Just another reason to ban Liebor party

[VectraMan]

You have to build new railway because existing one is not straight enough - you also can't share it with tulipy local trains, it needs dedicated line - it's like having ADSL over copper is ok-ish, but if you want proper stuff you need fiber optics.

I wonder how much faster and how much could you cut journey times if you could solve the problems of the local trains? It's ridiculous that most stations have only two lines; it would seem to be a no-brainer to have made the railways four tracks wide at the stations to allow the faster trains through.

Based on my recent train trips (on Virgin "inter city" type trains), the average speed over the journey is only 60mph, which surely isn't as fast as they could go over the existing infrastructure. In the 80s we had 125mph trains, not to mention the tilting 150mph APT. Even the Mallard could do 126mph (IIRC from Top Trumps), and nobody then was saying they had to bulldoze Buckinghamshire because the lines weren't straight enough.

[AtW]

It's ridiculous that most stations have only two lines

I agree - it's total tulip.

In USSR there are plenty of stations around small village but with lots of rails - this way it's much easier to delay some slow train to allow fast one to go ahead.

Don't confuse average speed over route with peak speed - with new line though, there is hope average speed won't be far off max speed en route but you have to keep the line straight - Pendolinos go only so far.

--

Losing your home or nice view out of house due to railway is tulip, however tulip happens in life - you can get killed when crossing the road or just die from heart attack - at least in this case there will be some half decent compensation.

[RichardCranium]

It's ridiculous that most stations have only two lines; it would seem to be a no-brainer to have made the railways four tracks wide at the stations to allow the faster trains through.

They did. Look carefully at smaller stations and you will see they often have more platforms than there are lines. You can still see where the lines were.

When the railways were privatized, thousands and thousands of miles of sidings, passing loops, shunting yards and lines were immediately grubbed up and the steel sold.

The little strips of land this freed up was then sold; hence all these poxy little new flats right up against the railways.

The shareholders got a massive payout from that. All that money was meant to be used to invest in the infrastructure - and they didn't. They pocketed it.

We were robbed in the rail privatisation.

Even the Mallard could do 126mph (IIRC from Top Trumps), and nobody then was saying they had to bulldoze Buckinghamshire because the lines weren't straight enough.

Well, rail lines did require acts of Parliament to do just that, just as the canals did.

[swamp]

It's not going to be ready until the end of 2026. You can add a few years on to that for sure, for planning appeals, protests, lack of money, and general fannying around. That means it will be nearly twenty years before we can get to Birmingham in 49 minutes for a cheap curry. Hopefully most of us will be close to retirement then, or at least too old to be considered useful for paid work.

[Freamon]

It's not going to be ready until the end of 2026. You can add a few years on to that for sure, for planning appeals, protests, lack of money, and general fannying around. That means it will be nearly twenty years before we can get to Birmingham in 49 minutes for a cheap curry. Hopefully most of us will be close to retirement then, or at least too old to be considered useful for paid work.

So the new argument against HS2 is that "it won't be useful to me in my lifetime, so it doesn't matter"?

[RichardCranium]

How about a moving travelator alongside the M1 and the M40? These are described in many sf books: you have parallel tracks that get faster and faster and you move from one to another, like changing lanes. You could be moving people, instead of tonnes of metal, for far less cost, far less energy and far less space.

[swamp]

So the new argument against HS2 is that "it won't be useful to me in my lifetime, so it doesn't matter"?

I don't know. Maybe HS2 is a good idea, on the whole. But its rationale is to relieve congestion on the motorways, and yet we have the M6 Toll road lying empty!

[swamp]

How about a moving travelator alongside the M1 and the M40? These are described in many sf books: you have parallel tracks that get faster and faster and you move from one to another, like changing lanes. You could be moving people, instead of tonnes of metal, for far less cost, far less energy and far less space.

I've read the book. Trouble is you have to move the belts too. And they can be dangerous.

[AtW]

I don't know.

Well if you don't know then...

STFU

Very fast travel between London and Midlands would make it and areas around it more attractive to companies thus stimulating investment outside of M25 area (which is good thing even for M25 as it would reduce spekulative demand on local property).

M6 Toll is empty because it was idiotic idea in the first place but also because price is so high.

[Doggy Styles]

The M6 Toll Road is a pleasant, open and fast drive. Those who object that it is too expensive can use the free M6.

I think we'll find the same attitudes with the new HS rail link.