Sud-Est cost just $4 million per km, the lowest figure worldwide (Table 1). More recent projects cost about $10 million per km and the newest TGV Méditerranée with seven long viaducts (17.155 km) and one long tunnel (12.768 km) still cost only $15 million per km.
Very much depends on where you want to go. Generally heading to and from Paris is good, I think, other routes much more mixed. But the network is extensive.
Yes, the downside to the TGV network (which isn't suited to trains running the same routes at 15-minute intervals) is that the general network can be rather rickety and spasmodic, depending on where you want to go. There was a lot to be said for the old 125's running on the general BR network.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
It feels like I need to set up a Hornby train set to demonstrate the problems of running high speed intercity, stopping services and goods on the same lines might be tricky.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
As I said upthread, compare Paris to Rouen (roughly one an hour?) with any route out of London. For example, there are probably six trains an hour to Brighton and at least two per hour to York, Sheffield, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester and Bristol.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Not a regular on French trains, but I found the frequency of them to be much worse than the UK.briantrumpet said:
It makes a bit more sense in France, as the country is so much bigger, but then they did a whole network, rather than one spine route. I wonder what the total cost of that would equate to now.pblakeney said:I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.The first TGV Sud-Est cost just $4 million per km, the lowest figure worldwide (Table 1). More recent projects cost about $10 million per km and the newest TGV Méditerranée with seven long viaducts (17.155 km) and one long tunnel (12.768 km) still cost only $15 million per km.
Very much depends on where you want to go. Generally heading to and from Paris is good, I think, other routes much more mixed. But the network is extensive.
Yes, the downside to the TGV network (which isn't suited to trains running the same routes at 15-minute intervals) is that the general network can be rather rickety and spasmodic, depending on where you want to go. There was a lot to be said for the old 125's running on the general BR network.
It's tricky, and far from ideal, but is done.0 -
But we can see why separate high speed passenger lines are a solution.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
It feels like I need to set up a Hornby train set to demonstrate the problems of running high speed intercity, stopping services and goods on the same lines might be tricky.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
As I said upthread, compare Paris to Rouen (roughly one an hour?) with any route out of London. For example, there are probably six trains an hour to Brighton and at least two per hour to York, Sheffield, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester and Bristol.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Not a regular on French trains, but I found the frequency of them to be much worse than the UK.briantrumpet said:
It makes a bit more sense in France, as the country is so much bigger, but then they did a whole network, rather than one spine route. I wonder what the total cost of that would equate to now.pblakeney said:I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.The first TGV Sud-Est cost just $4 million per km, the lowest figure worldwide (Table 1). More recent projects cost about $10 million per km and the newest TGV Méditerranée with seven long viaducts (17.155 km) and one long tunnel (12.768 km) still cost only $15 million per km.
Very much depends on where you want to go. Generally heading to and from Paris is good, I think, other routes much more mixed. But the network is extensive.
Yes, the downside to the TGV network (which isn't suited to trains running the same routes at 15-minute intervals) is that the general network can be rather rickety and spasmodic, depending on where you want to go. There was a lot to be said for the old 125's running on the general BR network.
It's tricky, and far from ideal, but is done.
There's something very British about complaining that we don't have a fast intercity rail service like France or Japan, and when we finally try and build one everyone moans that it's too expensive and why do we want to travel quickly anyway?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition3 -
You lot are quick to chastise people for flying, but people do that because it's a lot faster and convenient than taking the train.
So don't then go all nimby and demand that fast rail travel is not the answer.
It almost certainly is part of the answer.0 -
The biggest objection is that there is a demand for services currently with zero service, never mind a slow one.rjsterry said:
But we can see why separate high speed passenger lines are a solution.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
It feels like I need to set up a Hornby train set to demonstrate the problems of running high speed intercity, stopping services and goods on the same lines might be tricky.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
As I said upthread, compare Paris to Rouen (roughly one an hour?) with any route out of London. For example, there are probably six trains an hour to Brighton and at least two per hour to York, Sheffield, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester and Bristol.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Not a regular on French trains, but I found the frequency of them to be much worse than the UK.briantrumpet said:
It makes a bit more sense in France, as the country is so much bigger, but then they did a whole network, rather than one spine route. I wonder what the total cost of that would equate to now.pblakeney said:I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.The first TGV Sud-Est cost just $4 million per km, the lowest figure worldwide (Table 1). More recent projects cost about $10 million per km and the newest TGV Méditerranée with seven long viaducts (17.155 km) and one long tunnel (12.768 km) still cost only $15 million per km.
Very much depends on where you want to go. Generally heading to and from Paris is good, I think, other routes much more mixed. But the network is extensive.
Yes, the downside to the TGV network (which isn't suited to trains running the same routes at 15-minute intervals) is that the general network can be rather rickety and spasmodic, depending on where you want to go. There was a lot to be said for the old 125's running on the general BR network.
It's tricky, and far from ideal, but is done.
There's something very British about complaining that we don't have a fast intercity rail service like France or Japan, and when we finally try and build one everyone moans that it's too expensive and why do we want to travel quickly anyway?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Worth reminding people the elizabeth line is now the busiest railway in Great Britian.
20 million journeys a month!0 -
rjsterry said:
But we can see why separate high speed passenger lines are a solution.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
It feels like I need to set up a Hornby train set to demonstrate the problems of running high speed intercity, stopping services and goods on the same lines might be tricky.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
As I said upthread, compare Paris to Rouen (roughly one an hour?) with any route out of London. For example, there are probably six trains an hour to Brighton and at least two per hour to York, Sheffield, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester and Bristol.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Not a regular on French trains, but I found the frequency of them to be much worse than the UK.briantrumpet said:
It makes a bit more sense in France, as the country is so much bigger, but then they did a whole network, rather than one spine route. I wonder what the total cost of that would equate to now.pblakeney said:I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.The first TGV Sud-Est cost just $4 million per km, the lowest figure worldwide (Table 1). More recent projects cost about $10 million per km and the newest TGV Méditerranée with seven long viaducts (17.155 km) and one long tunnel (12.768 km) still cost only $15 million per km.
Very much depends on where you want to go. Generally heading to and from Paris is good, I think, other routes much more mixed. But the network is extensive.
Yes, the downside to the TGV network (which isn't suited to trains running the same routes at 15-minute intervals) is that the general network can be rather rickety and spasmodic, depending on where you want to go. There was a lot to be said for the old 125's running on the general BR network.
It's tricky, and far from ideal, but is done.
There's something very British about complaining that we don't have a fast intercity rail service like France or Japan, and when we finally try and build one everyone moans that it's too expensive and why do we want to travel quickly anyway?
Indeed so. Am looking forward to doing 600km in 2.5hours the week after next, all for £25.0 -
Who flies in the UK as a preference to the train?rick_chasey said:You lot are quick to chastise people for flying, but people do that because it's a lot faster and convenient than taking the train.
So don't then go all nimby and demand that fast rail travel is not the answer.
It almost certainly is part of the answer.0 -
London <> Edinburgh, for sure.TheBigBean said:
Who flies in the UK as a preference to the train?rick_chasey said:You lot are quick to chastise people for flying, but people do that because it's a lot faster and convenient than taking the train.
So don't then go all nimby and demand that fast rail travel is not the answer.
It almost certainly is part of the answer.0 -
It's not an either/or choice. Both are needed. If you repeatedly put off replacing outdated infrastructure then eventually everything needs doing at once.pblakeney said:
The biggest objection is that there is a demand for services currently with zero service, never mind a slow one.rjsterry said:
But we can see why separate high speed passenger lines are a solution.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
It feels like I need to set up a Hornby train set to demonstrate the problems of running high speed intercity, stopping services and goods on the same lines might be tricky.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
As I said upthread, compare Paris to Rouen (roughly one an hour?) with any route out of London. For example, there are probably six trains an hour to Brighton and at least two per hour to York, Sheffield, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester and Bristol.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Not a regular on French trains, but I found the frequency of them to be much worse than the UK.briantrumpet said:
It makes a bit more sense in France, as the country is so much bigger, but then they did a whole network, rather than one spine route. I wonder what the total cost of that would equate to now.pblakeney said:I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.The first TGV Sud-Est cost just $4 million per km, the lowest figure worldwide (Table 1). More recent projects cost about $10 million per km and the newest TGV Méditerranée with seven long viaducts (17.155 km) and one long tunnel (12.768 km) still cost only $15 million per km.
Very much depends on where you want to go. Generally heading to and from Paris is good, I think, other routes much more mixed. But the network is extensive.
Yes, the downside to the TGV network (which isn't suited to trains running the same routes at 15-minute intervals) is that the general network can be rather rickety and spasmodic, depending on where you want to go. There was a lot to be said for the old 125's running on the general BR network.
It's tricky, and far from ideal, but is done.
There's something very British about complaining that we don't have a fast intercity rail service like France or Japan, and when we finally try and build one everyone moans that it's too expensive and why do we want to travel quickly anyway?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Have family near St Andrews so yes. Flying is usually quicker and similar price. London to Penzance is glorious by train, though.rick_chasey said:
London <> Edinburgh, for sure.TheBigBean said:
Who flies in the UK as a preference to the train?rick_chasey said:You lot are quick to chastise people for flying, but people do that because it's a lot faster and convenient than taking the train.
So don't then go all nimby and demand that fast rail travel is not the answer.
It almost certainly is part of the answer.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
really? surely there is no time savings unless you are based at the airportsrick_chasey said:
London <> Edinburgh, for sure.TheBigBean said:
Who flies in the UK as a preference to the train?rick_chasey said:You lot are quick to chastise people for flying, but people do that because it's a lot faster and convenient than taking the train.
So don't then go all nimby and demand that fast rail travel is not the answer.
It almost certainly is part of the answer.0 -
that always strikes me as a dodgy stat - does the rest of the Tube not count as "railway lines"?rick_chasey said:Worth reminding people the elizabeth line is now the busiest railway in Great Britian.
20 million journeys a month!0 -
Roughly 110m a month on the tube, all the lines combined (depending on time of year), so that 20m extra on the elizabeth line is material.surrey_commuter said:
that always strikes me as a dodgy stat - does the rest of the Tube not count as "railway lines"?rick_chasey said:Worth reminding people the elizabeth line is now the busiest railway in Great Britian.
20 million journeys a month!
0 -
TheBigBean said:
Who flies in the UK as a preference to the train?rick_chasey said:You lot are quick to chastise people for flying, but people do that because it's a lot faster and convenient than taking the train.
So don't then go all nimby and demand that fast rail travel is not the answer.
It almost certainly is part of the answer.
Quite a few from Exeter... it's far cheaper and far quicker for going to the north of England or Scotland, even at Logan Air prices.0 -
Football teams usuallyTheBigBean said:
Who flies in the UK as a preference to the train?rick_chasey said:You lot are quick to chastise people for flying, but people do that because it's a lot faster and convenient than taking the train.
So don't then go all nimby and demand that fast rail travel is not the answer.
It almost certainly is part of the answer.
0 -
I looked into this when I went from South Wales to Edinburgh last year. Even driving to Bristol and allowing for the ridiculous recommended security / check in times and then the transfer from Edinburgh airport to the city it was far quicker (over 6 hours by train) and also considerably cheaper. The fact it is so much cheaper is ridiculous.surrey_commuter said:
really? surely there is no time savings unless you are based at the airportsrick_chasey said:
London <> Edinburgh, for sure.TheBigBean said:
Who flies in the UK as a preference to the train?rick_chasey said:You lot are quick to chastise people for flying, but people do that because it's a lot faster and convenient than taking the train.
So don't then go all nimby and demand that fast rail travel is not the answer.
It almost certainly is part of the answer.0 -
Is it extra, or just diversion of existing passengers - likely a mix.rick_chasey said:
Roughly 110m a month on the tube, all the lines combined (depending on time of year), so that 20m extra on the elizabeth line is material.surrey_commuter said:
that always strikes me as a dodgy stat - does the rest of the Tube not count as "railway lines"?rick_chasey said:Worth reminding people the elizabeth line is now the busiest railway in Great Britian.
20 million journeys a month!0 -
Prefer the train on that route. Any further and I would fly, but that means the vast majority of journeys are covered by trains.rick_chasey said:
London <> Edinburgh, for sure.TheBigBean said:
Who flies in the UK as a preference to the train?rick_chasey said:You lot are quick to chastise people for flying, but people do that because it's a lot faster and convenient than taking the train.
So don't then go all nimby and demand that fast rail travel is not the answer.
It almost certainly is part of the answer.0 -
I was assuming Rick was starting from London. City centre to city centre must take longer on the planePross said:
I looked into this when I went from South Wales to Edinburgh last year. Even driving to Bristol and allowing for the ridiculous recommended security / check in times and then the transfer from Edinburgh airport to the city it was far quicker (over 6 hours by train) and also considerably cheaper. The fact it is so much cheaper is ridiculous.surrey_commuter said:
really? surely there is no time savings unless you are based at the airportsrick_chasey said:
London <> Edinburgh, for sure.TheBigBean said:
Who flies in the UK as a preference to the train?rick_chasey said:You lot are quick to chastise people for flying, but people do that because it's a lot faster and convenient than taking the train.
So don't then go all nimby and demand that fast rail travel is not the answer.
It almost certainly is part of the answer.0
