HS2

Our transport is heavily oil-based. What are the alternatives?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

Post Reply
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

HS2

Post by biffvernon »

nef report
HS2 is being sold as an environmentally friendly transport solution that will help to rebalance the economy away from London. But one week on from the end of the official HS2 consultation period, nef finds that it could do the opposite.

The decision on whether to go ahead with HS2 should be immediately postponed until independent non-political experts are brought in to appraise the scheme, consider all the alternatives, and to ensure that the analysis proceeds along the government’s own best practice guidelines.

Carbon emissions could increase as a result of HS2
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11169
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

It's a complete waste of money as far as I am concerned.

Can somebody explain to me again why we need this?
User avatar
DominicJ
Posts: 4387
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: NW UK

Post by DominicJ »

Green elephant
I'm a realist, not a hippie
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11169
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

DominicJ wrote:Green elephant
Why is it green?

The sort of people who support this project aren't greens. They are pillocks like Pete Waterman and Lord Adonis.
User avatar
DominicJ
Posts: 4387
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: NW UK

Post by DominicJ »

Fine
Its a white elephant that someone but a greenwash on.
I'm a realist, not a hippie
User avatar
adam2
Site Admin
Posts: 8154
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: North Somerset

Post by adam2 »

Arguments in favour of HS2
Greener than flying or driving
Quicker, less time wasted in travelling, esp for busineses for whom time is money.
Existing lines to the Midlands and North are full, HS2 would take most of the fast passenger trains thereby freeing up space for freight and local passenger services.
Building it would provide much needed employment.

Arguments against HS2
Less green then slower rail, and a lot less green than staying in one place.
Is the time saved actually worth much, since a lot of office work can be done on the train these days, the time is not wasted.
Unless the tickets are subsidised, they will be very expensive.
Is it worth spending all that money to save 20 minutes when it can take longer than that to buy the ticket. A few dozen extra ticket sales staff might save a lot of time at trivial cost !
Capacity on existing routes could be improved by longer trains and platforms, improved signalling, and removing bottlenecks.
Spending the money on other transport projects would also create valuable employment.
There are many affluent and well prepared NIMBYs along the route.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

And whatever the arguments in favour and against, it won't get built 'cos the capital is not there.
User avatar
DominicJ
Posts: 4387
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: NW UK

Post by DominicJ »

it won't get built 'cos the capital is not there.
HS2 will cost £32 billion to build
From Wiki
The UK government spends twenty times that a year


Adam
I dont get the business case.
How many people travel from Leeds to London on a regular basis?
Or from London to Leeds?

It could be spent far far far better.

Using the metrolink hasnt made me any less vocal as a critic, but its 3.a expansion is, impressive, and cost £600mn. For £6bn we could have a pretty decent network, and 5 other cities could too.
I'm a realist, not a hippie
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11169
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

adam2 wrote:Arguments in favour of HS2
Greener than flying or driving
Sure, but you can already do these journeys by rail.
Quicker, less time wasted in travelling, esp for busineses for whom time is money.
Bogus argument. Ask the people who use these trains and they will tell you that they actually get more work done on the train than they do in their office, because they aren't interrupted all the time.
Existing lines to the Midlands and North are full, HS2 would take most of the fast passenger trains thereby freeing up space for freight and local passenger services.
OK.
Building it would provide much needed employment.
Pah. I'm sorry, but I can think of much more appropriate infrastructure projects that would provide just as much employment.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11169
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

biffvernon wrote:And whatever the arguments in favour and against, it won't get built 'cos the capital is not there.
Not a problem. They will just print more money.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12401
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

There are a number of studies that show that High Speed Rail uses as much if not more fuel than air travel at similar capacity factors. Normal speed rail is more efficient.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
adam2
Site Admin
Posts: 8154
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: North Somerset

Post by adam2 »

My post was intended to summarise the arguments for and against HS2, not to indicate that I support it.
Whilst it has some merit, I think that he arguments against it outweigh the arguments for it.

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.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
User avatar
Ludwig
Posts: 3849
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:31 am
Location: Cambridgeshire

Post by Ludwig »

UndercoverElephant wrote:
biffvernon wrote:And whatever the arguments in favour and against, it won't get built 'cos the capital is not there.
Not a problem. They will just print more money.
That money will be to pay off our existing debts, not create new ones.

Apart from that, more QE and hence devaluation will mean we won't be able to afford to import the raw materials that you build railways with, or the electricity that you run them with.
"We're just waiting, looking skyward as the days go down / Someone promised there'd be answers if we stayed around."
User avatar
Ludwig
Posts: 3849
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:31 am
Location: Cambridgeshire

Post by Ludwig »

kenneal wrote:There are a number of studies that show that High Speed Rail uses as much if not more fuel than air travel at similar capacity factors.
... Studies which I'm sure the airlines had no hand in commissioning :roll:
"We're just waiting, looking skyward as the days go down / Someone promised there'd be answers if we stayed around."
User avatar
adam2
Site Admin
Posts: 8154
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: North Somerset

Post by adam2 »

Airlines are almost entirely dependant on FF.
Railways can use renewably generated electricity, though as posted above, most extra demand is in fact liable to be from coal.

I would a a bit doubtful about studies claiming that HS2 would use more fuel than air transport.
A lot depends on how you count it and what losses are counted or exluded.
For air do you count just the fuel burnt per mile per passenger, or do you count all that used when circling, taxying, and for empty flights.
Do you count the energy content of the fuel delivered, or also include losses in production, refining, and transport.

For rail, do you count electricity used by the train, or that delivered to the railway, or that sent out from the power station.
Or even the energy content of the fuel delivered at the power station gate.

There is no denying that rail is more flexible since electricity can be generated in numerous ways.

Faster rail is virtually certain to use more energy than slower rail.

I use trains a lot, and for me, leg room, size of seat, luggage space, and catering provision are all more important than speed.
I would be happy with a return to 1960s speeds if we also returned to 1960s interior space/design and catering.

A few months ago, lack of modern DMUs for services between Cardiff and Taunton resulted in the use of old coaches hauled by a locomotive.
I saw several passengers complain that the substitute train was "all first class"
In fact it was all standard class ! but passengers used to standard class on modern trains could not believe that the large comfortable seats, all at tables, and aligned with large windows, could be standard class.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Post Reply