On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 23:27:24 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 22:47:43 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 17:28:36 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:19:16 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote
There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing'
period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his -
errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in
advance
of
the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would
encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of
their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.
It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.
Not at all... Either the incumbent party or the opposition will be
forming
the government, both of whom would be represented during the shadow
period.

Wrong. The next government is selected from the participants in the next
election, not from the current residents of Parliament. The former might
contain some or none of the latter.
As a practical example, it would be a useful exercise for Alistair
Darling
to
be shadowed by the then current Conservative shadow chancellor.

If the then current Conservative shadow chancellor lost his seat in the
election, the information he had gleaned would still be of use to his
successor.

You're assuming the (blue) Tories are the only alternative (there is
still time for both types of Tory to make massive blunders which stop
either winning the next election).

I'm not assuming anything - the Conservatives are (still) the official
opposition party.

But not with absolute certainty the only winners of the next election if
NuLab [TM] lose.

Not at all, but they are still the official opposition and hence were the
party to whom the privilege was to be extended.

Interesting article in Rail Management (September 22nd) which suggests
that a new 225km/h (140mph) conventional railway built to Continental
Loading Gauge may be a more cost effective option than a new high
speed line:


"It is only ten days or so since a disastrous fire broke out in the
Channel Tunnel, and as RM predicted last week it will be ‘some
months’ before the only rail link between Britain and continental
Europe is back to normal.

It is a little ironic, then, that Greengauge21 should choose now to
step up its campaign to extend the British High Speed network.

However, the fire in the Tunnel does not detract from the essential
merits of High Speed Rail, however much it may highlight the
essentially fragile nature of a fixed link of this kind.

High Speed lines, or lignes à grande vitesse as the French know them,
are indeed efficient transportation systems when they link the right
places, but their most ardent supporters could never claim that they
are cheap.

Indeed, no new railway can be called that, but LGVs cost more because
of their special engineering, with as few curves as possible. This
means that their land take can be more aggressive and therefore more
expensive.

We know 200km/h trains can deal with significant curves if they tilt –
as on the WCML – and 200km/h is a good speed: London to Manchester in
around two hours, for example, while London–Edinburgh can be done in
under four.

It is true that these are flagship figures, and imply that
conventional infrastructure is being pushed a little, while Eurostars
can embrace London and Brussels in 1h51 (fires excepted) without
apparent effort.

But if we spent more money on upgrading conventional lines, would we
get journeys which were fast enough?

We might get faster journeys but not necessarily enough of them,
because they would only improve capacity slightly. And capacity is the
issue. Because of this, Network Rail is considering if we need some
completely new main line railways.

If so, we then need to decide what kind of railways they should be.
They could be conventional 200-225km/h lines (although built to a UIC
loading gauge, one trusts), or they could be LGVs. In that case the
question of the maximum speed would remain open.

High Speed 1 is officially a 300 km/h route, although that mainly
applies to the central 40km or so between Fawkham Junction and the
Ashford approaches, and the normal timetabled speed even there is
270km/h.

But these figures belong to the 1990s – when, of course, the line was
being designed. LGVs are now being typically planned for 330 or 350km/
h, and that would appear to be the new standard.

A 350km/h line between London and Edinburgh would be quite exciting,
with journey times down to as little as 2h15. A similar line could
link London and Manchester in perhaps 1h10, as against some two hours
now.

This is where the LGV case needs closer examination. Just how much
faster do our railways need to be? One major factor cited by the LGV
lobby is the need to attract people away from cars and planes, in the
interests of the environment, but there is little chance of doing
London–Manchester by car or plane in two hours now. One would be
illegal and the other impossible, considering journey times to and
from airports, check-in delays and so on.

Eurostar has essentially won the air/rail battle between London and
Paris, which is why its market share is now over 70%. Here an LGV is
indeed necessary to compete.

But a new conventional 225km/h line to Manchester might be enough,
offering about 1h45, and the same argument could apply elsewhere.
Maybe only the Scottish run really needs more. Britain is smaller than
France or Spain, and thus the gains to be achieved from building LGVs
are proportionately less, particularly within England alone.

Greengauge21 is now planning to examine the details, but there does
appear to be an underlying assumption that LGVs are inevitable and
necessary. Between London and Paris – yes. To Edinburgh – perhaps. But
London and Bristol? London and Leeds?

LGVs are exciting, but they are also more expensive to build and run.
The gains will have to be significant, if the Greengauge dream stands
a chance."

http://viking.eukhost.com/~keepingt/...M164/index.htm

wrote:
Interesting article in Rail Management (September 22nd) which suggests
that a new 225km/h (140mph) conventional railway built to Continental
Loading Gauge may be a more cost effective option than a new high
speed line:


"Britain is smaller than France or Spain, and thus the gains to be
achieved from building LGVs
are proportionately less, particularly within England alone.

This is rubbish. Britain is much smaller in area but is slightly longer from
end to end, which is what matters for discussing viability of rail lines. It
also has its capital at one end, unlike Spain. No French journey from Paris
or Spanish journey from Madrid is as long as London to Aberdeen. The fact
that Britain has the same population as France in a narrow sliver of
France's area improves the viability of high speed rail.

http://viking.eukhost.com/~keepingt/...M164/index.htm

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:28:31 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

This is rubbish. Britain is much smaller in area but is slightly longer from
end to end, which is what matters for discussing viability of rail lines. It
also has its capital at one end, unlike Spain. No French journey from Paris
or Spanish journey from Madrid is as long as London to Aberdeen.

Perhaps not, but there isn't a huge demand for Aberdeen to London
either. It might actually be possible that this market is actually
best served by air, and that the money that might have gone on a HSL
is better spent on improving capacity for shorter journeys on the rail
network.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Oct 12, 12:26�pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:28:31 +0100, "John Rowland"

wrote:
This is rubbish. Britain is much smaller in area but is slightly longer from
end to end, which is what matters for discussing viability of rail lines.. It
also has its capital at one end, unlike Spain. No French journey from Paris
or Spanish journey from Madrid is as long as London to Aberdeen.

Perhaps not, but there isn't a huge demand for Aberdeen to London
either. �It might actually be possible that this market is actually
best served by air, and that the money that might have gone on a HSL
is better spent on improving capacity for shorter journeys on the rail
network.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

The main rail flows from London to Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester
are much shorter than Paris-Marseilles (410 miles) and Madrid -
Barcelona (370 miles). Therefore you could argue that a new 140mph
railway would suffice.

Passenger flows to Edinburgh and Glasgow probably can't justify a new
high speed line on economic grounds (although they might do for
political reasons).

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:51:42 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

The main rail flows from London to Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester
are much shorter than Paris-Marseilles (410 miles) and Madrid -
Barcelona (370 miles). Therefore you could argue that a new 140mph
railway would suffice.

My current view would be that the existing 125mph (or even 110mph)
railway is perfectly sufficient, and that the millions being talked
about for a HSL would be better spent on a massive new stock build and
platform lengthening project.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Am Sun, 12 Oct 2008 01:28:31 UTC, schrieb "John Rowland"
auf uk.railway :

No French journey from Paris or Spanish journey from Madrid
is as long as London to Aberdeen.

With London - Edinburgh taking about 4:30 hours, and the short rest
more than 2:30h. What would have a stronger effect on the total trip
time - building a HSL in England, or electrifying Edinburgh to
Aberdeen?


Cheers,
L.W.

On 12 Oct, 02:28, "John Rowland"
wrote:
wrote:
Interesting article in Rail Management (September 22nd) which suggests
that a *new 225km/h (140mph) conventional railway built to Continental
Loading Gauge may be a more cost effective option than a new high
speed line:

"Britain is smaller than France or Spain, and thus the gains to be
achieved from building LGVs
are proportionately less, particularly within England alone.

This is rubbish. Britain is much smaller in area but is slightly longer from
end to end, which is what matters for discussing viability of rail lines. It
also has its capital at one end, unlike Spain. No French journey from Paris
or Spanish journey from Madrid is as long as London to Aberdeen.

Have you tried Paris to Ajaccio. That would take longer.

The fact
that Britain has the same population as France in a narrow sliver of
France's area improves the viability of high speed rail.

Not really. It depends on population density and where people want to
travel. The Paris - French Riviera traffic is probably greater than
London - Scotland.

On 11 Oct, 20:02, wrote:
Indeed, no new railway can be called that, but LGVs cost more because
of their special engineering, with as few curves as possible. This
means that their land take can be more aggressive and therefore more
expensive.
....
But a new conventional 225km/h line to Manchester might be enough,
offering about 1h45, and the same argument could apply elsewhere.
Maybe only the Scottish run really needs more. Britain is smaller than
France or Spain, and thus the gains to be achieved from building LGVs
are proportionately less, particularly within England alone.

I'd be interested to see any studies on the cost per km of a new 225km/
h line versus the cost of a new LGV - and rather surprised if they
were significantly different.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:
On 11 Oct, 20:02, wrote:
But a new conventional 225km/h line to Manchester might be enough,
offering about 1h45, and the same argument could apply elsewhere.
Maybe only the Scottish run really needs more. Britain is smaller than
France or Spain, and thus the gains to be achieved from building LGVs
are proportionately less, particularly within England alone.

I'd be interested to see any studies on the cost per km of a new 225km/
h line versus the cost of a new LGV - and rather surprised if they
were significantly different.

The other issue no-one has mentioned is the cost (amount of energy) used
per mile of high speed rail travel compared to medium speed. With
efficient regenerative braking, most of the energy used is to overcome
friction, which rises with the square of speed - i.e. up to twice as
much energy is needed to go at 200 mph compared to 140 mph. This matters
because the main reason for preferring rail to air is reduced CO2 emissions.

Admittedly it's easier to power trains than planes from non-fossil fuel,
but it's going to take a long time to get all our electricity from
renewable or nuclear sources.

I think 140 or 150 mph rail is fast enough for the UK. But that needs to
cover a lot more than a few principal routes, so that overall journey
time is not clobbered by 20 or 30 slow miles at each end.

The other factor in overall journey time is frequency - it's not much
use getting to Edinburgh in 2 hours if you have to wait another 2 hours
for the train to leave. That means we need increases in rail capacity as
well as line speed.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.