Discussion:
First two HS2 tunnels completed at Euston
Add Reply
Recliner
2021-01-27 22:36:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
From
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hs2-protesters-dig-secret-100ft-tunnel-under-london-park-spcxnw65j>

Protesters secretly constructed two tunnels supported by an elaborate “ant
nest” of passages without detection near the site of HS2, embarrassing the
security operation surrounding Britain’s biggest infrastructure project.

Climate campaigners protesting against the construction of the
multibillion-pound railway line spent months digging 100ft of passages and
chambers 15ft below Euston Square Gardens in north London.

They moved dirt from the two main tunnels, codenamed Crystal and Kelvin, to
the surface with buckets and hid it in the walls of their makeshift wooden
fort. The entrance is concealed from public view by the planks and
tarpaulin that form the main structure of the camp.

HS2 officials learnt about the tunnels early this morning after securing
temporary legal possession of the site from the landowners and sending in
about 100 bailiffs to evict dozens of activists living in treetops, tunnels
and the main compound.

A large number of activists were removed around 4.30am, prompting about
eight people to retreat underground with food, sleeping mats, battery packs
and juggling balls. The group sealed the entrance and vowed to continue
digging in an attempt to delay development as much as possible. The group
was led by the veteran activist Swampy, real name Daniel Hooper, who was
described by campaigners as a “master digger”.

Others fled to four tree houses, which they move between using zip lines.
However, most had been removed by bailiffs by about 2pm. Some who were
caught on the ground were dragged off the site.

Camden council, the former landowner, initially suggested it was not
responsible for failing to spot the tunnels, saying that ownership of the
site had been taken over by Network Rail. However, after Network Rail said
it was not responsible for managing the site, the council admitted it had
not noticed the digging during assessments of the camp.

A Camden Council spokesman said: “We were not aware these tunnels were
being built. Clearly the protesters have a responsibility themselves not to
act in ways which could endanger their lives.”

An HS2 spokeswoman said: “To ensure HS2 is able to deliver its major
benefits to the UK on time, certain works must take place at designated
times. HS2 has taken legal temporary possession of Euston Square Gardens
East in order to progress with works necessary for the construction of the
new Euston station.

“These protests are a danger to the safety of the protestors, our staff and
the general public, and put unnecessary strain on the emergency services
during a pandemic. The protesters are currently trespassing on land that is
legally possessed by HS2.”

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said: “We have only been involved
today in order to prevent breach of peace. Any questions regarding the
tunnels would need to be directed to the landowner and security firm.

“Six arrests have been made at the site of a protest in Euston Square
Gardens. One man was arrested for breach of the peace and a short time
later was de-arrested and released.

“A woman was arrested under the Trade Union and Labour Relations
(Consolidation) Act. One man was arrested under the Public Order Act, while
a further three men were arrested under the Health Protection (Coronavirus)
Regulations 2020. A police presence remains at the site to prevent further
potential breaches of the peace and to uphold Covid legislation.”

HS2 Rebellion, an alliance of activists who made the camp, spent months
burrowing “in secret” under the park.

“It’s not just one straight shaft down there, it’s like an ant nest with
lots of different routes,” one activist who dug 20ft of the tunnel said.
“The aim is to make it very complicated to delay the development as much as
possible. They are still digging now.”

The activists set up a Tree Protection Camp in the park in September after
warning that Euston Square Gardens would be replaced with a temporary taxi
rank before being sold off to developers.

“It will take them a week to get people down and out of the tunnels. The
guys in the trees are supplied with ‘squirrel food’ – canned food and nuts
– so they can stay up there for ages.”

The alliance of climate campaigners said that the tunnellers had worked
“around the clock” to create the tunnel network, which is codenamed Calvin,
and were prepared to occupy it “for as long as it takes to stop HS2”.

A spokesman said: “They believe they can hold out in the tunnel for several
weeks and hope in this time that a court will rule against HS2 for breaking
the law by attempting an eviction without a court order and during the
national coronavirus lockdown.”

… continues
Marland
2021-01-27 23:29:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
From
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hs2-protesters-dig-secret-100ft-tunnel-under-london-park-spcxnw65j>
Protesters secretly constructed two tunnels supported by an elaborate “ant
nest” of passages without detection near the site of HS2, embarrassing the
security operation surrounding Britain’s biggest infrastructure project.
Climate campaigners protesting against the construction of the
multibillion-pound railway line spent months digging 100ft of passages and
chambers 15ft below Euston Square Gardens in north London.
They moved dirt from the two main tunnels, codenamed Crystal and Kelvin, to
the surface with buckets and hid it in the walls of their makeshift wooden
fort. The entrance is concealed from public view by the planks and
tarpaulin that form the main structure of the camp.
HS2 officials learnt about the tunnels early this morning after securing
temporary legal possession of the site from the landowners and sending in
about 100 bailiffs to evict dozens of activists living in treetops, tunnels
and the main compound.
A large number of activists were removed around 4.30am, prompting about
eight people to retreat underground with food, sleeping mats, battery packs
and juggling balls. The group sealed the entrance and vowed to continue
digging in an attempt to delay development as much as possible. The group
was led by the veteran activist Swampy, real name Daniel Hooper, who was
described by campaigners as a “master digger”.
Others fled to four tree houses, which they move between using zip lines.
However, most had been removed by bailiffs by about 2pm. Some who were
caught on the ground were dragged off the site.
Camden council, the former landowner, initially suggested it was not
responsible for failing to spot the tunnels, saying that ownership of the
site had been taken over by Network Rail. However, after Network Rail said
it was not responsible for managing the site, the council admitted it had
not noticed the digging during assessments of the camp.
A Camden Council spokesman said: “We were not aware these tunnels were
being built. Clearly the protesters have a responsibility themselves not to
act in ways which could endanger their lives.”
An HS2 spokeswoman said: “To ensure HS2 is able to deliver its major
benefits to the UK on time, certain works must take place at designated
times. HS2 has taken legal temporary possession of Euston Square Gardens
East in order to progress with works necessary for the construction of the
new Euston station.
“These protests are a danger to the safety of the protestors, our staff and
the general public, and put unnecessary strain on the emergency services
during a pandemic. The protesters are currently trespassing on land that is
legally possessed by HS2.”
A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said: “We have only been involved
today in order to prevent breach of peace. Any questions regarding the
tunnels would need to be directed to the landowner and security firm.
“Six arrests have been made at the site of a protest in Euston Square
Gardens. One man was arrested for breach of the peace and a short time
later was de-arrested and released.
“A woman was arrested under the Trade Union and Labour Relations
(Consolidation) Act. One man was arrested under the Public Order Act, while
a further three men were arrested under the Health Protection (Coronavirus)
Regulations 2020. A police presence remains at the site to prevent further
potential breaches of the peace and to uphold Covid legislation.”
HS2 Rebellion, an alliance of activists who made the camp, spent months
burrowing “in secret” under the park.
“It’s not just one straight shaft down there, it’s like an ant nest with
lots of different routes,” one activist who dug 20ft of the tunnel said.
“The aim is to make it very complicated to delay the development as much as
possible. They are still digging now.”
The activists set up a Tree Protection Camp in the park in September after
warning that Euston Square Gardens would be replaced with a temporary taxi
rank before being sold off to developers.
“It will take them a week to get people down and out of the tunnels. The
guys in the trees are supplied with ‘squirrel food’ – canned food and nuts
– so they can stay up there for ages.”
The alliance of climate campaigners said that the tunnellers had worked
“around the clock” to create the tunnel network, which is codenamed Calvin,
and were prepared to occupy it “for as long as it takes to stop HS2”.
A spokesman said: “They believe they can hold out in the tunnel for several
weeks and hope in this time that a court will rule against HS2 for breaking
the law by attempting an eviction without a court order and during the
national coronavirus lockdown.”
… continues
One of these may be useful.

http://rodenator.eu


GH
s***@grumpysods.com
2021-01-28 10:49:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:36:54 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
From
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hs2-protesters-dig-secret-100ft-tunnel-unde
r-london-park-spcxnw65j>
Protesters secretly constructed two tunnels supported by an elaborate “ant
nest” of passages without detection near the site of HS2, embarrassing the
security operation surrounding Britain’s biggest infrastructure project.
Of all the places to prevent HS2 construction happening, Euston would be
right at the bottom of my list. Ancient woodland I can understand but Euston
hasn't been a pleasent cityscape since the 1970s.
Roland Perry
2021-01-28 11:11:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:36:54 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
From
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hs2-protesters-dig-secret-100ft-tun
nel-unde
r-london-park-spcxnw65j>
Protesters secretly constructed two tunnels supported by an elaborate “ant
nest� of passages without detection near the site of HS2, embarrassing the
security operation surrounding Britain’s biggest infrastructure project.
Of all the places to prevent HS2 construction happening, Euston would be
right at the bottom of my list. Ancient woodland I can understand but Euston
hasn't been a pleasent cityscape since the 1970s.
I think you'll find that these people mistakenly believe that their
attempts to sabotage the OOC-Euston part of HS2 will result in the
entire project being cancelled.
--
Roland Perry
s***@grumpysods.com
2021-01-28 11:26:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:11:45 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
Of all the places to prevent HS2 construction happening, Euston would be
right at the bottom of my list. Ancient woodland I can understand but Euston
hasn't been a pleasent cityscape since the 1970s.
I think you'll find that these people mistakenly believe that their
attempts to sabotage the OOC-Euston part of HS2 will result in the
entire project being cancelled.
They're not stupid and know that won't happen so I don't understand what
they're doing. If you're protesting in some woodland or about some trees
there's a reasonable chance you might have some effect and the route is
diverted slightly, its happened in the past with various road projects. But
nothing is going to stop construction at Euston so ... wtf?
Graeme Wall
2021-01-28 17:17:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:11:45 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
Of all the places to prevent HS2 construction happening, Euston would be
right at the bottom of my list. Ancient woodland I can understand but Euston
hasn't been a pleasent cityscape since the 1970s.
I think you'll find that these people mistakenly believe that their
attempts to sabotage the OOC-Euston part of HS2 will result in the
entire project being cancelled.
They're not stupid and know that won't happen so I don't understand what
they're doing. If you're protesting in some woodland or about some trees
there's a reasonable chance you might have some effect and the route is
diverted slightly, its happened in the past with various road projects. But
nothing is going to stop construction at Euston so ... wtf?
It's all about self-publicity.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Sam Wilson
2021-01-28 20:53:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:11:45 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
Of all the places to prevent HS2 construction happening, Euston would be
right at the bottom of my list. Ancient woodland I can understand but Euston
hasn't been a pleasent cityscape since the 1970s.
I think you'll find that these people mistakenly believe that their
attempts to sabotage the OOC-Euston part of HS2 will result in the
entire project being cancelled.
They're not stupid and know that won't happen so I don't understand what
they're doing. If you're protesting in some woodland or about some trees
there's a reasonable chance you might have some effect and the route is
diverted slightly, its happened in the past with various road projects. But
nothing is going to stop construction at Euston so ... wtf?
It's all about self-publicity.
They interviewed a protester on the radio and he made some fairly valid
points about woodland and reducing travel requirements but blew it all by
saying we already had a railway between London and Birmingham so we didn’t
need another one.

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
s***@grumpysods.com
2021-01-29 09:23:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:17:11 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:11:45 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
Of all the places to prevent HS2 construction happening, Euston would be
right at the bottom of my list. Ancient woodland I can understand but
Euston
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
hasn't been a pleasent cityscape since the 1970s.
I think you'll find that these people mistakenly believe that their
attempts to sabotage the OOC-Euston part of HS2 will result in the
entire project being cancelled.
They're not stupid and know that won't happen so I don't understand what
they're doing. If you're protesting in some woodland or about some trees
there's a reasonable chance you might have some effect and the route is
diverted slightly, its happened in the past with various road projects. But
nothing is going to stop construction at Euston so ... wtf?
It's all about self-publicity.
Possibly, but if that was the case why was it all hush hush until they were
rumbled? Unless they planned a big Ta-da! reveal at some point. To me it
seems they've expended all that effort digging tunnels for no gain
whatsoever - they'd have got far more publicity just blocking euston road
holding some placards for a morning.
Graeme Wall
2021-01-29 10:11:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:17:11 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:11:45 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
Of all the places to prevent HS2 construction happening, Euston would be
right at the bottom of my list. Ancient woodland I can understand but
Euston
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
hasn't been a pleasent cityscape since the 1970s.
I think you'll find that these people mistakenly believe that their
attempts to sabotage the OOC-Euston part of HS2 will result in the
entire project being cancelled.
They're not stupid and know that won't happen so I don't understand what
they're doing. If you're protesting in some woodland or about some trees
there's a reasonable chance you might have some effect and the route is
diverted slightly, its happened in the past with various road projects. But
nothing is going to stop construction at Euston so ... wtf?
It's all about self-publicity.
Possibly, but if that was the case why was it all hush hush until they were
rumbled? Unless they planned a big Ta-da! reveal at some point. To me it
seems they've expended all that effort digging tunnels for no gain
whatsoever - they'd have got far more publicity just blocking euston road
holding some placards for a morning.
But that's not what they do, this way they get more individual publicity
when they finally reveal themselves. which is what they want, they are
not actually intersted in the notional cause they are supporting. It was
the same with the Newbury by-pass protesters who went on and on about
the rare plants that were being destroyed and then went and camped on
the site of the largest colony of the rarest plants because they didn't
know, or care, what they were.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
s***@grumpysods.com
2021-01-29 10:39:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:11:44 +0000
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:17:11 +0000
Possibly, but if that was the case why was it all hush hush until they were
rumbled? Unless they planned a big Ta-da! reveal at some point. To me it
seems they've expended all that effort digging tunnels for no gain
whatsoever - they'd have got far more publicity just blocking euston road
holding some placards for a morning.
But that's not what they do, this way they get more individual publicity
when they finally reveal themselves. which is what they want, they are
not actually intersted in the notional cause they are supporting. It was
the same with the Newbury by-pass protesters who went on and on about
the rare plants that were being destroyed and then went and camped on
the site of the largest colony of the rarest plants because they didn't
know, or care, what they were.
Well yes, half of them do seem to be professional dossers who couldn't hold
down a proper job if their lives depended on it. The other half being well
off middle class 20 something uni dropouts who haven't grown out of the
rebelling against mummy and daddy stage.
Recliner
2021-01-29 16:32:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:11:44 +0000
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:17:11 +0000
Possibly, but if that was the case why was it all hush hush until they were
rumbled? Unless they planned a big Ta-da! reveal at some point. To me it
seems they've expended all that effort digging tunnels for no gain
whatsoever - they'd have got far more publicity just blocking euston road
holding some placards for a morning.
But that's not what they do, this way they get more individual publicity
when they finally reveal themselves. which is what they want, they are
not actually intersted in the notional cause they are supporting. It was
the same with the Newbury by-pass protesters who went on and on about
the rare plants that were being destroyed and then went and camped on
the site of the largest colony of the rarest plants because they didn't
know, or care, what they were.
Well yes, half of them do seem to be professional dossers who couldn't hold
down a proper job if their lives depended on it. The other half being well
off middle class 20 something uni dropouts who haven't grown out of the
rebelling against mummy and daddy stage.
Indeed so. For example:
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hs2-euston-tunnel-protesters-hail-from-off-grid-scottish-island-gometra-3mfjq9bzl?shareToken=316a369ff6fa16c090c5ba8ef0ecdacf>

I think this bunch are the usual Extinction Rebellion crowd, who are
essentially anti-capitalist. They'll protest against anything that they see
as a manifestation of Big Business.
d***@rubbishworld.co.uk
2021-01-29 16:59:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 16:32:32 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:11:44 +0000
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:17:11 +0000
Possibly, but if that was the case why was it all hush hush until they were
rumbled? Unless they planned a big Ta-da! reveal at some point. To me it
seems they've expended all that effort digging tunnels for no gain
whatsoever - they'd have got far more publicity just blocking euston road
holding some placards for a morning.
But that's not what they do, this way they get more individual publicity
when they finally reveal themselves. which is what they want, they are
not actually intersted in the notional cause they are supporting. It was
the same with the Newbury by-pass protesters who went on and on about
the rare plants that were being destroyed and then went and camped on
the site of the largest colony of the rarest plants because they didn't
know, or care, what they were.
Well yes, half of them do seem to be professional dossers who couldn't hold
down a proper job if their lives depended on it. The other half being well
off middle class 20 something uni dropouts who haven't grown out of the
rebelling against mummy and daddy stage.
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hs2-euston-tunnel-protesters-hail-from-off-
grid-scottish-island-gometra-3mfjq9bzl?shareToken=316a369ff6fa16c090c5ba8ef0ecd
acf>
Paywall unfortunately.
Post by Recliner
I think this bunch are the usual Extinction Rebellion crowd, who are
essentially anti-capitalist. They'll protest against anything that they see
as a manifestation of Big Business.
Indeed.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2021-01-30 04:55:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by d***@rubbishworld.co.uk
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 16:32:32 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hs2-euston-tunnel-protesters-hail-from-off-grid-scottish-island-gometra-3mfjq9bzl?shareToken=316a369ff6fa16c090c5ba8ef0ecdacf>
Paywall unfortunately.
Provided you paste the whole URL including the word "shareToken" and the
code following it, it should bypass the paywall for a week or so. Sometimes
the system has a glitch, in which case try again in an hour or so.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Recliner
2021-02-02 11:35:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by d***@rubbishworld.co.uk
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 16:32:32 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hs2-euston-tunnel-protesters-hail-from-off-grid-scottish-island-gometra-3mfjq9bzl?shareToken=316a369ff6fa16c090c5ba8ef0ecdacf>
Paywall unfortunately.
Provided you paste the whole URL including the word "shareToken" and the
code following it, it should bypass the paywall for a week or so. Sometimes
the system has a glitch, in which case try again in an hour or so.
It runs in the family:
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/swampys-teenage-son-rory-occupying-hs2-protest-tunnels-near-euston-station-with-his-dad-pw3809bdr?shareToken=e96f30dda9fecf672246c48b721c7b36>
Recliner
2021-02-07 11:44:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:17:11 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:11:45 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
Of all the places to prevent HS2 construction happening, Euston would be
right at the bottom of my list. Ancient woodland I can understand but
Euston
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
hasn't been a pleasent cityscape since the 1970s.
I think you'll find that these people mistakenly believe that their
attempts to sabotage the OOC-Euston part of HS2 will result in the
entire project being cancelled.
They're not stupid and know that won't happen so I don't understand what
they're doing. If you're protesting in some woodland or about some trees
there's a reasonable chance you might have some effect and the route is
diverted slightly, its happened in the past with various road projects. But
nothing is going to stop construction at Euston so ... wtf?
It's all about self-publicity.
Possibly, but if that was the case why was it all hush hush until they were
rumbled? Unless they planned a big Ta-da! reveal at some point. To me it
seems they've expended all that effort digging tunnels for no gain
whatsoever - they'd have got far more publicity just blocking euston road
holding some placards for a morning.
But that's not what they do, this way they get more individual publicity
when they finally reveal themselves. which is what they want, they are
not actually intersted in the notional cause they are supporting. It was
the same with the Newbury by-pass protesters who went on and on about
the rare plants that were being destroyed and then went and camped on
the site of the largest colony of the rarest plants because they didn't
know, or care, what they were.
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hs2-protesters-create-trouble-for-wildlife-n7qdkwppl?shareToken=51460a093ae53a7c105083244c17c4be>

Protesters trying to stop the HS2 rail line destroying a nature reserve
have been accused of polluting a river beside their camp and scaring off
its wildlife.

The HS2 Rebellion camp at Denham Country Park, on the western edge of
London, is on the bank of the River Colne. The surrounding nature reserve
is home to endangered water voles and rich in biodiversity.

However, river quality tests downstream have had their worst results since
the camp expanded last summer. Park volunteers believe the river was
polluted by activists washing their clothes with detergents, or themselves
with soap and shampoo, and chemical run-off from dumped pallets used to
build camp structures.

Water voles, the fastest declining mammal in Britain, are one of the
species that protesters want to protect. But volunteers in the park say
camp fires near their burrow scared off the voles.

Mark Swaby, fishery manager at the country park, said: “There was a water
vole burrow. When the protesters arrived, tents were put up and fires were
lit, one of which was right above the water vole burrow. Needless to say
the water voles moved away. Then in November they were walking around
asking walkers if they had seen any water voles.”

While HS2 Rebellion’s website says activists established the camp to “halt
work, monitor and report wildlife crimes and bear witness to HS2’s ecocide
of the priority habitat wet woodland”, park volunteers believe the camp has
done little to prevent work on the high-speed line — but a lot to damage
wildlife. The camp made headlines in December when the veteran eco-warrior
Daniel Hooper, 47, known as Swampy, was evicted from a bamboo tower built
over the river.

River quality sample tests at a site downstream from the camp typically
find thousands of small invertebrates, such as freshwater shrimp and
mayflies. However, testing in September, when the camp was full, detected
no flies, suggesting they had been killed off by chemicals. A second test
was done two days later and still found nothing. The latest test in
November, when the camp population had shrunk, found a small number of
flies but still fell below the trigger point that suggests a pollution
event.

The test samples were taken from a shallow area of a ford below the
protesters’ camp but upstream from the HS2 compound. Because pollution
rarely travels upstream, and seemed confined to the part of the river near
the camp, volunteers are convinced that it was caused by protesters rather
than HS2.

Eddie Edwards, a local river monitor for the Riverfly Partnership, an
umbrella organisation to protect rivers’ water quality that did the tests,
was one of the team that took the samples in September and November. He
said they had been “horrified” by the results. Asked if he thought the
protest camp was responsible, he said: “Much as I hate to say it, yes.”
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-08 08:43:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 11:44:31 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
But that's not what they do, this way they get more individual publicity
when they finally reveal themselves. which is what they want, they are
not actually intersted in the notional cause they are supporting. It was
the same with the Newbury by-pass protesters who went on and on about
the rare plants that were being destroyed and then went and camped on
the site of the largest colony of the rarest plants because they didn't
know, or care, what they were.
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hs2-protesters-create-trouble-for-wildlife-
n7qdkwppl?shareToken=51460a093ae53a7c105083244c17c4be>
Protesters trying to stop the HS2 rail line destroying a nature reserve
have been accused of polluting a river beside their camp and scaring off
its wildlife.
I suppose their argument would be that their effect is temporary whereas
after HS2 there'll be no nature reserve at all. Regardless of the dubious
actions of the protestors, from what I've seen and read about HS2 there seems
to be very much a "fuck you little people" attitude emanating from them. Only
a few weeks ago they bulldozed some new wood that had been planted by some
school kids a few years back for an eco project somewhere in Bucks IIRC.
Recliner
2021-02-08 09:16:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 11:44:31 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
But that's not what they do, this way they get more individual publicity
when they finally reveal themselves. which is what they want, they are
not actually intersted in the notional cause they are supporting. It was
the same with the Newbury by-pass protesters who went on and on about
the rare plants that were being destroyed and then went and camped on
the site of the largest colony of the rarest plants because they didn't
know, or care, what they were.
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hs2-protesters-create-trouble-for-wildlife-
n7qdkwppl?shareToken=51460a093ae53a7c105083244c17c4be>
Protesters trying to stop the HS2 rail line destroying a nature reserve
have been accused of polluting a river beside their camp and scaring off
its wildlife.
I suppose their argument would be that their effect is temporary whereas
after HS2 there'll be no nature reserve at all. Regardless of the dubious
actions of the protestors, from what I've seen and read about HS2 there seems
to be very much a "fuck you little people" attitude emanating from them. Only
a few weeks ago they bulldozed some new wood that had been planted by some
school kids a few years back for an eco project somewhere in Bucks IIRC.
The annoying thing is when the construction access roads cause the damage —
why don't they re-route them if needed? That seems to be the case more
often than damage to the land actually needed for the railway itself.
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-08 10:39:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:16:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
I suppose their argument would be that their effect is temporary whereas
after HS2 there'll be no nature reserve at all. Regardless of the dubious
actions of the protestors, from what I've seen and read about HS2 there
seems
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
to be very much a "fuck you little people" attitude emanating from them.
Only
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
a few weeks ago they bulldozed some new wood that had been planted by some
school kids a few years back for an eco project somewhere in Bucks IIRC.
The annoying thing is when the construction access roads cause the damage —
why don't they re-route them if needed? That seems to be the case more
I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.
Marland
2021-02-08 11:19:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:16:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
I suppose their argument would be that their effect is temporary whereas
after HS2 there'll be no nature reserve at all. Regardless of the dubious
actions of the protestors, from what I've seen and read about HS2 there
seems
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
to be very much a "fuck you little people" attitude emanating from them.
Only
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
a few weeks ago they bulldozed some new wood that had been planted by some
school kids a few years back for an eco project somewhere in Bucks IIRC.
The annoying thing is when the construction access roads cause the damage —
why don't they re-route them if needed? That seems to be the case more
I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.
Isn’t that how a lot our infrastructure also got built in the first place?
Many railways were never profitable enough to justify the upheaval they
caused or the financial ruin
both to investors who lost their money or people displaced from businesses
and homes with little or no compensation.
The early London tubes never really made much money but we benefit from the
losses of those who paid for them now. Brunels steam ship ventures ruined
many but 150 years later he is feted as a hero
and the misery forgotten as are the people cleared away to build the large
projects of the Victorian and Edwardian periods which we now we often
admire on various TV programmes.

GH
Roland Perry
2021-02-08 14:25:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Marland
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:16:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
I suppose their argument would be that their effect is temporary whereas
after HS2 there'll be no nature reserve at all. Regardless of the dubious
actions of the protestors, from what I've seen and read about HS2 there
seems
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
to be very much a "fuck you little people" attitude emanating from them.
Only
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
a few weeks ago they bulldozed some new wood that had been planted by some
school kids a few years back for an eco project somewhere in Bucks IIRC.
The annoying thing is when the construction access roads cause the damage —
why don't they re-route them if needed? That seems to be the case more
I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.
Isn’t that how a lot our infrastructure also got built in the first place?
Many railways were never profitable enough to justify the upheaval they
caused or the financial ruin
both to investors who lost their money or people displaced from businesses
and homes with little or no compensation.
The early London tubes never really made much money but we benefit from the
losses of those who paid for them now. Brunels steam ship ventures ruined
many but 150 years later he is feted as a hero
and the misery forgotten as are the people cleared away to build the large
projects of the Victorian and Edwardian periods which we now we often
admire on various TV programmes.
The Great Central Victoria Station in Nottingham (1900-1967) is a
classic example of that.

Gaining more irony every time people suggest reopening its Beeching
closure much-subsequently-built-upon route as an alternative to HS2.
--
Roland Perry
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-08 16:18:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 8 Feb 2021 11:19:46 GMT
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.
Isn’t that how a lot our infrastructure also got built in the first place?
Many railways were never profitable enough to justify the upheaval they
caused or the financial ruin
both to investors who lost their money or people displaced from businesses
and homes with little or no compensation.
The early London tubes never really made much money but we benefit from the
losses of those who paid for them now. Brunels steam ship ventures ruined
many but 150 years later he is feted as a hero
and the misery forgotten as are the people cleared away to build the large
projects of the Victorian and Edwardian periods which we now we often
admire on various TV programmes.
There are parallels, but I think the difference between HS2 and the examples
you gave is that for most of the latter the benefit to society as a whole
were fairly obvious even if investors lost their shirt. The benefits of HS2
and equivocal at best thought to be frank its hard to point to any that are
realistic. Even the freeing up paths for freight on the WCML won't happen
if pax services on the WCML remain the same after HS2 is open, plus it would
have been simpler and cheaper to just add extra running lines for freight to
the WCML where possible or even build shoert diversion routes.
Recliner
2021-02-08 16:24:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On 8 Feb 2021 11:19:46 GMT
Post by Marland
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.
Isn’t that how a lot our infrastructure also got built in the first place?
Many railways were never profitable enough to justify the upheaval they
caused or the financial ruin
both to investors who lost their money or people displaced from businesses
and homes with little or no compensation.
The early London tubes never really made much money but we benefit from the
losses of those who paid for them now. Brunels steam ship ventures ruined
many but 150 years later he is feted as a hero
and the misery forgotten as are the people cleared away to build the large
projects of the Victorian and Edwardian periods which we now we often
admire on various TV programmes.
There are parallels, but I think the difference between HS2 and the examples
you gave is that for most of the latter the benefit to society as a whole
were fairly obvious even if investors lost their shirt. The benefits of HS2
and equivocal at best thought to be frank its hard to point to any that are
realistic. Even the freeing up paths for freight on the WCML won't happen
if pax services on the WCML remain the same after HS2 is open,
By removing the fast, non-stop services from the fast lines, they free up
capacity for more passenger trains on the fast lines, freeing up space for
more freights on the slow lines.
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
plus it would
have been simpler and cheaper to just add extra running lines for freight to
the WCML where possible or even build shoert diversion routes.
No, that would have been far more disruptive and expensive than building a
new doube-track railway through unpopulated areas.
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-08 17:27:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 16:24:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
There are parallels, but I think the difference between HS2 and the examples
you gave is that for most of the latter the benefit to society as a whole
were fairly obvious even if investors lost their shirt. The benefits of HS2
and equivocal at best thought to be frank its hard to point to any that are
realistic. Even the freeing up paths for freight on the WCML won't happen
if pax services on the WCML remain the same after HS2 is open,
By removing the fast, non-stop services from the fast lines, they free up
capacity for more passenger trains on the fast lines, freeing up space for
more freights on the slow lines.
Sure, if they get removed. I doubt they will. Do you think the service on
the Central line will be cut back once crossrail opens?
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
plus it would
have been simpler and cheaper to just add extra running lines for freight to
the WCML where possible or even build shoert diversion routes.
No, that would have been far more disruptive and expensive than building a
new doube-track railway through unpopulated areas.
Bollocks. Most of the WCML is in countryside, it would have been easy to
build some extra trackwork in those areas. Thats why I said "where possible".
Graeme Wall
2021-02-08 17:36:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 16:24:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
There are parallels, but I think the difference between HS2 and the examples
you gave is that for most of the latter the benefit to society as a whole
were fairly obvious even if investors lost their shirt. The benefits of HS2
and equivocal at best thought to be frank its hard to point to any that are
realistic. Even the freeing up paths for freight on the WCML won't happen
if pax services on the WCML remain the same after HS2 is open,
By removing the fast, non-stop services from the fast lines, they free up
capacity for more passenger trains on the fast lines, freeing up space for
more freights on the slow lines.
Sure, if they get removed. I doubt they will. Do you think the service on
the Central line will be cut back once crossrail opens?
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
plus it would
have been simpler and cheaper to just add extra running lines for freight to
the WCML where possible or even build shoert diversion routes.
No, that would have been far more disruptive and expensive than building a
new doube-track railway through unpopulated areas.
Bollocks. Most of the WCML is in countryside, it would have been easy to
build some extra trackwork in those areas. Thats why I said "where possible".
And what do you do where it isn't possible?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-09 08:28:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:36:29 +0000
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by Recliner
No, that would have been far more disruptive and expensive than building a
new doube-track railway through unpopulated areas.
Bollocks. Most of the WCML is in countryside, it would have been easy to
build some extra trackwork in those areas. Thats why I said "where possible".
And what do you do where it isn't possible?
Nothing. This new track would be solely for freight and it would mean that
freight trains can run for further without blocking pax trains than they
do now. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have to stop at all. Through cities
they'd still have to share tracks but thats better than the current situation
and certainly better than spending north of 100 billion on a new pax railway
that will probably makde zero difference to freight times.
Graeme Wall
2021-02-09 08:46:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:36:29 +0000
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by Recliner
No, that would have been far more disruptive and expensive than building a
new doube-track railway through unpopulated areas.
Bollocks. Most of the WCML is in countryside, it would have been easy to
build some extra trackwork in those areas. Thats why I said "where possible".
And what do you do where it isn't possible?
Nothing. This new track would be solely for freight and it would mean that
freight trains can run for further without blocking pax trains than they
do now. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have to stop at all. Through cities
they'd still have to share tracks but thats better than the current situation
and certainly better than spending north of 100 billion on a new pax railway
that will probably makde zero difference to freight times.
So the usual half-arsed British answer which achieves none of the
desired objectives and ultimately costs far more than doing the job
properly in the first place.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-09 10:11:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 08:46:23 +0000
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Nothing. This new track would be solely for freight and it would mean that
freight trains can run for further without blocking pax trains than they
do now. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have to stop at all. Through cities
they'd still have to share tracks but thats better than the current situation
and certainly better than spending north of 100 billion on a new pax railway
that will probably makde zero difference to freight times.
So the usual half-arsed British answer which achieves none of the
desired objectives and ultimately costs far more than doing the job
properly in the first place.
So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax trains
and as yet unknown time (possibly zero) for freight trains is a good use of
taxpayers money do you?

I'll take the half arsed solution that would probably be 1/10th the cost or
less given the shit stew the economy is now in thanks to the covid hysteria.
Graeme Wall
2021-02-09 10:12:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 08:46:23 +0000
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Nothing. This new track would be solely for freight and it would mean that
freight trains can run for further without blocking pax trains than they
do now. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have to stop at all. Through cities
they'd still have to share tracks but thats better than the current situation
and certainly better than spending north of 100 billion on a new pax railway
that will probably makde zero difference to freight times.
So the usual half-arsed British answer which achieves none of the
desired objectives and ultimately costs far more than doing the job
properly in the first place.
So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax trains
and as yet unknown time (possibly zero) for freight trains is a good use of
taxpayers money do you?
It's not about saving time on freight trains but allowing them to run at
all.
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
I'll take the half arsed solution that would probably be 1/10th the cost or
less given the shit stew the economy is now in thanks to the covid hysteria.
Still in denial Neil?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-09 11:29:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:12:16 +0000
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax trains
and as yet unknown time (possibly zero) for freight trains is a good use of
taxpayers money do you?
It's not about saving time on freight trains but allowing them to run at
all.
And having more tracks won't make any difference to that?
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
I'll take the half arsed solution that would probably be 1/10th the cost or
less given the shit stew the economy is now in thanks to the covid hysteria.
Still in denial Neil?
Still coming up with non arguments Greem?
Graeme Wall
2021-02-09 11:53:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:12:16 +0000
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax trains
and as yet unknown time (possibly zero) for freight trains is a good use of
taxpayers money do you?
It's not about saving time on freight trains but allowing them to run at
all.
And having more tracks won't make any difference to that?
Not 300 yards of extra track in the countryside leading to more flat
jucnction casuing even more congestion and delay
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
I'll take the half arsed solution that would probably be 1/10th the cost or
less given the shit stew the economy is now in thanks to the covid hysteria.
Still in denial Neil?
Still coming up with non arguments Greem?
So still in denial, 100,000 deaths is just down to hysteria is it?

NB I stopped worrying about idiots misspelling my name in kindergarten.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-09 17:15:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 11:53:19 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:12:16 +0000
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax
trains
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
and as yet unknown time (possibly zero) for freight trains is a good use of
taxpayers money do you?
It's not about saving time on freight trains but allowing them to run at
all.
And having more tracks won't make any difference to that?
Not 300 yards of extra track in the countryside leading to more flat
jucnction casuing even more congestion and delay
Are you really going with a lame straw man approach?
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by Graeme Wall
Still in denial Neil?
Still coming up with non arguments Greem?
So still in denial, 100,000 deaths is just down to hysteria is it?
80K people died of hong kong flu in 68. Where were the face nappies and
lockdown then? 600K people die every year in the UK, get over it. You're
just scared.
Post by Recliner
NB I stopped worrying about idiots misspelling my name in kindergarten.
But thats how Graham is pronounced in Haggis country - Greem.
Roland Perry
2021-02-09 10:38:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 08:46:23 +0000
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Nothing. This new track would be solely for freight and it would mean that
freight trains can run for further without blocking pax trains than they
do now. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have to stop at all. Through cities
they'd still have to share tracks but thats better than the current situation
and certainly better than spending north of 100 billion on a new pax railway
that will probably makde zero difference to freight times.
So the usual half-arsed British answer which achieves none of the
desired objectives and ultimately costs far more than doing the job
properly in the first place.
So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax trains
It's more than an hour for many destinations in the Midlands.
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
and as yet unknown time (possibly zero) for freight trains
HS2 isn't for freight trains.
--
Roland Perry
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-09 11:31:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:38:17 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by Graeme Wall
So the usual half-arsed British answer which achieves none of the
desired objectives and ultimately costs far more than doing the job
properly in the first place.
So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax trains
It's more than an hour for many destinations in the Midlands.
Which ones?
Post by Roland Perry
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
and as yet unknown time (possibly zero) for freight trains
HS2 isn't for freight trains.
*sigh*
Roland Perry
2021-02-09 13:31:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:38:17 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by Graeme Wall
So the usual half-arsed British answer which achieves none of the
desired objectives and ultimately costs far more than doing the job
properly in the first place.
So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax trains
It's more than an hour for many destinations in the Midlands.
Which ones?
Birmingham to Leeds, 1hr 9 mins.
--
Roland Perry
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-09 17:21:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 13:31:02 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:38:17 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by Graeme Wall
So the usual half-arsed British answer which achieves none of the
desired objectives and ultimately costs far more than doing the job
properly in the first place.
So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax trains
It's more than an hour for many destinations in the Midlands.
Which ones?
Birmingham to Leeds, 1hr 9 mins.
Wow, so a ~2 hour journey becomes ~1 hour. Well worth the money then.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2021-02-10 06:26:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 13:31:02 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:38:17 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by Graeme Wall
So the usual half-arsed British answer which achieves none of the
desired objectives and ultimately costs far more than doing the job
properly in the first place.
So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax trains
It's more than an hour for many destinations in the Midlands.
Which ones?
Birmingham to Leeds, 1hr 9 mins.
Wow, so a ~2 hour journey becomes ~1 hour. Well worth the money then.
You'd say the same about a road scheme which produced the same journey time
reduction, presumably?


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Roland Perry
2021-02-10 07:00:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 13:31:02 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:38:17 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by Graeme Wall
So the usual half-arsed British answer which achieves none of the
desired objectives and ultimately costs far more than doing the job
properly in the first place.
So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax trains
It's more than an hour for many destinations in the Midlands.
Which ones?
Birmingham to Leeds, 1hr 9 mins.
Wow, so a ~2 hour journey becomes ~1 hour. Well worth the money then.
1:58 becomes 49m, actually.
--
Roland Perry
bob
2021-02-09 08:51:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:36:29 +0000
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by Recliner
No, that would have been far more disruptive and expensive than building a
new doube-track railway through unpopulated areas.
Bollocks. Most of the WCML is in countryside, it would have been easy to
build some extra trackwork in those areas. Thats why I said "where possible".
And what do you do where it isn't possible?
Nothing. This new track would be solely for freight and it would mean that
freight trains can run for further without blocking pax trains than they
do now. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have to stop at all. Through cities
they'd still have to share tracks but thats better than the current situation
and certainly better than spending north of 100 billion on a new pax railway
that will probably makde zero difference to freight times.
It's not really much better and achieves far less of the benefits. The
fast passenger trains from the existing timetable that will be diverted
to HS2 run at something like 6 per hour for all the various
destinations, while freight runs at nothing like that frequency, so by
just diverting freight you are removing far less load from the WCML.
Capacity constraints are generally dominated by flat junctions, many of
which are in built up areas, so this scheme does nothign to aleviate
those problems. There is also the question of where the freight is
running to and from, which may require using those junctions to access
other lines, so the freight can't be removed from causing constraints
at those locations. You state, "will probably makde zero difference to
freight times" which entirely misses the point. HS2 is not about
improving times for freight or local passenger services, it is about
capacity. The problem that needs to be solved is one of capacity, not
of journey times.

Robin
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-09 10:19:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 09:51:45 +0100
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Nothing. This new track would be solely for freight and it would mean that
freight trains can run for further without blocking pax trains than they
do now. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have to stop at all. Through cities
they'd still have to share tracks but thats better than the current situation
and certainly better than spending north of 100 billion on a new pax railway
that will probably makde zero difference to freight times.
It's not really much better and achieves far less of the benefits. The
fast passenger trains from the existing timetable that will be diverted
to HS2 run at something like 6 per hour for all the various
No they won't, I can guarantee it. Apart from the fact that you're not
going to mix 125mph normal trains with 200mph TGVs unless you want to utterly
wreck the timetable.
Post by bob
Capacity constraints are generally dominated by flat junctions, many of
which are in built up areas, so this scheme does nothign to aleviate
those problems. There is also the question of where the freight is
running to and from, which may require using those junctions to access
other lines, so the freight can't be removed from causing constraints
So pax trains being able to pass freight trains on a different line has
no benefits? Right you are, whatever you say.
Post by bob
at those locations. You state, "will probably makde zero difference to
freight times" which entirely misses the point. HS2 is not about
improving times for freight or local passenger services, it is about
capacity. The problem that needs to be solved is one of capacity, not
of journey times.
No it isn't, there's no shortage of seats on the WCML and never has been.
bob
2021-02-09 10:51:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 09:51:45 +0100
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Nothing. This new track would be solely for freight and it would mean that
freight trains can run for further without blocking pax trains than they
do now. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have to stop at all. Through cities
they'd still have to share tracks but thats better than the current situation
and certainly better than spending north of 100 billion on a new pax railway
that will probably makde zero difference to freight times.
It's not really much better and achieves far less of the benefits. The
fast passenger trains from the existing timetable that will be diverted
to HS2 run at something like 6 per hour for all the various
No they won't, I can guarantee it. Apart from the fact that you're not
going to mix 125mph normal trains with 200mph TGVs unless you want to utterly
wreck the timetable.
They won't be usign the same rolling stock as today, it has been part
of the scheme since the beginning to procure a fleet of high speed
classic-compatible rolling stock for these services. By the time HS2
is ready for use, the Pendolino fleet will be as old as the IC225 fleet
is now, and that has been replaced on the ECML, so it is entirely
reasonable for that fleet to be replaced in that timeframe anyway.
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by bob
Capacity constraints are generally dominated by flat junctions, many of
which are in built up areas, so this scheme does nothign to aleviate
those problems. There is also the question of where the freight is
running to and from, which may require using those junctions to access
other lines, so the freight can't be removed from causing constraints
So pax trains being able to pass freight trains on a different line has
no benefits? Right you are, whatever you say.
If there are no extra paths through the pinch points like flat
junctions and stations, then there are no benefits, indeed.
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by bob
at those locations. You state, "will probably makde zero difference to
freight times" which entirely misses the point. HS2 is not about
improving times for freight or local passenger services, it is about
capacity. The problem that needs to be solved is one of capacity, not
of journey times.
No it isn't, there's no shortage of seats on the WCML and never has been.
There is a shortage of seats on trains that make use of track in the
Birmingham and Rugby area, where capacity is significantly limited by
the need to accommodate Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester and other long
distance services on flat junctions and limited capacity track. HS2
will free up a large amount of capacity allowing the currently
constrained services to be improved. There is also a shortage of
freight paths on the WCML, that again are constrained by the need to
accommodate fast passenger services ont the mixed use mainline.

Robin
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-09 11:37:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 11:51:42 +0100
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
No they won't, I can guarantee it. Apart from the fact that you're not
going to mix 125mph normal trains with 200mph TGVs unless you want to utterly
wreck the timetable.
They won't be usign the same rolling stock as today, it has been part
of the scheme since the beginning to procure a fleet of high speed
classic-compatible rolling stock for these services. By the time HS2
is ready for use, the Pendolino fleet will be as old as the IC225 fleet
is now, and that has been replaced on the ECML, so it is entirely
reasonable for that fleet to be replaced in that timeframe anyway.
And its entirely reasonable for new stock to be the first cost cutting
measure and only enough built for HS2 itself. I've no doubt you thought
they'd electrify the MML and the GWML properly too.
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
So pax trains being able to pass freight trains on a different line has
no benefits? Right you are, whatever you say.
If there are no extra paths through the pinch points like flat
junctions and stations, then there are no benefits, indeed.
Using your logic there's no point having more than 1 line in each direction
on any stretch of railway anywhere.
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
No it isn't, there's no shortage of seats on the WCML and never has been.
There is a shortage of seats on trains that make use of track in the
Birmingham and Rugby area, where capacity is significantly limited by
the need to accommodate Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester and other long
distance services on flat junctions and limited capacity track. HS2
will free up a large amount of capacity allowing the currently
Not if it never makes it to any of those destinations it won't.
Post by bob
constrained services to be improved. There is also a shortage of
freight paths on the WCML, that again are constrained by the need to
accommodate fast passenger services ont the mixed use mainline.
And adding 10 miles here, 20 miles there of extra track at the side specifically
for freight trains is no help whatsoever? In that case why was any money
wasted quadrupelling any track in the UK.
bob
2021-02-09 11:57:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 11:51:42 +0100
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
No they won't, I can guarantee it. Apart from the fact that you're not
going to mix 125mph normal trains with 200mph TGVs unless you want to utterly
wreck the timetable.
They won't be usign the same rolling stock as today, it has been part
of the scheme since the beginning to procure a fleet of high speed
classic-compatible rolling stock for these services. By the time HS2
is ready for use, the Pendolino fleet will be as old as the IC225 fleet
is now, and that has been replaced on the ECML, so it is entirely
reasonable for that fleet to be replaced in that timeframe anyway.
And its entirely reasonable for new stock to be the first cost cutting
measure and only enough built for HS2 itself. I've no doubt you thought
they'd electrify the MML and the GWML properly too.
Any scheme can be cut short or not completed. But your criticism of
HS2 comes down to "the scheme is bad because it might not be completed,
and if it is not completed then it is a bad scheme".
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
So pax trains being able to pass freight trains on a different line has
no benefits? Right you are, whatever you say.
If there are no extra paths through the pinch points like flat
junctions and stations, then there are no benefits, indeed.
Using your logic there's no point having more than 1 line in each direction
on any stretch of railway anywhere.
Straw man. No. If there is a specific part of the line that limits
capacity, then adding extra capacity in other locations does not
increase the capacity in the network.
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
No it isn't, there's no shortage of seats on the WCML and never has been.
There is a shortage of seats on trains that make use of track in the
Birmingham and Rugby area, where capacity is significantly limited by
the need to accommodate Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester and other long
distance services on flat junctions and limited capacity track. HS2
will free up a large amount of capacity allowing the currently
Not if it never makes it to any of those destinations it won't.
If HS2 is not built, then HS2 won't provide the benefits that HS2 is
designed to provide.
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by bob
constrained services to be improved. There is also a shortage of
freight paths on the WCML, that again are constrained by the need to
accommodate fast passenger services ont the mixed use mainline.
And adding 10 miles here, 20 miles there of extra track at the side specifically
for freight trains is no help whatsoever? In that case why was any money
wasted quadrupelling any track in the UK.
Correct. The infrastructure needs to be added at the locations where
it will remove constraints. Adding 10 miles here and 20 miles there
when the constraint is in some other location does absolutely nothign
to improve capacity. You could double the Far North line between
Georgemas Junction and Wick, and it would do nothing to relieve
capacity in the Rugby area.

Robin
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-09 17:18:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 12:57:43 +0100
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
And its entirely reasonable for new stock to be the first cost cutting
measure and only enough built for HS2 itself. I've no doubt you thought
they'd electrify the MML and the GWML properly too.
Any scheme can be cut short or not completed. But your criticism of
HS2 comes down to "the scheme is bad because it might not be completed,
and if it is not completed then it is a bad scheme".
Rubbish. Its a bad scheme all round as I've made clear. Even if it works as
advertised - which it won't - 100BN is a piss take amount of money to spend
on something who's economic benefits are equivocal to say the least.
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Using your logic there's no point having more than 1 line in each direction
on any stretch of railway anywhere.
Straw man. No. If there is a specific part of the line that limits
Not a straw man, thats exactly where your logic is heading.
Post by bob
capacity, then adding extra capacity in other locations does not
increase the capacity in the network.
It does when it allows a fast train to overtake a slow one. Do try thinking
a bit harder.
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
And adding 10 miles here, 20 miles there of extra track at the side specifically
for freight trains is no help whatsoever? In that case why was any money
wasted quadrupelling any track in the UK.
Correct. The infrastructure needs to be added at the locations where
it will remove constraints. Adding 10 miles here and 20 miles there
when the constraint is in some other location does absolutely nothign
Horseshit. See above.
Recliner
2021-02-10 12:18:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 12:57:43 +0100
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
And its entirely reasonable for new stock to be the first cost cutting
measure and only enough built for HS2 itself. I've no doubt you thought
they'd electrify the MML and the GWML properly too.
Any scheme can be cut short or not completed. But your criticism of
HS2 comes down to "the scheme is bad because it might not be completed,
and if it is not completed then it is a bad scheme".
Rubbish. Its a bad scheme all round as I've made clear. Even if it works as
advertised - which it won't - 100BN is a piss take amount of money to spend
on something who's economic benefits are equivocal to say the least.
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Using your logic there's no point having more than 1 line in each direction
on any stretch of railway anywhere.
Straw man. No. If there is a specific part of the line that limits
Not a straw man, thats exactly where your logic is heading.
Post by bob
capacity, then adding extra capacity in other locations does not
increase the capacity in the network.
It does when it allows a fast train to overtake a slow one. Do try thinking
a bit harder.
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
And adding 10 miles here, 20 miles there of extra track at the side specifically
for freight trains is no help whatsoever? In that case why was any money
wasted quadrupelling any track in the UK.
Correct. The infrastructure needs to be added at the locations where
it will remove constraints. Adding 10 miles here and 20 miles there
when the constraint is in some other location does absolutely nothign
Horseshit. See above.
It's fairly obvious from your inane posts on this subject that you're unaware that there are already passing loops on
double-track main lines.
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-10 14:37:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 12:18:11 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by bob
Correct. The infrastructure needs to be added at the locations where
it will remove constraints. Adding 10 miles here and 20 miles there
when the constraint is in some other location does absolutely nothign
Horseshit. See above.
It's fairly obvious from your inane posts on this subject that you're unaware
that there are already passing loops on
double-track main lines.
Are there? Gosh, thanks for the heads up Billy. Unfortunately a lot of them
arn't even long enough for a full length freight train, never mind 10 or 20
miles long where the freight can keep running for 20/30 mins while numerous
passenger trains overtake it.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2021-02-10 15:03:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 12:18:11 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by bob
Correct. The infrastructure needs to be added at the locations where
it will remove constraints. Adding 10 miles here and 20 miles there
when the constraint is in some other location does absolutely nothign
Horseshit. See above.
It's fairly obvious from your inane posts on this subject that you're unaware
that there are already passing loops on
double-track main lines.
Are there? Gosh, thanks for the heads up Billy. Unfortunately a lot of them
arn't even long enough for a full length freight train, never mind 10 or 20
miles long where the freight can keep running for 20/30 mins while numerous
passenger trains overtake it.
If the freight is an electrically-hauled container train, and the passenger
trains are all-stations stoppers, it's often the passenger which delays the
freight.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

Tweed
2021-02-08 17:51:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On 8 Feb 2021 11:19:46 GMT
Post by Marland
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.
Isn’t that how a lot our infrastructure also got built in the first place?
Many railways were never profitable enough to justify the upheaval they
caused or the financial ruin
both to investors who lost their money or people displaced from businesses
and homes with little or no compensation.
The early London tubes never really made much money but we benefit from the
losses of those who paid for them now. Brunels steam ship ventures ruined
many but 150 years later he is feted as a hero
and the misery forgotten as are the people cleared away to build the large
projects of the Victorian and Edwardian periods which we now we often
admire on various TV programmes.
There are parallels, but I think the difference between HS2 and the examples
you gave is that for most of the latter the benefit to society as a whole
were fairly obvious even if investors lost their shirt. The benefits of HS2
and equivocal at best thought to be frank its hard to point to any that are
realistic. Even the freeing up paths for freight on the WCML won't happen
if pax services on the WCML remain the same after HS2 is open,
By removing the fast, non-stop services from the fast lines, they free up
capacity for more passenger trains on the fast lines, freeing up space for
more freights on the slow lines.
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
plus it would
have been simpler and cheaper to just add extra running lines for freight to
the WCML where possible or even build shoert diversion routes.
No, that would have been far more disruptive and expensive than building a
new doube-track railway through unpopulated areas.
Genuine question: is there hard evidence for the oft quoted “the WCML is
full” or is this based on extrapolating previous growth with an optimistic
ever upwards line of the graph?

Such predictions, in whatever industry, often fail to come to pass.
Graeme Wall
2021-02-08 18:59:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On 8 Feb 2021 11:19:46 GMT
Post by Marland
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.
Isn’t that how a lot our infrastructure also got built in the first place?
Many railways were never profitable enough to justify the upheaval they
caused or the financial ruin
both to investors who lost their money or people displaced from businesses
and homes with little or no compensation.
The early London tubes never really made much money but we benefit from the
losses of those who paid for them now. Brunels steam ship ventures ruined
many but 150 years later he is feted as a hero
and the misery forgotten as are the people cleared away to build the large
projects of the Victorian and Edwardian periods which we now we often
admire on various TV programmes.
There are parallels, but I think the difference between HS2 and the examples
you gave is that for most of the latter the benefit to society as a whole
were fairly obvious even if investors lost their shirt. The benefits of HS2
and equivocal at best thought to be frank its hard to point to any that are
realistic. Even the freeing up paths for freight on the WCML won't happen
if pax services on the WCML remain the same after HS2 is open,
By removing the fast, non-stop services from the fast lines, they free up
capacity for more passenger trains on the fast lines, freeing up space for
more freights on the slow lines.
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
plus it would
have been simpler and cheaper to just add extra running lines for freight to
the WCML where possible or even build shoert diversion routes.
No, that would have been far more disruptive and expensive than building a
new doube-track railway through unpopulated areas.
Genuine question: is there hard evidence for the oft quoted “the WCML is
full” or is this based on extrapolating previous growth with an optimistic
ever upwards line of the graph?
Such predictions, in whatever industry, often fail to come to pass.
See PUG 2
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
bob
2021-02-08 17:52:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On 8 Feb 2021 11:19:46 GMT
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.
Isn’t that how a lot our infrastructure also got built in the first place?
Many railways were never profitable enough to justify the upheaval they
caused or the financial ruin
both to investors who lost their money or people displaced from businesses
and homes with little or no compensation.
The early London tubes never really made much money but we benefit from the
losses of those who paid for them now. Brunels steam ship ventures ruined
many but 150 years later he is feted as a hero
and the misery forgotten as are the people cleared away to build the large
projects of the Victorian and Edwardian periods which we now we often
admire on various TV programmes.
There are parallels, but I think the difference between HS2 and the examples
you gave is that for most of the latter the benefit to society as a whole
were fairly obvious even if investors lost their shirt. The benefits of HS2
and equivocal at best thought to be frank its hard to point to any that are
realistic. Even the freeing up paths for freight on the WCML won't happen
if pax services on the WCML remain the same after HS2 is open
They won't. That's the whole point. All the Manchester, Liverpool,
Holyhead, Glasgow and Edinburgh services that currently take up paths
on the WCML will be diverted onto HS2. Services that currently run on
the MML will also be diverted onto HS2, opening space on that line as
well.
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
plus it would have been simpler and cheaper to just add extra running
lines for freight to
the WCML where possible or even build shoert diversion routes.
The WCML runs through the middle of a number of large towns, where
building extra tracks would involve demolishing houses and other
buildings. It is far cheaper to build lines away from built up areas.
As the long distance passenger services don't stop at the intermediate
stations anyway, there is no problem routing those trains on a line
that doesn't pass through settlements. The difference in cost between
a freight route through the open countryside and a fast passenger route
through open countryside is small, but the benefits of separating the
fast passenger trains off the classic line and leaving it for freight
and stopping passenger trains is much greater than removing the freight
and leaving the classic lines for fast and stopping passenger trains.

Robin
Rolf Mantel
2021-02-08 18:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains is
much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines for
fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
bob
2021-02-08 18:10:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains
is much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines
for fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
And yet we heap praise on Brunel for spending the extra to build the
GWR to an alignment suitable for 125 mph or more when he could have
done far cheaper if he had followed the approach of, for example, the
London and Birmingham, by laying the route out for much lower speeds.

Robin
Tweed
2021-02-08 18:17:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains
is much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines
for fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
And yet we heap praise on Brunel for spending the extra to build the
GWR to an alignment suitable for 125 mph or more when he could have
done far cheaper if he had followed the approach of, for example, the
London and Birmingham, by laying the route out for much lower speeds.
Robin
But increasing speeds bring diminishing returns. You still have to get to
the station, hang around waiting for the train, get from your destination
station to where you really want to be etc. In a country that’s not
particularly big, and those undertaking the longest distance trips being in
a minority the additional time savings become increasingly insignificant.
Graeme Wall
2021-02-08 18:57:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by bob
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains
is much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines
for fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
And yet we heap praise on Brunel for spending the extra to build the
GWR to an alignment suitable for 125 mph or more when he could have
done far cheaper if he had followed the approach of, for example, the
London and Birmingham, by laying the route out for much lower speeds.
Robin
But increasing speeds bring diminishing returns. You still have to get to
the station, hang around waiting for the train, get from your destination
station to where you really want to be etc. In a country that’s not
particularly big, and those undertaking the longest distance trips being in
a minority the additional time savings become increasingly insignificant.
Why bother building a railway line fron London to Birmingham when the
stage coach can get you there in two days.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Tweed
2021-02-08 19:47:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by bob
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains
is much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines
for fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
And yet we heap praise on Brunel for spending the extra to build the
GWR to an alignment suitable for 125 mph or more when he could have
done far cheaper if he had followed the approach of, for example, the
London and Birmingham, by laying the route out for much lower speeds.
Robin
But increasing speeds bring diminishing returns. You still have to get to
the station, hang around waiting for the train, get from your destination
station to where you really want to be etc. In a country that’s not
particularly big, and those undertaking the longest distance trips being in
a minority the additional time savings become increasingly insignificant.
Why bother building a railway line fron London to Birmingham when the
stage coach can get you there in two days.
Because with a stage coach the journey time does become very significant
compared to the end point journeys.
Graeme Wall
2021-02-08 20:38:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by bob
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains
is much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines
for fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
And yet we heap praise on Brunel for spending the extra to build the
GWR to an alignment suitable for 125 mph or more when he could have
done far cheaper if he had followed the approach of, for example, the
London and Birmingham, by laying the route out for much lower speeds.
Robin
But increasing speeds bring diminishing returns. You still have to get to
the station, hang around waiting for the train, get from your destination
station to where you really want to be etc. In a country that’s not
particularly big, and those undertaking the longest distance trips being in
a minority the additional time savings become increasingly insignificant.
Why bother building a railway line fron London to Birmingham when the
stage coach can get you there in two days.
Because with a stage coach the journey time does become very significant
compared to the end point journeys.
That was actually an argument used by people trying to stop the original
line.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Tweed
2021-02-08 20:51:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by bob
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains
is much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines
for fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
And yet we heap praise on Brunel for spending the extra to build the
GWR to an alignment suitable for 125 mph or more when he could have
done far cheaper if he had followed the approach of, for example, the
London and Birmingham, by laying the route out for much lower speeds.
Robin
But increasing speeds bring diminishing returns. You still have to get to
the station, hang around waiting for the train, get from your destination
station to where you really want to be etc. In a country that’s not
particularly big, and those undertaking the longest distance trips being in
a minority the additional time savings become increasingly insignificant.
Why bother building a railway line fron London to Birmingham when the
stage coach can get you there in two days.
Because with a stage coach the journey time does become very significant
compared to the end point journeys.
That was actually an argument used by people trying to stop the original
line.
Maybe. But it doesn’t really have any bearing on the modern situation.
Shaving a few minutes off the journey time doesn’t help if the journey
to/from the station remains much the same.

It takes me 20 minutes to get to my station in the Midlands. 70 minutes of
so to get to London and then perhaps another 20 minutes to get to a central
London location by tube. Even halving the rail journey time wouldn’t make a
significant difference to my day.
nib
2021-02-08 21:29:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by bob
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside
is small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger
trains off the classic line and leaving it for freight and
stopping passenger trains is much greater than removing the
freight and leaving the classic lines for fast and stopping
passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful
speed limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled
the costs of building without any tangible benefits (you get
benefits of that speed only if you plan on going London to
Manchester non-stop, not on the Birmingham distance).
And yet we heap praise on Brunel for spending the extra to build
the GWR to an alignment suitable for 125 mph or more when he could
have done far cheaper if he had followed the approach of, for
example, the London and Birmingham, by laying the route out for
much lower speeds.
Robin
But increasing speeds bring diminishing returns. You still have to
get to the station, hang around waiting for the train, get from your
destination station to where you really want to be etc. In a country
that’s not particularly big, and those undertaking the longest
distance trips being in a minority the additional time savings
become increasingly insignificant.
Why bother building a railway line fron London to Birmingham when the
stage coach can get you there in two days.
Because with a stage coach the journey time does become very
significant compared to the end point journeys.
That was actually an argument used by people trying to stop the
original line.
Maybe. But it doesn’t really have any bearing on the modern situation.
Shaving a few minutes off the journey time doesn’t help if the journey
to/from the station remains much the same.
It takes me 20 minutes to get to my station in the Midlands. 70 minutes
of so to get to London and then perhaps another 20 minutes to get to a
central London location by tube. Even halving the rail journey time
wouldn’t make a significant difference to my day.
Yes but the speed of the train doesn't only reduce the journey time for
the passenger. It also allows the train and its crew to be more
productive by making more frequent journeys, so each train and its crew
can carry more passengers per day.

Eg: at low speed, one round trip per day = N passengers per day per
train; at high speed, two round trips per day = 2N passengers per day per
train (or any other ratio).

nib
Recliner
2021-02-08 22:07:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains is
much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines for
fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
HS2 has a design speed of 400km/h, not 480km/h, but I agree, 320km/h would
have been plenty for a country as small as the UK (not that HS2 will ever
extend out of England).
Christopher A. Lee
2021-02-08 22:19:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains is
much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines for
fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
Don't forget, the original plan was a high speed line to Scotland,
which would compete with domestic air travel.

Even though they can't admit this, because the wrong people will
accuse them of spending money like there's no tomorrow, that is still
the ultimate aim.

But at least it will disgorge traffic "off the end" onto the existing
main line network, which is being steadily improved - unlike the mess
they have in California.
Recliner
2021-02-08 22:53:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains is
much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines for
fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
Don't forget, the original plan was a high speed line to Scotland,
which would compete with domestic air travel.
Even though they can't admit this, because the wrong people will
accuse them of spending money like there's no tomorrow, that is still
the ultimate aim.
I don't think there's any aim for HS2 to extend any further north than the
WCML junction just south of Wigan, and, just perhaps, the ECML junction
just south of York. If there's still an appetite for more high speed lines
beyond that (probably not in our lifetimes), the pressure will be for a
line to the southwest.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But at least it will disgorge traffic "off the end" onto the existing
main line network, which is being steadily improved - unlike the mess
they have in California.
Imagine how different it would be if China owned California?
Christopher A. Lee
2021-02-09 00:49:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 22:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains is
much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines for
fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
Don't forget, the original plan was a high speed line to Scotland,
which would compete with domestic air travel.
Even though they can't admit this, because the wrong people will
accuse them of spending money like there's no tomorrow, that is still
the ultimate aim.
I don't think there's any aim for HS2 to extend any further north than the
WCML junction just south of Wigan, and, just perhaps, the ECML junction
just south of York. If there's still an appetite for more high speed lines
beyond that (probably not in our lifetimes), the pressure will be for a
line to the southwest.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But at least it will disgorge traffic "off the end" onto the existing
main line network, which is being steadily improved - unlike the mess
they have in California.
Imagine how different it would be if China owned California?
The Californian "infrastructure" is a single tracked. mostly freight
line through the Central Valley with passenger trains from the Bay
Area terminating at Bakersfield with buses the rest of the way to Los
Angeles because that line is solid with freight through the
Tehachapis.

The proposed high speed line will be built in stages, the first two of
which will have hardly any ridership because the high speed line will
end first at Madera and then Fresno, followed by Bakersfield. Only
when they have completed the final section between Bakersfield and
L.A. will they get any serious ridership.

If ever there were a line that had to be built all at once, it is this
one.

At least HS2 trains will be able to continue on reasonably fast main
lines.
Recliner
2021-02-09 01:07:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 22:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains is
much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines for
fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
Don't forget, the original plan was a high speed line to Scotland,
which would compete with domestic air travel.
Even though they can't admit this, because the wrong people will
accuse them of spending money like there's no tomorrow, that is still
the ultimate aim.
I don't think there's any aim for HS2 to extend any further north than the
WCML junction just south of Wigan, and, just perhaps, the ECML junction
just south of York. If there's still an appetite for more high speed lines
beyond that (probably not in our lifetimes), the pressure will be for a
line to the southwest.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But at least it will disgorge traffic "off the end" onto the existing
main line network, which is being steadily improved - unlike the mess
they have in California.
Imagine how different it would be if China owned California?
The Californian "infrastructure" is a single tracked. mostly freight
line through the Central Valley with passenger trains from the Bay
Area terminating at Bakersfield with buses the rest of the way to Los
Angeles because that line is solid with freight through the
Tehachapis.
The proposed high speed line will be built in stages, the first two of
which will have hardly any ridership because the high speed line will
end first at Madera and then Fresno, followed by Bakersfield. Only
when they have completed the final section between Bakersfield and
L.A. will they get any serious ridership.
If ever there were a line that had to be built all at once, it is this
one.
At least HS2 trains will be able to continue on reasonably fast main
lines.
Though potentially only at 110mph. What might be useful is if the classic
lines that the HS2 trains run on to (ie, the WCML north of Wigan) are
gradually upgraded to 140mph (signalling and OHLE) on the straighter
stretches. But the already weak cost/benefit ratio gets worse as the route
heads further north.

Let's not forget that internal flights might be powered by clean renewable
energy soon after 2040, reducing the green arguments for rail.
bob
2021-02-09 08:00:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 22:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains is
much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines for
fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
Don't forget, the original plan was a high speed line to Scotland,
which would compete with domestic air travel.
Even though they can't admit this, because the wrong people will
accuse them of spending money like there's no tomorrow, that is still
the ultimate aim.
I don't think there's any aim for HS2 to extend any further north than the
WCML junction just south of Wigan, and, just perhaps, the ECML junction
just south of York. If there's still an appetite for more high speed lines
beyond that (probably not in our lifetimes), the pressure will be for a
line to the southwest.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But at least it will disgorge traffic "off the end" onto the existing
main line network, which is being steadily improved - unlike the mess
they have in California.
Imagine how different it would be if China owned California?
The Californian "infrastructure" is a single tracked. mostly freight
line through the Central Valley with passenger trains from the Bay
Area terminating at Bakersfield with buses the rest of the way to Los
Angeles because that line is solid with freight through the
Tehachapis.
The proposed high speed line will be built in stages, the first two of
which will have hardly any ridership because the high speed line will
end first at Madera and then Fresno, followed by Bakersfield. Only
when they have completed the final section between Bakersfield and
L.A. will they get any serious ridership.
If ever there were a line that had to be built all at once, it is this
one.
At least HS2 trains will be able to continue on reasonably fast main
lines.
Though potentially only at 110mph. What might be useful is if the classic
lines that the HS2 trains run on to (ie, the WCML north of Wigan) are
gradually upgraded to 140mph (signalling and OHLE) on the straighter
stretches. But the already weak cost/benefit ratio gets worse as the route
heads further north.
Let's not forget that internal flights might be powered by clean renewable
energy soon after 2040, reducing the green arguments for rail.
What clean renewable energy source for aviation suitable for >200 mile
flights is in a position to be in widespread deployed service in less
than 20 years? Battery technology would need an order of magnitude
improvement in energy density for electric planes to have that kind of
range. There is yet to be any useful storage mechnaism for hydrogen
that would make it a viable aviation fuel, and 20 years is not that
long to get a new idea from the preliminary experimental stage to
widespread commercial deployment. Agriculture does not have the spare
capacity to produce biofuels in the volumes needed for widespread
deployment in commercial aviation. That leaves renewable powered
synthetic liquid fuels as the best candidate. We have been rolling out
existing renewables technology in an attempt to decarbonise the power
generating grid, the part of the energy use most easily convertible to
renewable energy for over 20 years and are still well short of actually
achieving zero emissions. Clean renewable energy for anything other
than a token proportion of the aviatin sector within 20 years at
current volumes of air traffic is almost impossibly soon given the
technology readiness level of the candidate options.

Robin
Recliner
2021-02-09 14:45:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 22:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains is
much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines for
fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
Don't forget, the original plan was a high speed line to Scotland,
which would compete with domestic air travel.
Even though they can't admit this, because the wrong people will
accuse them of spending money like there's no tomorrow, that is still
the ultimate aim.
I don't think there's any aim for HS2 to extend any further north than the
WCML junction just south of Wigan, and, just perhaps, the ECML junction
just south of York. If there's still an appetite for more high speed lines
beyond that (probably not in our lifetimes), the pressure will be for a
line to the southwest.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But at least it will disgorge traffic "off the end" onto the existing
main line network, which is being steadily improved - unlike the mess
they have in California.
Imagine how different it would be if China owned California?
The Californian "infrastructure" is a single tracked. mostly freight
line through the Central Valley with passenger trains from the Bay
Area terminating at Bakersfield with buses the rest of the way to Los
Angeles because that line is solid with freight through the
Tehachapis.
The proposed high speed line will be built in stages, the first two of
which will have hardly any ridership because the high speed line will
end first at Madera and then Fresno, followed by Bakersfield. Only
when they have completed the final section between Bakersfield and
L.A. will they get any serious ridership.
If ever there were a line that had to be built all at once, it is this
one.
At least HS2 trains will be able to continue on reasonably fast main
lines.
Though potentially only at 110mph. What might be useful is if the classic
lines that the HS2 trains run on to (ie, the WCML north of Wigan) are
gradually upgraded to 140mph (signalling and OHLE) on the straighter
stretches. But the already weak cost/benefit ratio gets worse as the route
heads further north.
Let's not forget that internal flights might be powered by clean renewable
energy soon after 2040, reducing the green arguments for rail.
What clean renewable energy source for aviation suitable for >200 mile
flights is in a position to be in widespread deployed service in less
than 20 years? Battery technology would need an order of magnitude
improvement in energy density for electric planes to have that kind of
range. There is yet to be any useful storage mechnaism for hydrogen
that would make it a viable aviation fuel, and 20 years is not that
long to get a new idea from the preliminary experimental stage to
widespread commercial deployment. Agriculture does not have the spare
capacity to produce biofuels in the volumes needed for widespread
deployment in commercial aviation. That leaves renewable powered
synthetic liquid fuels as the best candidate. We have been rolling out
existing renewables technology in an attempt to decarbonise the power
generating grid, the part of the energy use most easily convertible to
renewable energy for over 20 years and are still well short of actually
achieving zero emissions. Clean renewable energy for anything other
than a token proportion of the aviatin sector within 20 years at
current volumes of air traffic is almost impossibly soon given the
technology readiness level of the candidate options.
<https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/electric-flight.html>

<https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/hydrogen/zeroe.html>
bob
2021-02-09 16:03:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 22:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains is
much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines for
fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
Don't forget, the original plan was a high speed line to Scotland,
which would compete with domestic air travel.
Even though they can't admit this, because the wrong people will
accuse them of spending money like there's no tomorrow, that is still
the ultimate aim.
I don't think there's any aim for HS2 to extend any further north than the
WCML junction just south of Wigan, and, just perhaps, the ECML junction
just south of York. If there's still an appetite for more high speed lines
beyond that (probably not in our lifetimes), the pressure will be for a
line to the southwest.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But at least it will disgorge traffic "off the end" onto the existing
main line network, which is being steadily improved - unlike the mess
they have in California.
Imagine how different it would be if China owned California?
The Californian "infrastructure" is a single tracked. mostly freight
line through the Central Valley with passenger trains from the Bay
Area terminating at Bakersfield with buses the rest of the way to Los
Angeles because that line is solid with freight through the
Tehachapis.
The proposed high speed line will be built in stages, the first two of
which will have hardly any ridership because the high speed line will
end first at Madera and then Fresno, followed by Bakersfield. Only
when they have completed the final section between Bakersfield and
L.A. will they get any serious ridership.
If ever there were a line that had to be built all at once, it is this
one.
At least HS2 trains will be able to continue on reasonably fast main
lines.
Though potentially only at 110mph. What might be useful is if the classic
lines that the HS2 trains run on to (ie, the WCML north of Wigan) are
gradually upgraded to 140mph (signalling and OHLE) on the straighter
stretches. But the already weak cost/benefit ratio gets worse as the route
heads further north.
Let's not forget that internal flights might be powered by clean renewable
energy soon after 2040, reducing the green arguments for rail.
What clean renewable energy source for aviation suitable for >200 mile
flights is in a position to be in widespread deployed service in less
than 20 years? Battery technology would need an order of magnitude
improvement in energy density for electric planes to have that kind of
range. There is yet to be any useful storage mechnaism for hydrogen
that would make it a viable aviation fuel, and 20 years is not that
long to get a new idea from the preliminary experimental stage to
widespread commercial deployment. Agriculture does not have the spare
capacity to produce biofuels in the volumes needed for widespread
deployment in commercial aviation. That leaves renewable powered
synthetic liquid fuels as the best candidate. We have been rolling out
existing renewables technology in an attempt to decarbonise the power
generating grid, the part of the energy use most easily convertible to
renewable energy for over 20 years and are still well short of actually
achieving zero emissions. Clean renewable energy for anything other
than a token proportion of the aviatin sector within 20 years at
current volumes of air traffic is almost impossibly soon given the
technology readiness level of the candidate options.
<https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/electric-flight.html>
<https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/hydrogen/zeroe.html>
As part of my work, I participated in a fairly deep dive on the
relevant technologies and state of the art for acheiving zero emissions
air travel. The basic finding was that both battery electric and
hydrogen fuelled aircraft are technically possible, and can achieve
flight characteristics comparable with modern fossil fuelled aircraft.
The problem, however, is the weight. For batteries, the point at which
the battery weight exceeds the useful payload (so the battery is more
than 50% of the lifting capability of the airframe) based on current
Li-ion batteries is about 200 miles. That kind of range limits you to
the niche of air routes over bodies of water too wide or deep to
bridge/tunnel, for examle something like Dublin to Liverpool or Belfast
to Glasgow. While Hyrdogen is a bit better, the weight of the fuel
handling system, particularly the fuel tanks gives a useful range of
perhaps double that, but still nowhere near enough for most current air
routes.

The only technology that would allow something like a long haul
airliner to be net zero emissions would be to create a ground based
process to take renewable energy and non-fossil-fuel feed chemicals and
manufacture something that is chemically comparable with fossil
aviation fuel. Whatever energy source is going in to put the energy
into the fuel is going to be competing with other demands for renewable
energy such as the basic power grid and demand from battery electric
road vehicles, and given the investment needed in fuel manufacturing
plants beyond simply putting the power into the grid, it is unlikely
the economic case for creating this kind of fuel facility will exist
until after most of the existing power grid is no longer fossel fuel
based.

Given that we have been working on the process of decarbonising the
power grid for getting on for 30 years now and are only just reaching
the point where on a good day with favourable conditions, we can just
about meet the existing demand occasionally, the likelihood that the
capacity in such a system could actually produce fuel in volumes beyond
a token capacity in a sub-20 year timescale simply doesn't seem
plausible. If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net
zero carbon emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near
complete modal shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that
does not involve an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is
not feasible. For the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.

Robin
Roland Perry
2021-02-09 16:08:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net zero carbon
emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near complete modal
shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that does not involve
an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is not feasible. For
the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Genuine question: also all UK-Europe trips which could start by going
though the Channel Tunnel?
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2021-02-09 16:19:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net zero carbon
emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near complete modal
shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that does not involve
an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is not feasible.  For
the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Genuine question: also all UK-Europe trips which could start by going
though the Channel Tunnel?
Would seem logical. I can hear Michael O'Leary screaming even now.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Sam Wilson
2021-02-09 17:35:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net zero carbon
emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near complete modal
shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that does not involve
an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is not feasible.  For
the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Genuine question: also all UK-Europe trips which could start by going
though the Channel Tunnel?
Would seem logical. I can hear Michael O'Leary screaming even now.
A market opportunity for RyanRail?

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
Graeme Wall
2021-02-09 17:40:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net zero carbon
emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near complete modal
shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that does not involve
an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is not feasible.  For
the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Genuine question: also all UK-Europe trips which could start by going
though the Channel Tunnel?
Would seem logical. I can hear Michael O'Leary screaming even now.
A market opportunity for RyanRail?
Hasn't Megabus beat him to it?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Roland Perry
2021-02-10 08:51:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net zero carbon
emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near complete modal
shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that does not involve
an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is not feasible.  For
the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Genuine question: also all UK-Europe trips which could start by going
though the Channel Tunnel?
Would seem logical. I can hear Michael O'Leary screaming even now.
A market opportunity for RyanRail?
aka MegaBus(sic) for rail tickets. But only domestic, and didn't really
catch on.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2021-02-10 12:41:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net zero carbon
emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near complete modal
shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that does not involve
an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is not feasible.  For
the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Genuine question: also all UK-Europe trips which could start by going
though the Channel Tunnel?
Would seem logical. I can hear Michael O'Leary screaming even now.
A market opportunity for RyanRail?
aka MegaBus(sic) for rail tickets. But only domestic, and didn't really
catch on.
It was limited only to TOCs owned, or part-owned, by Stagecoach, which didn't help (and, of course, no such TOCs
remain). I suspect that the number of very cheap tickets was also very limited on any one service.
Roland Perry
2021-02-10 13:59:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net zero carbon
emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near complete modal
shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that does not involve
an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is not feasible.  For
the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Genuine question: also all UK-Europe trips which could start by going
though the Channel Tunnel?
Would seem logical. I can hear Michael O'Leary screaming even now.
A market opportunity for RyanRail?
aka MegaBus(sic) for rail tickets. But only domestic, and didn't really
catch on.
It was limited only to TOCs owned, or part-owned, by Stagecoach, which
didn't help (and, of course, no such TOCs
remain). I suspect that the number of very cheap tickets was also very
limited on any one service.
The gripping (where I saw it on the MML) was very 19th Century, with the
list of people expected on board being printed on a bit of paper. Maybe
as much as two sides for an off-peak HST.
--
Roland Perry
Marland
2021-02-10 14:44:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net zero carbon
emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near complete modal
shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that does not involve
an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is not feasible.  For
the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Genuine question: also all UK-Europe trips which could start by going
though the Channel Tunnel?
Would seem logical. I can hear Michael O'Leary screaming even now.
A market opportunity for RyanRail?
aka MegaBus(sic) for rail tickets. But only domestic, and didn't really
catch on.
It was limited only to TOCs owned, or part-owned, by Stagecoach, which
didn't help (and, of course, no such TOCs
remain). I suspect that the number of very cheap tickets was also very
limited on any one service.
IIRC one of the routes Salisbury* to Waterloo it wasn’t of any use for a
day out in London as the train(s?) it was available for left too late to
arrive at a sensible time and the return working left too early. I only
used it once and that was to travel to London for an overnight stay to
catch an early Eurostar service next day.

* It may also have been available from Exeter but I never looked for that.

GH
bob
2021-02-09 16:30:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net zero carbon
emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near complete modal
shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that does not involve
an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is not feasible. For
the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Genuine question: also all UK-Europe trips which could start by going
though the Channel Tunnel?
By all means. I was making a vague effort to keep the topic relevant
to HS2, and its ability to achieve a modal shift from aviation to rail,
but the same applies pretty well everywhere.

Robin
Roland Perry
2021-02-10 08:47:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Roland Perry
If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net zero
carbon emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near
complete modal shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that
does not involve an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is
not feasible. For the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Genuine question: also all UK-Europe trips which could start by
going though the Channel Tunnel?
By all means. I was making a vague effort to keep the topic relevant
to HS2, and its ability to achieve a modal shift from aviation to rail,
but the same applies pretty well everywhere.
The most recent long-ish domestic trip I made was from the Southeast to
Inverness-ish. Having looked at the pricing and timing, I decided that
going by train was probably the best solution, although that meant
writing off two days where the only billable work I could do was that
while sat on a train.

OK as a one-of, but a bit crippling if repeated too often.
--
Roland Perry
Tweed
2021-02-09 16:16:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 22:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains is
much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines for
fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
Don't forget, the original plan was a high speed line to Scotland,
which would compete with domestic air travel.
Even though they can't admit this, because the wrong people will
accuse them of spending money like there's no tomorrow, that is still
the ultimate aim.
I don't think there's any aim for HS2 to extend any further north than the
WCML junction just south of Wigan, and, just perhaps, the ECML junction
just south of York. If there's still an appetite for more high speed lines
beyond that (probably not in our lifetimes), the pressure will be for a
line to the southwest.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But at least it will disgorge traffic "off the end" onto the existing
main line network, which is being steadily improved - unlike the mess
they have in California.
Imagine how different it would be if China owned California?
The Californian "infrastructure" is a single tracked. mostly freight
line through the Central Valley with passenger trains from the Bay
Area terminating at Bakersfield with buses the rest of the way to Los
Angeles because that line is solid with freight through the
Tehachapis.
The proposed high speed line will be built in stages, the first two of
which will have hardly any ridership because the high speed line will
end first at Madera and then Fresno, followed by Bakersfield. Only
when they have completed the final section between Bakersfield and
L.A. will they get any serious ridership.
If ever there were a line that had to be built all at once, it is this
one.
At least HS2 trains will be able to continue on reasonably fast main
lines.
Though potentially only at 110mph. What might be useful is if the classic
lines that the HS2 trains run on to (ie, the WCML north of Wigan) are
gradually upgraded to 140mph (signalling and OHLE) on the straighter
stretches. But the already weak cost/benefit ratio gets worse as the route
heads further north.
Let's not forget that internal flights might be powered by clean renewable
energy soon after 2040, reducing the green arguments for rail.
What clean renewable energy source for aviation suitable for >200 mile
flights is in a position to be in widespread deployed service in less
than 20 years? Battery technology would need an order of magnitude
improvement in energy density for electric planes to have that kind of
range. There is yet to be any useful storage mechnaism for hydrogen
that would make it a viable aviation fuel, and 20 years is not that
long to get a new idea from the preliminary experimental stage to
widespread commercial deployment. Agriculture does not have the spare
capacity to produce biofuels in the volumes needed for widespread
deployment in commercial aviation. That leaves renewable powered
synthetic liquid fuels as the best candidate. We have been rolling out
existing renewables technology in an attempt to decarbonise the power
generating grid, the part of the energy use most easily convertible to
renewable energy for over 20 years and are still well short of actually
achieving zero emissions. Clean renewable energy for anything other
than a token proportion of the aviatin sector within 20 years at
current volumes of air traffic is almost impossibly soon given the
technology readiness level of the candidate options.
<https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/electric-flight.html>
<https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/hydrogen/zeroe.html>
As part of my work, I participated in a fairly deep dive on the
relevant technologies and state of the art for acheiving zero emissions
air travel. The basic finding was that both battery electric and
hydrogen fuelled aircraft are technically possible, and can achieve
flight characteristics comparable with modern fossil fuelled aircraft.
The problem, however, is the weight. For batteries, the point at which
the battery weight exceeds the useful payload (so the battery is more
than 50% of the lifting capability of the airframe) based on current
Li-ion batteries is about 200 miles. That kind of range limits you to
the niche of air routes over bodies of water too wide or deep to
bridge/tunnel, for examle something like Dublin to Liverpool or Belfast
to Glasgow. While Hyrdogen is a bit better, the weight of the fuel
handling system, particularly the fuel tanks gives a useful range of
perhaps double that, but still nowhere near enough for most current air
routes.
The only technology that would allow something like a long haul
airliner to be net zero emissions would be to create a ground based
process to take renewable energy and non-fossil-fuel feed chemicals and
manufacture something that is chemically comparable with fossil
aviation fuel. Whatever energy source is going in to put the energy
into the fuel is going to be competing with other demands for renewable
energy such as the basic power grid and demand from battery electric
road vehicles, and given the investment needed in fuel manufacturing
plants beyond simply putting the power into the grid, it is unlikely
the economic case for creating this kind of fuel facility will exist
until after most of the existing power grid is no longer fossel fuel
based.
Given that we have been working on the process of decarbonising the
power grid for getting on for 30 years now and are only just reaching
the point where on a good day with favourable conditions, we can just
about meet the existing demand occasionally, the likelihood that the
capacity in such a system could actually produce fuel in volumes beyond
a token capacity in a sub-20 year timescale simply doesn't seem
plausible. If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net
zero carbon emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near
complete modal shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that
does not involve an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is
not feasible. For the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Robin
Wouldn’t the better approach be to decarbonise all the things that are
relatively easy first, and worry about air transport last? Prioritise.
bob
2021-02-09 16:33:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 22:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains is
much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines for
fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
Don't forget, the original plan was a high speed line to Scotland,
which would compete with domestic air travel.
Even though they can't admit this, because the wrong people will
accuse them of spending money like there's no tomorrow, that is still
the ultimate aim.
I don't think there's any aim for HS2 to extend any further north than the
WCML junction just south of Wigan, and, just perhaps, the ECML junction
just south of York. If there's still an appetite for more high speed lines
beyond that (probably not in our lifetimes), the pressure will be for a
line to the southwest.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But at least it will disgorge traffic "off the end" onto the existing
main line network, which is being steadily improved - unlike the mess
they have in California.
Imagine how different it would be if China owned California?
The Californian "infrastructure" is a single tracked. mostly freight
line through the Central Valley with passenger trains from the Bay
Area terminating at Bakersfield with buses the rest of the way to Los
Angeles because that line is solid with freight through the
Tehachapis.
The proposed high speed line will be built in stages, the first two of
which will have hardly any ridership because the high speed line will
end first at Madera and then Fresno, followed by Bakersfield. Only
when they have completed the final section between Bakersfield and
L.A. will they get any serious ridership.
If ever there were a line that had to be built all at once, it is this
one.
At least HS2 trains will be able to continue on reasonably fast main
lines.
Though potentially only at 110mph. What might be useful is if the classic
lines that the HS2 trains run on to (ie, the WCML north of Wigan) are
gradually upgraded to 140mph (signalling and OHLE) on the straighter
stretches. But the already weak cost/benefit ratio gets worse as the route
heads further north.
Let's not forget that internal flights might be powered by clean renewable
energy soon after 2040, reducing the green arguments for rail.
What clean renewable energy source for aviation suitable for >200 mile
flights is in a position to be in widespread deployed service in less
than 20 years? Battery technology would need an order of magnitude
improvement in energy density for electric planes to have that kind of
range. There is yet to be any useful storage mechnaism for hydrogen
that would make it a viable aviation fuel, and 20 years is not that
long to get a new idea from the preliminary experimental stage to
widespread commercial deployment. Agriculture does not have the spare
capacity to produce biofuels in the volumes needed for widespread
deployment in commercial aviation. That leaves renewable powered
synthetic liquid fuels as the best candidate. We have been rolling out
existing renewables technology in an attempt to decarbonise the power
generating grid, the part of the energy use most easily convertible to
renewable energy for over 20 years and are still well short of actually
achieving zero emissions. Clean renewable energy for anything other
than a token proportion of the aviatin sector within 20 years at
current volumes of air traffic is almost impossibly soon given the
technology readiness level of the candidate options.
<https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/electric-flight.html>
<https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/hydrogen/zeroe.html>
As part of my work, I participated in a fairly deep dive on the
relevant technologies and state of the art for acheiving zero emissions
air travel. The basic finding was that both battery electric and
hydrogen fuelled aircraft are technically possible, and can achieve
flight characteristics comparable with modern fossil fuelled aircraft.
The problem, however, is the weight. For batteries, the point at which
the battery weight exceeds the useful payload (so the battery is more
than 50% of the lifting capability of the airframe) based on current
Li-ion batteries is about 200 miles. That kind of range limits you to
the niche of air routes over bodies of water too wide or deep to
bridge/tunnel, for examle something like Dublin to Liverpool or Belfast
to Glasgow. While Hyrdogen is a bit better, the weight of the fuel
handling system, particularly the fuel tanks gives a useful range of
perhaps double that, but still nowhere near enough for most current air
routes.
The only technology that would allow something like a long haul
airliner to be net zero emissions would be to create a ground based
process to take renewable energy and non-fossil-fuel feed chemicals and
manufacture something that is chemically comparable with fossil
aviation fuel. Whatever energy source is going in to put the energy
into the fuel is going to be competing with other demands for renewable
energy such as the basic power grid and demand from battery electric
road vehicles, and given the investment needed in fuel manufacturing
plants beyond simply putting the power into the grid, it is unlikely
the economic case for creating this kind of fuel facility will exist
until after most of the existing power grid is no longer fossel fuel
based.
Given that we have been working on the process of decarbonising the
power grid for getting on for 30 years now and are only just reaching
the point where on a good day with favourable conditions, we can just
about meet the existing demand occasionally, the likelihood that the
capacity in such a system could actually produce fuel in volumes beyond
a token capacity in a sub-20 year timescale simply doesn't seem
plausible. If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net
zero carbon emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near
complete modal shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that
does not involve an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is
not feasible. For the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Wouldn’t the better approach be to decarbonise all the things that are
relatively easy first, and worry about air transport last? Prioritise.
That's pretty much what is happening, but in addition to tackling the
"low hanging fruit" first, we should also be pursuing the objective of
making the transition from carbon intensive ways of doing things to low
carbon footprint ways of achieving the same things where there is no
actual technological development needed. Into that category, a modal
shift from aviation to rail where rail routes exist or can be built or
upgraded forms an important part of that. Achieving a modal shift from
air to rail on routes like London-Scotland, providing the capacity to
actually accommodate the people making that modal shift is necessary,
hence HS2.

Robin
Recliner
2021-02-09 17:02:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 22:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains is
much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines for
fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
Don't forget, the original plan was a high speed line to Scotland,
which would compete with domestic air travel.
Even though they can't admit this, because the wrong people will
accuse them of spending money like there's no tomorrow, that is still
the ultimate aim.
I don't think there's any aim for HS2 to extend any further north than the
WCML junction just south of Wigan, and, just perhaps, the ECML junction
just south of York. If there's still an appetite for more high speed lines
beyond that (probably not in our lifetimes), the pressure will be for a
line to the southwest.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But at least it will disgorge traffic "off the end" onto the existing
main line network, which is being steadily improved - unlike the mess
they have in California.
Imagine how different it would be if China owned California?
The Californian "infrastructure" is a single tracked. mostly freight
line through the Central Valley with passenger trains from the Bay
Area terminating at Bakersfield with buses the rest of the way to Los
Angeles because that line is solid with freight through the
Tehachapis.
The proposed high speed line will be built in stages, the first two of
which will have hardly any ridership because the high speed line will
end first at Madera and then Fresno, followed by Bakersfield. Only
when they have completed the final section between Bakersfield and
L.A. will they get any serious ridership.
If ever there were a line that had to be built all at once, it is this
one.
At least HS2 trains will be able to continue on reasonably fast main
lines.
Though potentially only at 110mph. What might be useful is if the classic
lines that the HS2 trains run on to (ie, the WCML north of Wigan) are
gradually upgraded to 140mph (signalling and OHLE) on the straighter
stretches. But the already weak cost/benefit ratio gets worse as the route
heads further north.
Let's not forget that internal flights might be powered by clean renewable
energy soon after 2040, reducing the green arguments for rail.
What clean renewable energy source for aviation suitable for >200 mile
flights is in a position to be in widespread deployed service in less
than 20 years? Battery technology would need an order of magnitude
improvement in energy density for electric planes to have that kind of
range. There is yet to be any useful storage mechnaism for hydrogen
that would make it a viable aviation fuel, and 20 years is not that
long to get a new idea from the preliminary experimental stage to
widespread commercial deployment. Agriculture does not have the spare
capacity to produce biofuels in the volumes needed for widespread
deployment in commercial aviation. That leaves renewable powered
synthetic liquid fuels as the best candidate. We have been rolling out
existing renewables technology in an attempt to decarbonise the power
generating grid, the part of the energy use most easily convertible to
renewable energy for over 20 years and are still well short of actually
achieving zero emissions. Clean renewable energy for anything other
than a token proportion of the aviatin sector within 20 years at
current volumes of air traffic is almost impossibly soon given the
technology readiness level of the candidate options.
<https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/electric-flight.html>
<https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/hydrogen/zeroe.html>
As part of my work, I participated in a fairly deep dive on the
relevant technologies and state of the art for acheiving zero emissions
air travel. The basic finding was that both battery electric and
hydrogen fuelled aircraft are technically possible, and can achieve
flight characteristics comparable with modern fossil fuelled aircraft.
The problem, however, is the weight. For batteries, the point at which
the battery weight exceeds the useful payload (so the battery is more
than 50% of the lifting capability of the airframe) based on current
Li-ion batteries is about 200 miles. That kind of range limits you to
the niche of air routes over bodies of water too wide or deep to
bridge/tunnel, for examle something like Dublin to Liverpool or Belfast
to Glasgow. While Hyrdogen is a bit better, the weight of the fuel
handling system, particularly the fuel tanks gives a useful range of
perhaps double that, but still nowhere near enough for most current air
routes.
The only technology that would allow something like a long haul
airliner to be net zero emissions would be to create a ground based
process to take renewable energy and non-fossil-fuel feed chemicals and
manufacture something that is chemically comparable with fossil
aviation fuel. Whatever energy source is going in to put the energy
into the fuel is going to be competing with other demands for renewable
energy such as the basic power grid and demand from battery electric
road vehicles, and given the investment needed in fuel manufacturing
plants beyond simply putting the power into the grid, it is unlikely
the economic case for creating this kind of fuel facility will exist
until after most of the existing power grid is no longer fossel fuel
based.
Given that we have been working on the process of decarbonising the
power grid for getting on for 30 years now and are only just reaching
the point where on a good day with favourable conditions, we can just
about meet the existing demand occasionally, the likelihood that the
capacity in such a system could actually produce fuel in volumes beyond
a token capacity in a sub-20 year timescale simply doesn't seem
plausible. If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net
zero carbon emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near
complete modal shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that
does not involve an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is
not feasible. For the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Robin
Wouldn’t the better approach be to decarbonise all the things that are
relatively easy first, and worry about air transport last? Prioritise.
Meanwhile the DfT intends EWR not to be electrified…
Recliner
2021-02-09 17:02:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 22:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains is
much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines for
fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
Don't forget, the original plan was a high speed line to Scotland,
which would compete with domestic air travel.
Even though they can't admit this, because the wrong people will
accuse them of spending money like there's no tomorrow, that is still
the ultimate aim.
I don't think there's any aim for HS2 to extend any further north than the
WCML junction just south of Wigan, and, just perhaps, the ECML junction
just south of York. If there's still an appetite for more high speed lines
beyond that (probably not in our lifetimes), the pressure will be for a
line to the southwest.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But at least it will disgorge traffic "off the end" onto the existing
main line network, which is being steadily improved - unlike the mess
they have in California.
Imagine how different it would be if China owned California?
The Californian "infrastructure" is a single tracked. mostly freight
line through the Central Valley with passenger trains from the Bay
Area terminating at Bakersfield with buses the rest of the way to Los
Angeles because that line is solid with freight through the
Tehachapis.
The proposed high speed line will be built in stages, the first two of
which will have hardly any ridership because the high speed line will
end first at Madera and then Fresno, followed by Bakersfield. Only
when they have completed the final section between Bakersfield and
L.A. will they get any serious ridership.
If ever there were a line that had to be built all at once, it is this
one.
At least HS2 trains will be able to continue on reasonably fast main
lines.
Though potentially only at 110mph. What might be useful is if the classic
lines that the HS2 trains run on to (ie, the WCML north of Wigan) are
gradually upgraded to 140mph (signalling and OHLE) on the straighter
stretches. But the already weak cost/benefit ratio gets worse as the route
heads further north.
Let's not forget that internal flights might be powered by clean renewable
energy soon after 2040, reducing the green arguments for rail.
What clean renewable energy source for aviation suitable for >200 mile
flights is in a position to be in widespread deployed service in less
than 20 years? Battery technology would need an order of magnitude
improvement in energy density for electric planes to have that kind of
range. There is yet to be any useful storage mechnaism for hydrogen
that would make it a viable aviation fuel, and 20 years is not that
long to get a new idea from the preliminary experimental stage to
widespread commercial deployment. Agriculture does not have the spare
capacity to produce biofuels in the volumes needed for widespread
deployment in commercial aviation. That leaves renewable powered
synthetic liquid fuels as the best candidate. We have been rolling out
existing renewables technology in an attempt to decarbonise the power
generating grid, the part of the energy use most easily convertible to
renewable energy for over 20 years and are still well short of actually
achieving zero emissions. Clean renewable energy for anything other
than a token proportion of the aviatin sector within 20 years at
current volumes of air traffic is almost impossibly soon given the
technology readiness level of the candidate options.
<https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/electric-flight.html>
<https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/hydrogen/zeroe.html>
As part of my work, I participated in a fairly deep dive on the
relevant technologies and state of the art for acheiving zero emissions
air travel. The basic finding was that both battery electric and
hydrogen fuelled aircraft are technically possible, and can achieve
flight characteristics comparable with modern fossil fuelled aircraft.
The problem, however, is the weight. For batteries, the point at which
the battery weight exceeds the useful payload (so the battery is more
than 50% of the lifting capability of the airframe) based on current
Li-ion batteries is about 200 miles.
Surely there will be huge improvements in battery technology and capacitors
over the next three decades? There are small, predictable incremental
improvements each year, with occasional step changes when new types of
battery go into production.
Post by bob
That kind of range limits you to
the niche of air routes over bodies of water too wide or deep to
bridge/tunnel, for examle something like Dublin to Liverpool or Belfast
to Glasgow. While Hyrdogen is a bit better, the weight of the fuel
handling system, particularly the fuel tanks gives a useful range of
perhaps double that, but still nowhere near enough for most current air
routes.
I'd have thought it very likely that zero emission short haul flight will
be available by 2050? Long haul will need synthetic liquid fuels made
using renewable energy, as you describe below.
Post by bob
The only technology that would allow something like a long haul
airliner to be net zero emissions would be to create a ground based
process to take renewable energy and non-fossil-fuel feed chemicals and
manufacture something that is chemically comparable with fossil
aviation fuel. Whatever energy source is going in to put the energy
into the fuel is going to be competing with other demands for renewable
energy such as the basic power grid and demand from battery electric
road vehicles, and given the investment needed in fuel manufacturing
plants beyond simply putting the power into the grid, it is unlikely
the economic case for creating this kind of fuel facility will exist
until after most of the existing power grid is no longer fossel fuel
based.
Given that we have been working on the process of decarbonising the
power grid for getting on for 30 years now and are only just reaching
the point where on a good day with favourable conditions, we can just
about meet the existing demand occasionally, the likelihood that the
capacity in such a system could actually produce fuel in volumes beyond
a token capacity in a sub-20 year timescale simply doesn't seem
plausible. If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net
zero carbon emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near
complete modal shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that
does not involve an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is
not feasible. For the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Even if there are electric short haul airliners by then?
bob
2021-02-09 19:35:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 22:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains is
much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines for
fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
Don't forget, the original plan was a high speed line to Scotland,
which would compete with domestic air travel.
Even though they can't admit this, because the wrong people will
accuse them of spending money like there's no tomorrow, that is still
the ultimate aim.
I don't think there's any aim for HS2 to extend any further north than the
WCML junction just south of Wigan, and, just perhaps, the ECML junction
just south of York. If there's still an appetite for more high speed lines
beyond that (probably not in our lifetimes), the pressure will be for a
line to the southwest.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But at least it will disgorge traffic "off the end" onto the existing
main line network, which is being steadily improved - unlike the mess
they have in California.
Imagine how different it would be if China owned California?
The Californian "infrastructure" is a single tracked. mostly freight
line through the Central Valley with passenger trains from the Bay
Area terminating at Bakersfield with buses the rest of the way to Los
Angeles because that line is solid with freight through the
Tehachapis.
The proposed high speed line will be built in stages, the first two of
which will have hardly any ridership because the high speed line will
end first at Madera and then Fresno, followed by Bakersfield. Only
when they have completed the final section between Bakersfield and
L.A. will they get any serious ridership.
If ever there were a line that had to be built all at once, it is this
one.
At least HS2 trains will be able to continue on reasonably fast main
lines.
Though potentially only at 110mph. What might be useful is if the classic
lines that the HS2 trains run on to (ie, the WCML north of Wigan) are
gradually upgraded to 140mph (signalling and OHLE) on the straighter
stretches. But the already weak cost/benefit ratio gets worse as the route
heads further north.
Let's not forget that internal flights might be powered by clean renewable
energy soon after 2040, reducing the green arguments for rail.
What clean renewable energy source for aviation suitable for >200 mile
flights is in a position to be in widespread deployed service in less
than 20 years? Battery technology would need an order of magnitude
improvement in energy density for electric planes to have that kind of
range. There is yet to be any useful storage mechnaism for hydrogen
that would make it a viable aviation fuel, and 20 years is not that
long to get a new idea from the preliminary experimental stage to
widespread commercial deployment. Agriculture does not have the spare
capacity to produce biofuels in the volumes needed for widespread
deployment in commercial aviation. That leaves renewable powered
synthetic liquid fuels as the best candidate. We have been rolling out
existing renewables technology in an attempt to decarbonise the power
generating grid, the part of the energy use most easily convertible to
renewable energy for over 20 years and are still well short of actually
achieving zero emissions. Clean renewable energy for anything other
than a token proportion of the aviatin sector within 20 years at
current volumes of air traffic is almost impossibly soon given the
technology readiness level of the candidate options.
<https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/electric-flight.html>
<https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/hydrogen/zeroe.html>
As part of my work, I participated in a fairly deep dive on the
relevant technologies and state of the art for acheiving zero emissions
air travel. The basic finding was that both battery electric and
hydrogen fuelled aircraft are technically possible, and can achieve
flight characteristics comparable with modern fossil fuelled aircraft.
The problem, however, is the weight. For batteries, the point at which
the battery weight exceeds the useful payload (so the battery is more
than 50% of the lifting capability of the airframe) based on current
Li-ion batteries is about 200 miles.
Surely there will be huge improvements in battery technology and capacitors
over the next three decades? There are small, predictable incremental
improvements each year, with occasional step changes when new types of
battery go into production.
Small incremental changes might extend the useufl range somewhat, but
realistically you need to have a useful range in the order of 1000
miles for an airliner to be a viable proposition outside of niche
routes, and small incremental changes are not likely to get you from
200 to 1000 miles.
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
That kind of range limits you to
the niche of air routes over bodies of water too wide or deep to
bridge/tunnel, for examle something like Dublin to Liverpool or Belfast
to Glasgow. While Hyrdogen is a bit better, the weight of the fuel
handling system, particularly the fuel tanks gives a useful range of
perhaps double that, but still nowhere near enough for most current air
routes.
I'd have thought it very likely that zero emission short haul flight will
be available by 2050? Long haul will need synthetic liquid fuels made
using renewable energy, as you describe below.
Do you have some technical data to support that? The data I have seen
suggests that there is no technology other than synthetic liquid fuels
that can get the job done, even for what would now be regarded as short
haul. In aviation, 20 years will get you from lab scale prototype to
in service, so if there isn't even a lab scale prototype that offeres
the promise, I have a hard time believing such a technology will be in
a position to completely supplant fossil fuels in that timescale.
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
The only technology that would allow something like a long haul
airliner to be net zero emissions would be to create a ground based
process to take renewable energy and non-fossil-fuel feed chemicals and
manufacture something that is chemically comparable with fossil
aviation fuel. Whatever energy source is going in to put the energy
into the fuel is going to be competing with other demands for renewable
energy such as the basic power grid and demand from battery electric
road vehicles, and given the investment needed in fuel manufacturing
plants beyond simply putting the power into the grid, it is unlikely
the economic case for creating this kind of fuel facility will exist
until after most of the existing power grid is no longer fossel fuel
based.
Given that we have been working on the process of decarbonising the
power grid for getting on for 30 years now and are only just reaching
the point where on a good day with favourable conditions, we can just
about meet the existing demand occasionally, the likelihood that the
capacity in such a system could actually produce fuel in volumes beyond
a token capacity in a sub-20 year timescale simply doesn't seem
plausible. If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net
zero carbon emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near
complete modal shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that
does not involve an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is
not feasible. For the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Even if there are electric short haul airliners by then?
Powered by what? London to Edinburgh or Glasgow, with safety reserves,
needs something like a 600 mile range. There is nothing on the horizon
that can provide that sort of capability with a useful payload capacity.

Robin
Marland
2021-02-09 22:45:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
I'd have thought it very likely that zero emission short haul flight will
be available by 2050? Long haul will need synthetic liquid fuels made
using renewable energy, as you describe below.
Post by bob
not feasible. For the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Even if there are electric short haul airliners by then?
Powered by what? London to Edinburgh or Glasgow, with safety reserves,
needs something like a 600 mile range. There is nothing on the horizon
that can provide that sort of capability with a useful payload capacity.
Robin
Even if that problem gets solved will charging times be fast enough for
short haul aircraft operations?
Turnaround times are often only about half an hour so

GH
Recliner
2021-02-09 23:34:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Marland
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
I'd have thought it very likely that zero emission short haul flight will
be available by 2050? Long haul will need synthetic liquid fuels made
using renewable energy, as you describe below.
Post by bob
not feasible. For the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Even if there are electric short haul airliners by then?
Powered by what? London to Edinburgh or Glasgow, with safety reserves,
needs something like a 600 mile range. There is nothing on the horizon
that can provide that sort of capability with a useful payload capacity.
Robin
Even if that problem gets solved will charging times be fast enough for
short haul aircraft operations?
Turnaround times are often only about half an hour so
I'd expect either swappable solid state batteries carried in the hold or
under the wings, or liquid-fuelled batteries/fuel cells. So, you could have
a liquid or gas that's either consumed and dumped (eg, H2), or pumped out
and replenished at the airport (like water, loaded in potable form, and
pumped out as waste at the destination).
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2021-02-10 06:26:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Marland
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
I'd have thought it very likely that zero emission short haul flight will
be available by 2050? Long haul will need synthetic liquid fuels made
using renewable energy, as you describe below.
Post by bob
not feasible. For the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Even if there are electric short haul airliners by then?
Powered by what? London to Edinburgh or Glasgow, with safety reserves,
needs something like a 600 mile range. There is nothing on the horizon
that can provide that sort of capability with a useful payload capacity.
Even if that problem gets solved will charging times be fast enough for
short haul aircraft operations?
Turnaround times are often only about half an hour so
Fast charging is available for cars; surely if nothing else you can scale
it up by effectively having multiple parallel chargers for fast charging of
bigger batteries? eg my car can charge at 150kW; if you effectively split
the battery in two and charge both halves using 150kW chargers, you've
halved your charging time. It doubles the infrastructure required, of
course.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Certes
2021-02-10 12:21:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Marland
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
I'd have thought it very likely that zero emission short haul flight will
be available by 2050? Long haul will need synthetic liquid fuels made
using renewable energy, as you describe below.
Post by bob
not feasible. For the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Even if there are electric short haul airliners by then?
Powered by what? London to Edinburgh or Glasgow, with safety reserves,
needs something like a 600 mile range. There is nothing on the horizon
that can provide that sort of capability with a useful payload capacity.
Even if that problem gets solved will charging times be fast enough for
short haul aircraft operations?
Turnaround times are often only about half an hour so
Fast charging is available for cars; surely if nothing else you can scale
it up by effectively having multiple parallel chargers for fast charging of
bigger batteries? eg my car can charge at 150kW; if you effectively split
the battery in two and charge both halves using 150kW chargers, you've
halved your charging time. It doubles the infrastructure required, of
course.
Is that limited by the charger or the battery? If the battery then
splitting won't help: you already have 150[1] cells in parallel which
can accept 1 kW each, and arranging them in two banks of 75 doesn't
change the total.

[1] an example number I plucked from my ears, but the principle holds
Recliner
2021-02-10 12:52:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Certes
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Marland
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
I'd have thought it very likely that zero emission short haul flight will
be available by 2050? Long haul will need synthetic liquid fuels made
using renewable energy, as you describe below.
Post by bob
not feasible. For the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Even if there are electric short haul airliners by then?
Powered by what? London to Edinburgh or Glasgow, with safety reserves,
needs something like a 600 mile range. There is nothing on the horizon
that can provide that sort of capability with a useful payload capacity.
Even if that problem gets solved will charging times be fast enough for
short haul aircraft operations?
Turnaround times are often only about half an hour so
Fast charging is available for cars; surely if nothing else you can scale
it up by effectively having multiple parallel chargers for fast charging of
bigger batteries? eg my car can charge at 150kW; if you effectively split
the battery in two and charge both halves using 150kW chargers, you've
halved your charging time. It doubles the infrastructure required, of
course.
Is that limited by the charger or the battery? If the battery then
splitting won't help: you already have 150[1] cells in parallel which
can accept 1 kW each, and arranging them in two banks of 75 doesn't
change the total.
It's separately limited for both. Over-heating is the issue with high charging rates, so batteries designed for rapid
charging need better cooling. That makes them bulkier and more expensive, so they tend to be confined to more expensive,
powerful cars.

For example: <https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/products/taycan/battery-18557.html>

This powerful car can charge at up to 270 kW, which facilitates charging time for 5% to 80% in 22.5 minutes in ideal
conditions at 800-volt high-power charging stations.

As for rapid chargers, some are backed by their own batteries which can be constantly trickle charged, and then deliver
that charge rapidly from time to time. It's the same scheme that Vivarail is using.
Recliner
2021-02-09 23:41:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 22:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains is
much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines for
fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
Don't forget, the original plan was a high speed line to Scotland,
which would compete with domestic air travel.
Even though they can't admit this, because the wrong people will
accuse them of spending money like there's no tomorrow, that is still
the ultimate aim.
I don't think there's any aim for HS2 to extend any further north than the
WCML junction just south of Wigan, and, just perhaps, the ECML junction
just south of York. If there's still an appetite for more high speed lines
beyond that (probably not in our lifetimes), the pressure will be for a
line to the southwest.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But at least it will disgorge traffic "off the end" onto the existing
main line network, which is being steadily improved - unlike the mess
they have in California.
Imagine how different it would be if China owned California?
The Californian "infrastructure" is a single tracked. mostly freight
line through the Central Valley with passenger trains from the Bay
Area terminating at Bakersfield with buses the rest of the way to Los
Angeles because that line is solid with freight through the
Tehachapis.
The proposed high speed line will be built in stages, the first two of
which will have hardly any ridership because the high speed line will
end first at Madera and then Fresno, followed by Bakersfield. Only
when they have completed the final section between Bakersfield and
L.A. will they get any serious ridership.
If ever there were a line that had to be built all at once, it is this
one.
At least HS2 trains will be able to continue on reasonably fast main
lines.
Though potentially only at 110mph. What might be useful is if the classic
lines that the HS2 trains run on to (ie, the WCML north of Wigan) are
gradually upgraded to 140mph (signalling and OHLE) on the straighter
stretches. But the already weak cost/benefit ratio gets worse as the route
heads further north.
Let's not forget that internal flights might be powered by clean renewable
energy soon after 2040, reducing the green arguments for rail.
What clean renewable energy source for aviation suitable for >200 mile
flights is in a position to be in widespread deployed service in less
than 20 years? Battery technology would need an order of magnitude
improvement in energy density for electric planes to have that kind of
range. There is yet to be any useful storage mechnaism for hydrogen
that would make it a viable aviation fuel, and 20 years is not that
long to get a new idea from the preliminary experimental stage to
widespread commercial deployment. Agriculture does not have the spare
capacity to produce biofuels in the volumes needed for widespread
deployment in commercial aviation. That leaves renewable powered
synthetic liquid fuels as the best candidate. We have been rolling out
existing renewables technology in an attempt to decarbonise the power
generating grid, the part of the energy use most easily convertible to
renewable energy for over 20 years and are still well short of actually
achieving zero emissions. Clean renewable energy for anything other
than a token proportion of the aviatin sector within 20 years at
current volumes of air traffic is almost impossibly soon given the
technology readiness level of the candidate options.
<https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/electric-flight.html>
<https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/hydrogen/zeroe.html>
As part of my work, I participated in a fairly deep dive on the
relevant technologies and state of the art for acheiving zero emissions
air travel. The basic finding was that both battery electric and
hydrogen fuelled aircraft are technically possible, and can achieve
flight characteristics comparable with modern fossil fuelled aircraft.
The problem, however, is the weight. For batteries, the point at which
the battery weight exceeds the useful payload (so the battery is more
than 50% of the lifting capability of the airframe) based on current
Li-ion batteries is about 200 miles.
Surely there will be huge improvements in battery technology and capacitors
over the next three decades? There are small, predictable incremental
improvements each year, with occasional step changes when new types of
battery go into production.
Small incremental changes might extend the useufl range somewhat, but
realistically you need to have a useful range in the order of 1000
miles for an airliner to be a viable proposition outside of niche
routes, and small incremental changes are not likely to get you from
200 to 1000 miles.
I'm expecting both small incremental changes every year and the occasional
bigger step changes when new types of battery go into production that I
mentioned. This is something that is being researched like never before,
and new chemistries and cell constructions will surely arrive every few
years.
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
That kind of range limits you to
the niche of air routes over bodies of water too wide or deep to
bridge/tunnel, for examle something like Dublin to Liverpool or Belfast
to Glasgow. While Hyrdogen is a bit better, the weight of the fuel
handling system, particularly the fuel tanks gives a useful range of
perhaps double that, but still nowhere near enough for most current air
routes.
I'd have thought it very likely that zero emission short haul flight will
be available by 2050? Long haul will need synthetic liquid fuels made
using renewable energy, as you describe below.
Do you have some technical data to support that? The data I have seen
suggests that there is no technology other than synthetic liquid fuels
that can get the job done, even for what would now be regarded as short
haul. In aviation, 20 years will get you from lab scale prototype to
in service, so if there isn't even a lab scale prototype that offeres
the promise, I have a hard time believing such a technology will be in
a position to completely supplant fossil fuels in that timescale.
Oh, I agree. I'm talking about availability, not dominance, in the 2040s.
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
The only technology that would allow something like a long haul
airliner to be net zero emissions would be to create a ground based
process to take renewable energy and non-fossil-fuel feed chemicals and
manufacture something that is chemically comparable with fossil
aviation fuel. Whatever energy source is going in to put the energy
into the fuel is going to be competing with other demands for renewable
energy such as the basic power grid and demand from battery electric
road vehicles, and given the investment needed in fuel manufacturing
plants beyond simply putting the power into the grid, it is unlikely
the economic case for creating this kind of fuel facility will exist
until after most of the existing power grid is no longer fossel fuel
based.
Given that we have been working on the process of decarbonising the
power grid for getting on for 30 years now and are only just reaching
the point where on a good day with favourable conditions, we can just
about meet the existing demand occasionally, the likelihood that the
capacity in such a system could actually produce fuel in volumes beyond
a token capacity in a sub-20 year timescale simply doesn't seem
plausible. If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net
zero carbon emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near
complete modal shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that
does not involve an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is
not feasible. For the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Even if there are electric short haul airliners by then?
Powered by what? London to Edinburgh or Glasgow, with safety reserves,
needs something like a 600 mile range. There is nothing on the horizon
that can provide that sort of capability with a useful payload capacity.
Not on the horizon today, but probably in a research lab this decade.
bob
2021-02-10 08:08:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
As part of my work, I participated in a fairly deep dive on the
relevant technologies and state of the art for acheiving zero emissions
air travel. The basic finding was that both battery electric and
hydrogen fuelled aircraft are technically possible, and can achieve
flight characteristics comparable with modern fossil fuelled aircraft.
The problem, however, is the weight. For batteries, the point at which
the battery weight exceeds the useful payload (so the battery is more
than 50% of the lifting capability of the airframe) based on current
Li-ion batteries is about 200 miles.
Surely there will be huge improvements in battery technology and capacitors
over the next three decades? There are small, predictable incremental
improvements each year, with occasional step changes when new types of
battery go into production.
Small incremental changes might extend the useufl range somewhat, but
realistically you need to have a useful range in the order of 1000
miles for an airliner to be a viable proposition outside of niche
routes, and small incremental changes are not likely to get you from
200 to 1000 miles.
I'm expecting both small incremental changes every year and the occasional
bigger step changes when new types of battery go into production that I
mentioned. This is something that is being researched like never before,
and new chemistries and cell constructions will surely arrive every few
years.
The Lithium-ion battery was developed in a lab setting in the mid
1980s, the first commercial product was 1991, and it took about 10
years to reach dominance in the portable electronics market where it
remains to this day, so currently we are using a 30 year old
technology. In those 30 years while there have been incremental
changes, there has been no no chemistry and no step change technology
that has reached the market.
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
That kind of range limits you to
the niche of air routes over bodies of water too wide or deep to
bridge/tunnel, for examle something like Dublin to Liverpool or Belfast
to Glasgow. While Hyrdogen is a bit better, the weight of the fuel
handling system, particularly the fuel tanks gives a useful range of
perhaps double that, but still nowhere near enough for most current air
routes.
I'd have thought it very likely that zero emission short haul flight will
be available by 2050? Long haul will need synthetic liquid fuels made
using renewable energy, as you describe below.
Do you have some technical data to support that? The data I have seen
suggests that there is no technology other than synthetic liquid fuels
that can get the job done, even for what would now be regarded as short
haul. In aviation, 20 years will get you from lab scale prototype to
in service, so if there isn't even a lab scale prototype that offeres
the promise, I have a hard time believing such a technology will be in
a position to completely supplant fossil fuels in that timescale.
Oh, I agree. I'm talking about availability, not dominance, in the 2040s.
If we are going to actually address climate change, then, frankly, that
timescale is too long. If we look at the development of the Li-ion
battery, it took 5 years to get from lab prototype to commercial
product for small portable electronics, about 10 years to reach the
point where the price and manufacturing technlogogy put it in a
dominant position for consumer electronics, another 10 years to scale
it up to a car and 10 years on that to scale it up to a ~10 person
aircraft, which is where we currently are. To get something into
production in the 2040s means cutting 15 years off that timetable.
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
The only technology that would allow something like a long haul
airliner to be net zero emissions would be to create a ground based
process to take renewable energy and non-fossil-fuel feed chemicals and
manufacture something that is chemically comparable with fossil
aviation fuel. Whatever energy source is going in to put the energy
into the fuel is going to be competing with other demands for renewable
energy such as the basic power grid and demand from battery electric
road vehicles, and given the investment needed in fuel manufacturing
plants beyond simply putting the power into the grid, it is unlikely
the economic case for creating this kind of fuel facility will exist
until after most of the existing power grid is no longer fossel fuel
based.
Given that we have been working on the process of decarbonising the
power grid for getting on for 30 years now and are only just reaching
the point where on a good day with favourable conditions, we can just
about meet the existing demand occasionally, the likelihood that the
capacity in such a system could actually produce fuel in volumes beyond
a token capacity in a sub-20 year timescale simply doesn't seem
plausible. If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net
zero carbon emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near
complete modal shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that
does not involve an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is
not feasible. For the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Even if there are electric short haul airliners by then?
Powered by what? London to Edinburgh or Glasgow, with safety reserves,
needs something like a 600 mile range. There is nothing on the horizon
that can provide that sort of capability with a useful payload capacity.
Not on the horizon today, but probably in a research lab this decade.
In the last 30 years of research no improvement over the Li-ion battery
has made it out of the lab test stage, all candidates failing to meet
the actual requirements of reliabilty, safety and lifetime to become a
viable product. While that doesn't mean there won't be anything in the
future, pinning the hopes of aviation on "some new technology" when 30
years fo active research has provided none does not seem to be a good
bet.

Robin
Recliner
2021-02-10 12:59:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
As part of my work, I participated in a fairly deep dive on the
relevant technologies and state of the art for acheiving zero emissions
air travel. The basic finding was that both battery electric and
hydrogen fuelled aircraft are technically possible, and can achieve
flight characteristics comparable with modern fossil fuelled aircraft.
The problem, however, is the weight. For batteries, the point at which
the battery weight exceeds the useful payload (so the battery is more
than 50% of the lifting capability of the airframe) based on current
Li-ion batteries is about 200 miles.
Surely there will be huge improvements in battery technology and capacitors
over the next three decades? There are small, predictable incremental
improvements each year, with occasional step changes when new types of
battery go into production.
Small incremental changes might extend the useufl range somewhat, but
realistically you need to have a useful range in the order of 1000
miles for an airliner to be a viable proposition outside of niche
routes, and small incremental changes are not likely to get you from
200 to 1000 miles.
I'm expecting both small incremental changes every year and the occasional
bigger step changes when new types of battery go into production that I
mentioned. This is something that is being researched like never before,
and new chemistries and cell constructions will surely arrive every few
years.
The Lithium-ion battery was developed in a lab setting in the mid
1980s, the first commercial product was 1991, and it took about 10
years to reach dominance in the portable electronics market where it
remains to this day, so currently we are using a 30 year old
technology. In those 30 years while there have been incremental
changes, there has been no no chemistry and no step change technology
that has reached the market.
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
That kind of range limits you to
the niche of air routes over bodies of water too wide or deep to
bridge/tunnel, for examle something like Dublin to Liverpool or Belfast
to Glasgow. While Hyrdogen is a bit better, the weight of the fuel
handling system, particularly the fuel tanks gives a useful range of
perhaps double that, but still nowhere near enough for most current air
routes.
I'd have thought it very likely that zero emission short haul flight will
be available by 2050? Long haul will need synthetic liquid fuels made
using renewable energy, as you describe below.
Do you have some technical data to support that? The data I have seen
suggests that there is no technology other than synthetic liquid fuels
that can get the job done, even for what would now be regarded as short
haul. In aviation, 20 years will get you from lab scale prototype to
in service, so if there isn't even a lab scale prototype that offeres
the promise, I have a hard time believing such a technology will be in
a position to completely supplant fossil fuels in that timescale.
Oh, I agree. I'm talking about availability, not dominance, in the 2040s.
If we are going to actually address climate change, then, frankly, that
timescale is too long. If we look at the development of the Li-ion
battery, it took 5 years to get from lab prototype to commercial
product for small portable electronics, about 10 years to reach the
point where the price and manufacturing technlogogy put it in a
dominant position for consumer electronics, another 10 years to scale
it up to a car and 10 years on that to scale it up to a ~10 person
aircraft, which is where we currently are. To get something into
production in the 2040s means cutting 15 years off that timetable.
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by bob
The only technology that would allow something like a long haul
airliner to be net zero emissions would be to create a ground based
process to take renewable energy and non-fossil-fuel feed chemicals and
manufacture something that is chemically comparable with fossil
aviation fuel. Whatever energy source is going in to put the energy
into the fuel is going to be competing with other demands for renewable
energy such as the basic power grid and demand from battery electric
road vehicles, and given the investment needed in fuel manufacturing
plants beyond simply putting the power into the grid, it is unlikely
the economic case for creating this kind of fuel facility will exist
until after most of the existing power grid is no longer fossel fuel
based.
Given that we have been working on the process of decarbonising the
power grid for getting on for 30 years now and are only just reaching
the point where on a good day with favourable conditions, we can just
about meet the existing demand occasionally, the likelihood that the
capacity in such a system could actually produce fuel in volumes beyond
a token capacity in a sub-20 year timescale simply doesn't seem
plausible. If we are going to seriously contemplate making travel net
zero carbon emissions, it is therefore essential to achieve a near
complete modal shift from aviation to non-aviation on any route that
does not involve an overwater flight where a bridge/tunnel option is
not feasible. For the UK, that would mean all GB-internal flights.
Even if there are electric short haul airliners by then?
Powered by what? London to Edinburgh or Glasgow, with safety reserves,
needs something like a 600 mile range. There is nothing on the horizon
that can provide that sort of capability with a useful payload capacity.
Not on the horizon today, but probably in a research lab this decade.
In the last 30 years of research no improvement over the Li-ion battery
has made it out of the lab test stage, all candidates failing to meet
the actual requirements of reliabilty, safety and lifetime to become a
viable product. While that doesn't mean there won't be anything in the
future, pinning the hopes of aviation on "some new technology" when 30
years fo active research has provided none does not seem to be a good
bet.
I'd suggest that the rate of research on batteries has increased enormously in the last 30 years. So we can't judge the
future pace by the past. For example, solid-sate batteries should be a big step forward, once the production issues are
solved.

I also wonder if high capacity capacitors will have a wider role?
Jeremy Double
2021-02-10 13:59:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 22:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Rolf Mantel
The difference in cost between a freight route through the open
countryside and a fast passenger route through open countryside is
small, but the benefits of separating the fast passenger trains off the
classic line and leaving it for freight and stopping passenger trains is
much greater than removing the freight and leaving the classic lines for
fast and stopping passenger trains.
this would have been true for a passenger line with meaningful speed
limits. Insisting on 300 mph as max speed easily doubled the costs of
building without any tangible benefits (you get benefits of that speed
only if you plan on going London to Manchester non-stop, not on the
Birmingham distance).
Don't forget, the original plan was a high speed line to Scotland,
which would compete with domestic air travel.
Even though they can't admit this, because the wrong people will
accuse them of spending money like there's no tomorrow, that is still
the ultimate aim.
I don't think there's any aim for HS2 to extend any further north than the
WCML junction just south of Wigan, and, just perhaps, the ECML junction
just south of York. If there's still an appetite for more high speed lines
beyond that (probably not in our lifetimes), the pressure will be for a
line to the southwest.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But at least it will disgorge traffic "off the end" onto the existing
main line network, which is being steadily improved - unlike the mess
they have in California.
Imagine how different it would be if China owned California?
The Californian "infrastructure" is a single tracked. mostly freight
line through the Central Valley with passenger trains from the Bay
Area terminating at Bakersfield with buses the rest of the way to Los
Angeles because that line is solid with freight through the
Tehachapis.
The proposed high speed line will be built in stages, the first two of
which will have hardly any ridership because the high speed line will
end first at Madera and then Fresno, followed by Bakersfield. Only
when they have completed the final section between Bakersfield and
L.A. will they get any serious ridership.
If ever there were a line that had to be built all at once, it is this
one.
At least HS2 trains will be able to continue on reasonably fast main
lines.
Though potentially only at 110mph. What might be useful is if the classic
lines that the HS2 trains run on to (ie, the WCML north of Wigan) are
gradually upgraded to 140mph (signalling and OHLE) on the straighter
stretches. But the already weak cost/benefit ratio gets worse as the route
heads further north.
Let's not forget that internal flights might be powered by clean renewable
energy soon after 2040, reducing the green arguments for rail.
What clean renewable energy source for aviation suitable for >200 mile
flights is in a position to be in widespread deployed service in less
than 20 years? Battery technology would need an order of magnitude
improvement in energy density for electric planes to have that kind of
range. There is yet to be any useful storage mechnaism for hydrogen
that would make it a viable aviation fuel, and 20 years is not that
long to get a new idea from the preliminary experimental stage to
widespread commercial deployment. Agriculture does not have the spare
capacity to produce biofuels in the volumes needed for widespread
deployment in commercial aviation. That leaves renewable powered
synthetic liquid fuels as the best candidate. We have been rolling out
existing renewables technology in an attempt to decarbonise the power
generating grid, the part of the energy use most easily convertible to
renewable energy for over 20 years and are still well short of actually
achieving zero emissions. Clean renewable energy for anything other
than a token proportion of the aviatin sector within 20 years at
current volumes of air traffic is almost impossibly soon given the
technology readiness level of the candidate options.
Based on 2019 UK aviation fuel consumption, I’ve estimated that 50000
square km of land would be needed for the forests needed to supply the wood
necessary to synthesise the required quantity aviation kerosene, based on
technology that was close to demonstration status in 1990. That’s 2.5
times the area of Wales.
--
Jeremy Double
nib
2021-02-10 14:27:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by Jeremy Double
Post by bob
Post by Recliner
Though potentially only at 110mph. What might be useful is if the
classic lines that the HS2 trains run on to (ie, the WCML north of
Wigan) are gradually upgraded to 140mph (signalling and OHLE) on the
straighter stretches. But the already weak cost/benefit ratio gets
worse as the route heads further north.
Let's not forget that internal flights might be powered by clean
renewable energy soon after 2040, reducing the green arguments for
rail.
What clean renewable energy source for aviation suitable for >200 mile
flights is in a position to be in widespread deployed service in less
than 20 years? Battery technology would need an order of magnitude
improvement in energy density for electric planes to have that kind of
range. There is yet to be any useful storage mechnaism for hydrogen
that would make it a viable aviation fuel, and 20 years is not that
long to get a new idea from the preliminary experimental stage to
widespread commercial deployment. Agriculture does not have the spare
capacity to produce biofuels in the volumes needed for widespread
deployment in commercial aviation. That leaves renewable powered
synthetic liquid fuels as the best candidate. We have been rolling out
existing renewables technology in an attempt to decarbonise the power
generating grid, the part of the energy use most easily convertible to
renewable energy for over 20 years and are still well short of actually
achieving zero emissions. Clean renewable energy for anything other
than a token proportion of the aviatin sector within 20 years at
current volumes of air traffic is almost impossibly soon given the
technology readiness level of the candidate options.
Based on 2019 UK aviation fuel consumption, I’ve estimated that 50000
square km of land would be needed for the forests needed to supply the
wood necessary to synthesise the required quantity aviation kerosene,
based on technology that was close to demonstration status in 1990.
That’s 2.5 times the area of Wales.
Is that about 4 square meters per litre?

(Also imaginable as a layer 0.25 mm thick!)

nib
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-09 10:15:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 18:52:05 +0100
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
There are parallels, but I think the difference between HS2 and the examples
you gave is that for most of the latter the benefit to society as a whole
were fairly obvious even if investors lost their shirt. The benefits of HS2
and equivocal at best thought to be frank its hard to point to any that are
realistic. Even the freeing up paths for freight on the WCML won't happen
if pax services on the WCML remain the same after HS2 is open
They won't. That's the whole point. All the Manchester, Liverpool,
Holyhead, Glasgow and Edinburgh services that currently take up paths
on the WCML will be diverted onto HS2. Services that currently run on
Yeah right, oink flap.
Post by bob
the MML will also be diverted onto HS2, opening space on that line as
well.
Oh please. HS2 tickets will cost a fortune - people will want to use the
standard services and if they're not available they'll simply find other
methods of transport. Stop believing the spin and start using some common
sense.
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
plus it would have been simpler and cheaper to just add extra running
lines for freight to
the WCML where possible or even build shoert diversion routes.
The WCML runs through the middle of a number of large towns, where
building extra tracks would involve demolishing houses and other
buildings. It is far cheaper to build lines away from built up areas.
Read what I wrote.
bob
2021-02-09 10:54:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 18:52:05 +0100
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
There are parallels, but I think the difference between HS2 and the examples
you gave is that for most of the latter the benefit to society as a whole
were fairly obvious even if investors lost their shirt. The benefits of HS2
and equivocal at best thought to be frank its hard to point to any that are
realistic. Even the freeing up paths for freight on the WCML won't happen
if pax services on the WCML remain the same after HS2 is open
They won't. That's the whole point. All the Manchester, Liverpool,
Holyhead, Glasgow and Edinburgh services that currently take up paths
on the WCML will be diverted onto HS2. Services that currently run on
Yeah right, oink flap.
Post by bob
the MML will also be diverted onto HS2, opening space on that line as
well.
Oh please. HS2 tickets will cost a fortune - people will want to use the
standard services and if they're not available they'll simply find other
methods of transport. Stop believing the spin and start using some common
sense.
So your arguement boils down to "I chose to not believe the line will
do what all the planning over the last 10 years has said it will do".
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
plus it would have been simpler and cheaper to just add extra running
lines for freight to
the WCML where possible or even build shoert diversion routes.
The WCML runs through the middle of a number of large towns, where
building extra tracks would involve demolishing houses and other
buildings. It is far cheaper to build lines away from built up areas.
Read what I wrote.
I did. You claimed lines would have capacity improved away from built
up areas, and do nothing for capacity constraints in built up areas.

Robin
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-09 11:39:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 11:54:37 +0100
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Oh please. HS2 tickets will cost a fortune - people will want to use the
standard services and if they're not available they'll simply find other
methods of transport. Stop believing the spin and start using some common
sense.
So your arguement boils down to "I chose to not believe the line will
do what all the planning over the last 10 years has said it will do".
And no doubt you believed the initial costings for HS2 and that it would
go all the way to scotland plus leeds too. If anyone ever tells you he has
a bridge for sale my advice is to walk away or you may end up out of pocket.
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Post by bob
The WCML runs through the middle of a number of large towns, where
building extra tracks would involve demolishing houses and other
buildings. It is far cheaper to build lines away from built up areas.
Read what I wrote.
I did. You claimed lines would have capacity improved away from built
up areas, and do nothing for capacity constraints in built up areas.
So the ONLY thing constraining the WCML is problems in built up areas?
Having a freight train doing 60mph out in the countryside in no way
whatsoever impedes the 125mph service stuck behind it? Gotcha.
bob
2021-02-09 12:03:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 11:54:37 +0100
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Oh please. HS2 tickets will cost a fortune - people will want to use the
standard services and if they're not available they'll simply find other
methods of transport. Stop believing the spin and start using some common
sense.
So your arguement boils down to "I chose to not believe the line will
do what all the planning over the last 10 years has said it will do".
And no doubt you believed the initial costings for HS2 and that it would
go all the way to scotland plus leeds too. If anyone ever tells you he has
a bridge for sale my advice is to walk away or you may end up out of pocket.
Wow, both a straw man and an ad hominem argument in the same sentence.
What skill in rhetoric.

Robin
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-09 17:19:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 13:03:49 +0100
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 11:54:37 +0100
Post by bob
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
Oh please. HS2 tickets will cost a fortune - people will want to use the
standard services and if they're not available they'll simply find other
methods of transport. Stop believing the spin and start using some common
sense.
So your arguement boils down to "I chose to not believe the line will
do what all the planning over the last 10 years has said it will do".
And no doubt you believed the initial costings for HS2 and that it would
go all the way to scotland plus leeds too. If anyone ever tells you he has
a bridge for sale my advice is to walk away or you may end up out of pocket.
Wow, both a straw man and an ad hominem argument in the same sentence.
What skill in rhetoric.
Merely good advice.
Jeremy Double
2021-02-08 19:17:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Marland
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:16:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
I suppose their argument would be that their effect is temporary whereas
after HS2 there'll be no nature reserve at all. Regardless of the dubious
actions of the protestors, from what I've seen and read about HS2 there
seems
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
to be very much a "fuck you little people" attitude emanating from them.
Only
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
a few weeks ago they bulldozed some new wood that had been planted by some
school kids a few years back for an eco project somewhere in Bucks IIRC.
The annoying thing is when the construction access roads cause the damage —
why don't they re-route them if needed? That seems to be the case more
I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.
Isn’t that how a lot our infrastructure also got built in the first place?
Many railways were never profitable enough to justify the upheaval they
caused or the financial ruin
both to investors who lost their money or people displaced from businesses
and homes with little or no compensation.
You might be right about minor- and branch-lines, but the major main lines
must have made a lot of money.

Thinking about their predecessors, the canals, at one point in the 19th
century, the annual dividend on a £100 Birmingham Canal share was £200. If
you were lucky enough to have invested early in the BCN then you were quids
in.
--
Jeremy Double
Recliner
2021-02-08 21:44:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jeremy Double
Post by Marland
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:16:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
I suppose their argument would be that their effect is temporary whereas
after HS2 there'll be no nature reserve at all. Regardless of the dubious
actions of the protestors, from what I've seen and read about HS2 there
seems
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
to be very much a "fuck you little people" attitude emanating from them.
Only
Post by m***@potatofield.co.uk
a few weeks ago they bulldozed some new wood that had been planted by some
school kids a few years back for an eco project somewhere in Bucks IIRC.
The annoying thing is when the construction access roads cause the damage —
why don't they re-route them if needed? That seems to be the case more
I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.
Isn’t that how a lot our infrastructure also got built in the first place?
Many railways were never profitable enough to justify the upheaval they
caused or the financial ruin
both to investors who lost their money or people displaced from businesses
and homes with little or no compensation.
You might be right about minor- and branch-lines, but the major main lines
must have made a lot of money.
Thinking about their predecessors, the canals, at one point in the 19th
century, the annual dividend on a £100 Birmingham Canal share was £200. If
you were lucky enough to have invested early in the BCN then you were quids
in.
Similarly the original main lines serving the obvious major traffic flows
were very profitable, which led to railway mania, which caused many
marginal or basket case lines to be built. Essentially, main lines built by
about 1860 were very profitable, but most later ones weren't, or not for
long. The GCR was notoriously unprofitable from the beginning, as it was an
expensive way of duplicating the Midland Railway.
m***@potatofield.co.uk
2021-02-09 08:29:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 21:44:54 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Jeremy Double
Thinking about their predecessors, the canals, at one point in the 19th
century, the annual dividend on a £100 Birmingham Canal share was £200. If
you were lucky enough to have invested early in the BCN then you were quids
in.
Similarly the original main lines serving the obvious major traffic flows
were very profitable, which led to railway mania, which caused many
marginal or basket case lines to be built. Essentially, main lines built by
about 1860 were very profitable, but most later ones weren't, or not for
long. The GCR was notoriously unprofitable from the beginning, as it was an
expensive way of duplicating the Midland Railway.
Though arguably a faster and more direct route, until it got past nottingham
anyway.
Recliner
2021-01-28 11:35:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:36:54 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
From
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hs2-protesters-dig-secret-100ft-tunnel-unde
r-london-park-spcxnw65j>
Protesters secretly constructed two tunnels supported by an elaborate “ant
nest” of passages without detection near the site of HS2, embarrassing the
security operation surrounding Britain’s biggest infrastructure project.
Of all the places to prevent HS2 construction happening, Euston would be
right at the bottom of my list. Ancient woodland I can understand but Euston
hasn't been a pleasent cityscape since the 1970s.
I think they just did it to attract attention. They won't have any effect
on HS2 construction, but they figured that they'd attract more journalists
and spectators to a site in central London than to a treehouse deep in the
countryside.
s***@grumpysods.com
2021-01-28 14:31:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:35:04 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:36:54 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
From
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hs2-protesters-dig-secret-100ft-tunnel-unde
Post by s***@grumpysods.com
Post by Recliner
r-london-park-spcxnw65j>
Protesters secretly constructed two tunnels supported by an elaborate “ant
nest” of passages without detection near the site of HS2, embarrassing the
security operation surrounding Britain’s biggest infrastructure project.
Of all the places to prevent HS2 construction happening, Euston would be
right at the bottom of my list. Ancient woodland I can understand but Euston
hasn't been a pleasent cityscape since the 1970s.
I think they just did it to attract attention. They won't have any effect
on HS2 construction, but they figured that they'd attract more journalists
and spectators to a site in central London than to a treehouse deep in the
countryside.
Yes, you're probably right.
Loading...