PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

HS2
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Transport
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DominicJ



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 4387
Location: NW UK

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Increasing the electric train network would have advantages for load management would it not?

Slowing the trains to cope with demand spikes and speeding them up demand troughs.

Quote:
It could be argued that it would be 100% coal powered, which is hardly enviromental.


Build more nukes then.
_________________
I'm a realist, not a hippie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 11383
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've got one study by Lancaster Uni on my computer but I'll try and find a URL for it. I don't know who funded this report.


The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report - The Environmental Effects of Civil Aircraft in Flight mentions that rail travel is significantly less polluting than air travel but doesn't distinguish between normal speed and high speed rail. (perhaps this is funded by the rail industry as it is very pro rail)
http://www.maht0x0r.net/library/eco/ROYAL_COMMISSIONON_ENVIRONMENTAL_POLLUTION_-_THE_ENVIRONMENTAL_EFFECTS_OF_CIVIL_AIRCRAFT_IN_FLIGHT.pdf
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 11383
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This article twists the paper's information to say that car travel is more fuel economic than rail. Typical Torygraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1465041/Cars-are-more-fuel-efficient-than-trains-claims-study.html

It says that a family of four travelling between London and Edinburgh is more fuel efficient. The trains are, however, aimed at business people who rarely travel four to a car, more often one or maybe two (when the chauffeur is driving).
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
DominicJ



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 4387
Location: NW UK

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But its stull the case that a fully loaded car is more efficient than a fully loaded train no?

And trains are rarely full.
Neither are cars of course.
_________________
I'm a realist, not a hippie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bigjim



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 694
Location: Cleethorpes

PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

adam2 wrote:
It could be argued that it would be 100% coal powered, which is hardly enviromental.
A new high speed railway line would increase demand for electric power. This increase in demand would probably be met by coal burning since nuclear and renewable sources are fully commited.
Although only a percentage of our power comes from coal, it could be argued that any EXTRA demand would be largely satisfied by coal burning.


Would a new high speed rail line diminish demand for cars and therefore oil, which could also be burned in power stations to fuel the new trains?

We do need to build new track but I'm not sure we need TGV speeds in our small, more densely populated country. We need better slow trains.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18541
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What we need to do is re-engineer society so that fewer people want to be somewhere else.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 11383
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If we need to displace people from aircraft to fast ground transport why not skip a technology and go straight to Maglev as they are doing in Shanghai. If we got into the development of that we might be able to export some around the world as well.
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
SleeperService



Joined: 02 May 2011
Posts: 1104
Location: Nottingham UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
If we need to displace people from aircraft to fast ground transport why not skip a technology and go straight to Maglev as they are doing in Shanghai. If we got into the development of that we might be able to export some around the world as well.


I agree but...judging on past performance we'll spend all the money on development and prototyping and sell the technology for a pittance to some vested interest who'll then production engineer it and make a (non UK taxed) fortune.

I think biff is on the right lines about re-engineering society but by starting residents associations, who get control of councils then MPs and finally take our country back under the public interest. I think we really need a from scratch high speed rail network but rich people will contest everyway they can so it costs many times what it should. They want it to be close enough to use but not to intrude on their daily life, hypocrites Evil or Very Mad

A high speed rail network replaces aircraft slower trains for shorter distances replace cars. How many commuters fly in to London every day?
I used to live near Cologne and there were several flights a day to Berlin, Frankfurt, Brussels and even Hamburg. There are none now as the train is as quick, cheaper and more reliable and much more pleasent. It's also easier to work on the train.

I feel that a ground based power generation system can be made more efficent than one which is carried high in the air at high speed, it justs needs investment wisely targetted. Fusion nuclear seems to be the silver bullet but it's always going to be twenty years away Smile

Maglev seems very attractive and shouldn't be affected by leaves on the track, alledgedly.
_________________
Scarcity is the new black
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mean Mr Mustard



Joined: 31 Dec 2006
Posts: 1555
Location: Cambridgeshire

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lots on HS2 here in topic 17.

http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/sitemap.htm

These folks seem very anti-rail. Which contradicts the received green wisdom.

Are they credible, or on the fringe?
_________________
1855 Advertisement for Kier's Rock Oil -
"Hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Natures laboratory."

The Future's so Bright, I gotta wear Night Vision Goggles...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 11383
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

They're just NIMBYs or BANANAs. If road were being proposed in their backyard they'd object to them.

Thinking about it, I think I would object to any further transport infrastructure spending on the basis that after the new recession we won't need more transport of any sort. DOOMER!!
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18541
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe a little spending on improved cycle paths? And broadband?
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 11383
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
Maybe a little spending on improved cycle paths?...


No, just pinch a bit of road. We won't be needing so much when we can't afford the fuel.
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18541
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More bonkers news:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/03/hs2-rail-tunnel-chiltern-hills?CMP=twt_fd

Quote:
The government is considering digging a new tunnel under the Chiltern Hills as it looks again at plans for the HS2 high-speed rail line between London and Birmingham.

The transport secretary, Justine Greening, is expected to announce a delay next week in the decision on the divisive 32bn project.

The proposals have proved controversial among MPs whose constituencies straddle the planned route.

Officials in the Department for Transport have now reportedly found an extra 500m to pay for a 1.5-mile tunnel under the Chilterns, west of Amersham, to stop the line scarring the landscape.

Opponents, who say the line would damage an area of outstanding natural beauty, have welcomed the development. The 100-mile rail link, which would be built between 2016 and 2026, aims to cut the London-to-Birmingham journey time to 49 minutes.

Greening had been expected to decide whether to approve the scheme before 20 December.

But the verdict has now been delayed until mid-January to allow for a feasibility study as well as a study of the environmental impact of the proposed route.


I suppose it's quite easy to 'find' another 500m now if it doesn't actually need to be paid till between 2016 and 2026. The trouble is that what with the delay in pensionable age, some of the civil servants won't have retired by then. At least they're not planning to build it till we're out of economic difficulties and back to a growing economy Wink
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6456
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of the objectors was saying on the radio that the money has been "found" by pinching it from other parts of the line, so the pretty scenery gets saved at the cost to parts of the country.
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14557
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd say getting to either London or Birmingham quicker is a distinct disadvantage.
_________________
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Transport All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 2 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group