HS2: For or against?

[whole diary]

[Btline]

I know it doesn't matter. But why have 2 systems? There is no chance of the rest of the rail/road network being changed, so why are little new bits or indeed large new bits done in a different system. The only advantage is so European rolling stock can be used. But of course, that means our trains have to be dual (like SE Javelins).

It was the same on the roads when signs went up "440, 330, 220, 110 yds" in the early 2000s - obviously someone thought they'd be ripped down within a few years and replaced with 400, 300, 200, 100 mtrs". Thankfully this practice has stopped and new signs are done in easy to use numbers for yds. Still - it's a shame those new Motorway markers are in km. I wonder how many confused commuters wonder how they can be 100m from work when they are only 60m (=100 km). But that dates from the M1 when the builders thought we were going metric so they put the emergency phone signs up in metric, although missing off the units. For goodness sake, we not going metric, so just put up the signs in units that everyone understands! Plus, when I'm crusing down the M40, I know how far it is to London without having to do a calculation to convert! (and yes - I was educated in metric)

I hate this "we have to do it in metric to keep the EU^» (European Union - about) happy, but then we'll make anything the public see imperial." Why don't we teach children imperial in school when it is the only legal system of measurement for road signage and draught beer/cider?

[Trowres]

The fundamental point is that the supporting analysis for HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) concluded that spending the money on other rail schemes to achieve comparable transport benefits wouldn't provide as good value to the taxpayer. So if HS2 is rejected, it doesn't mean the other schemes will go ahead instead, indeed as they offer worse benefit to cost ratio then the Treasury is unlikely to be interested. 

The key is in the weaselly words "comparable transport benefits". There are hundreds, if not thousands of potential transport schemes around the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) that would yield a better cost-benefit ratio than HS2. Of course, speeding up local transport in say 30 cities at ^1bn-ish each doesn't yield "comparable" benefits, does it?

[ellendune]

I hate this "we have to do it in metric to keep the EU^» (European Union - about) happy, but then we'll make anything the public see imperial." Why don't we teach children imperial in school when it is the only legal system of measurement for road signage and draught beer/cider?

I was taught in both systems.  However i really would not liked to have practiced engineering in imperial units. Dimensions are fine if that is al you have to do, but once you get into forces and fluid flow it is just so much more difficult and more mistakes are made.

[inspector_blakey]

Why don't we teach children imperial in school when it is the only legal system of measurement for road signage and draught beer/cider?

Let me think...possibly because schoolchildren aren't traditionally supposed to drive, or drink draught beer and cider?

Possibly also because the imperial system is a tired, convoluted old anachronism of empire and it's high time we used something infinitely more logical. Science and engineering (the disciplines that do more measuring than most) use SI the world over. Other than some mis-placed affection for an utterly hopeless system of measurement (perhaps a bit like the tatty, leaky shoes that you like because they're well worn in and comfortable) I see absolutely no good reason for keeping imperial measurements. And before you throw any arguments about 'we should keep them because the US uses them' at me, I'll remind you that the US and UK^▸ (United Kingdom) measuring systems are fraught with differences between then!

[Electric train]

Although distances on the traditional railway are still more or less exclusively measured in miles and chains (and just read an RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) accident report to see what an awkward mixture of metric and imperial units that produces) I have a feeling that 'High Speed 1' uses metric units, and it would seem a logical step for the same to apply to HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)).

Incidentally, isn't the HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) linespeed 186 mph because that's 300 kph?

Correct HS1 distances are metric and 186 mph is 300kph

The East Coat Mainline electrification overhead line structure numbers North of Hitchin are numbers stated in km, South of Hitchin they are in miles, likewise on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) the OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line) structures numbers are stated in km and as the wire make their way West the structure numbers will be in km. For example GWML structure numbers are J/06/05 ...... J is the route designation the first digits are the km and last digits the individual structure in that km.

From memory routes are -
A - LTS
B - GE
C - WA (Cambridge)
E - East Coast
F - Midland Main Line
G - West Coast Main Line (Glasgow)

A second letter is used for branches etc GB^▸ (Great Britain) Rugby Birmingham, JH Airport Junction / Heathrow

[Btline]

I was taught in oth systems.  However i really would not liked to have practiced engineering in imperial units. Dimensions are fine if that is al you have to do, but once you get into forces and fluid flow it is just so much more difficult and more mistakes are made.

I agree - but that doesn't change the fact that all the signs are in mph.

Let me think...possibly because schoolchildren aren't traditionally supposed to drive, or drink draught beer and cider?

How's that relevant? We teach children for the future!

[TerminalJunkie]

Still - it's a shame those new Motorway markers are in km.

14. Aren't traffic signs supposed to be in imperial units, not metric?

For more than 30 years, distance marker posts have been provided at 100 metre intervals along each hard shoulder of motorways.

[Btline]

Read my full post. I'm talking about the new ones.

[TerminalJunkie]

Read my full post.

Are you sure you want me to do that? The chances are I'll just find more of your silly mistakes, like this one:

60m (=100 km)

60m = 0.06km.

[ellendune]

I hate this "we have to do it in metric to keep the EU^» (European Union - about) happy, but then we'll make anything the public see imperial." Why don't we teach children imperial in school when it is the only legal system of measurement for road signage and draught beer/cider?

I was taught in both systems.  However, I really would not liked to have practiced engineering in imperial units. Dimensions are fine if that is al you have to do, but once you get into forces and fluid flow it is just so much more difficult and more mistakes are made.

[mjones]

...

The key is in the weaselly words "comparable transport benefits". There are hundreds, if not thousands of potential transport schemes around the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) that would yield a better cost-benefit ratio than HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). Of course, speeding up local transport in say 30 cities at ^1bn-ish each doesn't yield "comparable" benefits, does it?

What is  "weaselly" about discussing comparability? I fully agree that there are a lot of good local transport schemes that ought to be funded, and am worried that HS2 could reduce funding available for other transport schemes, however none of them will do anything for the problem HS2 is designed to address, namely meet future demand forecast on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) corridor. That problem doesn't go away if you give every city a good light rail system, indeed it could become worse because it would improve connectivity to heavy rail and thereby encourage further modal shift from cars. So the problem of what to do about capacity on the WCML corridor still has to be addressed, even if that means using ticket pricing to stifle demand.

[mjones]

I'm afraid I cannot remember the source, but seem to remember a graph which showed a fast enough HighSpeed train on the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)'s electricity mix could have a negliable, perhaps even non-existant, reduction in emmisions over car transport. Therefore, I felt that for me to support HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) it would have to be a compromise between being fast enough to tackle domestic aviation but slow enough that obtaining modal shift from road to HSR would result in a drop in emmisions.

But unless the chart whose source you can't remember was based upon an analysis of how modal shift varies with speed then  still haven't provided any objective basis for supposing that 202mph is the optimal speed...

Vastly more tunneling, or small increases in tunneling with some track built on a deck above motorways (still expensive might be cheaper than the all tunnel option), would be needed yes. However, it would allow all trains to go beyond Birmingham. A new 140mph line could beat road travel on journey time easily and there's no aviation to compete with on the London-Birmingham leg, therefore no need to push up electricity useage to go faster unless you can go beyond Birmingham after calling there. That's also much better use of capacity, if you want to give Birmingham and Manchester 3 trains per hour each on the government's planned route, you use six paths over the line into Euston. However, route the Manchester services via a central Birmingham through station and you could give both cities 4 trains per while only using that number of paths into Euston.

I guess it really depends on just how massive the increase in cost would be and whether the advantages of Birmingham being a through station would warrant that cost.

...

You are still speculating without any reference at all the detailed engineering studies that have been published! The cost of putting HS2 on a deck above a motorway would be staggering, and have you given any consideration to access for maintenance, disruption to the road network during construction, etc etc? Noise mitigation? Visual intrusion?

And you've still missed the point about speed- of course there isn't any signficant London to Birmingham air travel, but trains will run to the north, using HS2 for the first leg, from day 1. This provides time savings that provide modal shift benefits on longer journeys from day 1, and obviously will greatly increase with the full Y network. Building a new 140 mph line would only reduce construction costs by around 10%, but offers greatly reduced modal shift benefits, and by attracting fewer passengers makes the business case worse.

Making all trains to the north stop at Birmingham doesn't make better use of  capacity at all, you'll need longer trains and seat occupancy will be worse, because it will be much harder to balance demand for different legs of the route. i.e. there will be empty seats north of Birmingham.

Can I suggest you actually read the core HS2 documents so you properly understand what is proposed, and why, before you propose more alternatives?

[paul7575]

Can I suggest you actually read the core HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) documents so you properly understand what is proposed, and why, before you propose more alternatives?

The chapter that explains in some detail exactly why a 'through Birmingham' route is totally impractical would be a good start. 

They'd need a piece of desolate waste land on the right alignment, and comparable in scale to the Stratford railway lands before they built the international station box there.  It just isn't possible...

Paul

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

I thought this thread was on the merits of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), not on metrication where you can discuss the pros and cons until the cows come home.

[Trowres]

What is  "weaselly" about discussing comparability? I fully agree that there are a lot of good local transport schemes that ought to be funded, and am worried that HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) could reduce funding available for other transport schemes, however none of them will do anything for the problem HS2 is designed to address, namely meet future demand forecast on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) corridor. That problem doesn't go away if you give every city a good light rail system, indeed it could become worse because it would improve connectivity to heavy rail and thereby encourage further modal shift from cars. So the problem of what to do about capacity on the WCML corridor still has to be addressed, even if that means using ticket pricing to stifle demand.

Hi mjones, thanks for replying when the thread was in danger of being lost in the imperial/SI unit debate. I used the term "weaselly" as the report wording that you quoted might give the impression that HS2 was the best economic benefit on offer. I think we're agreed that it is not, and that there is a risk of bigger benefits being lost due to a funding shortfall.
That leaves the point about a solution to WCML capacity being needed. I don't think I can adequately cover this in a short post as there are so many issues revolving about this point, many of which have already been debated in the context of motorways and airport expansion. Without having a prejudice on which issues could be the most significant, they include:

• Whether accommodating the forecast growth is the best policy given the economic, environmental and energy context
• Should growth be encouraged elsewhere where it can be accommodated at lower unit cost?
• Unintended consequences of altering the journey-time map of Britain, such as land use patterns and re-routing of journeys.
• Integration of HSR with other transport.
• How headline time savings with HSR compare with actual door-door time savings.
  

It is a great shame that consideration of HSR has descended to a bad-tempered rhetoric from both sides.