PowerSwitch

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 24 Aug 2011, 09:26

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.

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

Build more nukes then.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 24 Aug 2011, 15:08

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/ROY ... FLIGHT.pdf

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 25 Aug 2011, 03:41

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/ ... 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).

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 25 Aug 2011, 09:00

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.

bigjim · Post by **bigjim** » 27 Aug 2011, 09:09

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.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 27 Aug 2011, 11:01

What we need to do is re-engineer society so that fewer people want to be somewhere else.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 27 Aug 2011, 17:56

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.

SleeperService · Post by **SleeperService** » 28 Aug 2011, 11:01

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

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

Maglev seems very attractive and shouldn't be affected by leaves on the track, alledgedly.

Mean Mr Mustard · Post by **Mean Mr Mustard** » 28 Aug 2011, 22:40

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?

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 29 Aug 2011, 01:52

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!!

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 29 Aug 2011, 08:29

Maybe a little spending on improved cycle paths? And broadband?

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 29 Aug 2011, 15:31

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.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 03 Dec 2011, 17:10

More bonkers news:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/0 ... CMP=twt_fd

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

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 03 Dec 2011, 18:02

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.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 05 Dec 2011, 09:33

I'd say getting to either London or Birmingham quicker is a distinct disadvantage.