On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:58:32 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote:

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.

Do we need another line for that, though, or would we be better off,
say, spending the money on lengthening platforms and extending all the
Pendolinos to 14 cars?

Neil

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

In article
,
(disgoftunwells) 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.

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

There is always Paris to Réunion if you want an even longer journey. :-)

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Oct 13, 10:58�pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:58:32 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote:

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.

Do we need another line for that, though, or would we be better off,
say, spending the money on lengthening platforms and extending all the
Pendolinos to 14 cars?

We need new lines for the additional capacity as existing lines are
filling rapidly. The new lines might as well be of a reasonably high
speed as the major cost is the price of land. We can debate the final
max speed about five years after we start to build the blasted things.
(Unless of course we insist on swerving acutely round every SSSI en
route).

George

On 2008-10-13 22:43:59 +0100, Colin McKenzie said:

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

I don't think it's quite that simple. It's not *friction* which rises
with the square of the speed, but the *air resistance*; friction
(wheel/rail interface losses, bearings and so on) rise proportionally
with speed.
The area under the speed-time curve corresponds to the energy used in
the journey for motion. So the total energy usage for a higher speed,
but shorter (in time) journey is not necessarily much greater than that
used in a lower speed, but longer in time, journey. Don't forget also
that 'hotel' power consumption (lighting, air conditioning, the coffee
machine and so on) is proportional to journey time.

And with a faster journey the train can do more journeys in a day, so
(for the same service) fewer trains are required.

I agree about the service frequency - one of the most effective ways to
reduce the apparent journey time of transport used by the public[1] is
by reducing the gap between successive trains, buses, planes or
whatever. This is important. after all, you never 'just miss' your car!

Anyway I'm not convinced of the argument that *new* high speed rail
routes are ecologically/environmentally/economically better than air
travel. After all, the only ground based infrastructure a plane needs
is a couple of miles of concrete at each end of the journey. Is it
sensible to try to build 200 miles and more of railway through some of
the most densely populated country in Europe? Unless a lot of money is
continually spent on railhead grinding and ensuring the trains' wheels
are round, high speed railways can be LOUD.

[1] On the basis that 'public transport' seems to refer only to trains
and buses :-)
--
Robert

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Colin McKenzie wrote:

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.

Even if you did double the energy use, grams of CO2 per
passenger-kilometre is still quite a lot lower for a train than a plane.

According to this random and doubtless highly reliable document i just
found on the internet:

http://www.campaigncc.org/Howdoesairtravel.doc

The numbers for a London - Edinburgh trip are, in grams of CO2 per km:

car: 129
train: 73
plane: 339

A while ago, i found an EU report which had much more detailed and
reliable numbers for a variety of transport modes, mostly from a freight
point of view. They were similar to the above, but what was striking was
that ships (as in vast container ships) were about an order of magnitude
more efficient than the next best thing. Not so hot for moving passengers,
of course.

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.

True. Part of the TGV equation in France, i have been led to believe, is
the ready availability of fairly cheap and reliable nuclear power. They
are probably now feeling quite smug about the CO2 implications of this
too.

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.

Yes to both of these. The 'enemy' isn't the plane, it's the car, which
accounts for a much bigger share of our CO2 output. A few high-speed
long-distance routes won't attract much modal share from cars; for that,
we need more capacity and reliability on existing routes, and to restore
and build more local routes where they're currently missing.

tom

--
Baby got a masterplan. A foolproof masterplan.

Yes to both of these. The 'enemy' isn't the plane, it's the car, which
accounts for a much bigger share of our CO2 output. A few high-speed
long-distance routes won't attract much modal share from cars; for that,
we need more capacity and reliability on existing routes, and to restore
and build more local routes where they're currently missing.

It may go unsaid as obvious, but crucial to achieving that aim is the
development of coherent integrated public transport schemes. A good
radial dawn to late night local bus network, feeding good transport
interchanges (preferably rail, but I'll be realistic and accept
express bus routes or somesuch are more likely in this day and age).
These express routes then need to run both radially towards regional
population centres (i.e. London, Birmingham, etc.) *as well as
orbitally around them*. As a case in point, it's criminal that it's so
damn difficult to do a 11-odd mile journey near me orbitally (on the
London periphery between the WCML and the ECML), with either several
mode changes required to zig zag up and down radial rail routes
through to the central zones (which you really don't need to be in),
or you just give up on rail and stay with the expensive, infrequent,
and unreliable local buses you were using to get to the station all
the way to your destination, though you will have to endure multiple
services usually, some of which become even less frequent past 6pm.
Even with the extortionate car parking charges it can still be cheaper
to drive than use public transport, which is somewhat disappointing.
By way of comparison, it's about ~20-30 minutes by car, but well over
an hour by public transport (buses).

On a final note, ideally I'd like to catch a regular, frequent,
inexpensive bus to Watford Junction (hurrah for TfL), catch a fast,
frequent service to Hatfield from there, then continue my onward
journey from Hatfield, by train, bus or otherwise. Doesn't sound too
extravagant, but my current options for public transport between them
are either:
a) The aforementioned multi-stage local buses
b) Walking the Euston Road between Euston and KX
c) Via Birmingham and Peterborough

Jamie Thompson wrote:

It may go unsaid as obvious, but crucial to achieving that aim is the
development of coherent integrated public transport schemes. A good
radial dawn to late night local bus network, feeding good transport
interchanges (preferably rail, but I'll be realistic and accept
express bus routes or somesuch are more likely in this day and age).
These express routes then need to run both radially towards regional
population centres (i.e. London, Birmingham, etc.) *as well as
orbitally around them*. As a case in point, it's criminal that it's so
damn difficult to do a 11-odd mile journey near me orbitally (on the
London periphery between the WCML and the ECML), with either several
mode changes required to zig zag up and down radial rail routes
through to the central zones (which you really don't need to be in),
or you just give up on rail and stay with the expensive, infrequent,
and unreliable local buses you were using to get to the station all
the way to your destination, though you will have to endure multiple
services usually, some of which become even less frequent past 6pm.
Even with the extortionate car parking charges it can still be cheaper
to drive than use public transport, which is somewhat disappointing.
By way of comparison, it's about ~20-30 minutes by car, but well over
an hour by public transport (buses).


Providing public transport on this scale would be horrendously
expensive, and it would be very poorly patronised in the late
evenings.

There is no good reason why people who choose to go out late and who
are not served by a skeleton service of late night buses should not be
expected to pay for a taxi, which is public transport after all.

On 16 Oct, 12:56, Tony Polson wrote:
Jamie *Thompson wrote:





It may go unsaid as obvious, but crucial to achieving that aim is the
development of coherent integrated public transport schemes. A good
radial dawn to late night local bus network, feeding good transport
interchanges (preferably rail, but I'll be realistic and accept
express bus routes or somesuch are more likely in this day and age).
These express routes then need to run both radially towards regional
population centres (i.e. London, Birmingham, etc.) *as well as
orbitally around them*. As a case in point, it's criminal that it's so
damn difficult to do a 11-odd mile journey near me orbitally (on the
London periphery between the WCML and the ECML), with either several
mode changes required to zig zag up and down radial rail routes
through to the central zones (which you really don't need to be in),
or you just give up on rail and stay with the expensive, infrequent,
and unreliable local buses you were using to get to the station all
the way to your destination, though you will have to endure multiple
services usually, some of which become even less frequent past 6pm.
Even with the extortionate car parking charges it can still be cheaper
to drive than use public transport, which is somewhat disappointing.
By way of comparison, it's about ~20-30 minutes by car, but well over
an hour by public transport (buses).

Providing public transport on this scale would be horrendously
expensive, and it would be very poorly patronised in the late
evenings. *

There is no good reason why people who choose to go out late and who
are not served by a skeleton service of late night buses should not be
expected to pay for a taxi, which is public transport after all.

Perhaps. I'm spoilt in that regard that a pair of London bus routes
run between Watford and London right past my house, giving me an
public transport option to get home until 1:30am, with a very
reasonable for that time of night 30 minute interval (one of the
county buses mentioned in my earlier rant goes is 1 an hour after
6:30pm!). Both are extremely well used all day, expect for the last
service(s) which I imagine only exist to run buses back to depot. My
friends nearby but off the beaten track get bled dry a tenner a time
for a equivalent trip that costs me less than 90p. As such, I don't
feel the need to hang around in town with them drinking later than I
would like, just so I could split the taxi fare. Perhaps a
relationship with D&D offences and public transport provision that
could be studied

Anyway, that's all beside the point.

The main point I was going for of course being that the service in the
peaks needs to be sufficiently versatile and dependable to justify
leaving the car at home, which means at the very least the whole
morning peak from 6:30-10am and the evening peak from 5-8:30pm.
Weekends you need to cater for the shoppers. The only way to achieve
decent speeds is express routes, and that's essentially what we have.
Buses stop at every lamppost in town, metros stop at every town,
trains stop at major towns, and intercity trains stop at major
interchanges only. All you need is to have a web linking them together
somewhere other than zone 1 and the *sigh* Circle Line. That's why
public transport is so widely used in places like London...you can
generally get from 'a' to 'b' without having to go miles out of your
way via 'c' & 'd'.