PowerSwitch

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 20 Jul 2017, 21:57

Don't worry, we can always fall back on... um...

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 21 Jul 2017, 09:58

cubes wrote:Don't worry, we can always fall back on... um...

Down the back of the couch?

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 21 Jul 2017, 18:57

Not sure there's several billion pounds down the back of mine but I can check...

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 25 Jul 2017, 10:05

I appreciate you'd have missed it but the couch phrase was seriously used in discussions about Ireland's upcoming budget (they may have used the word 'sofa' thouh).

Post by **adam2** » 21 Aug 2019, 15:49

Another review into the HS2 project has been announced with a decision due at the end of the year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49420332

I hope "review" does not mean cancel.

Things are not looking good for large rail projects, with the failure/postponement of the great western electrification project and the Crossrail fiasco.

I expect not complete cancellation but significant down grades to the original plans by way of reduced speeds and shorter trains.

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 21 Aug 2019, 21:20

Should have upgraded the rest of the network for the money spent/going to be spent on HS2. Could have expanded the network a bit too locally around major cities (excepting London).

BritDownUnder · Post by **BritDownUnder** » 21 Aug 2019, 21:26

With all the Brexit process going on maybe HMG does not see a use for a seamless link to the European HST network. It would only take one particularly obstinate French customs official to slow the network back down to Victorian speeds. Not worth the risk I say. Maybe just persist with something like APT or Pendolino and try to do small improvements on existing tracks where possible and maybe go to four tracks instead of two on mainlines.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 21 Aug 2019, 22:36

They could get extra capacity by raising bridges so that they can go over to double decker trains. Much cheaper than adding track, I would think.

BritDownUnder · Post by **BritDownUnder** » 22 Aug 2019, 03:31

kenneal - lagger wrote:They could get extra capacity by raising bridges so that they can go over to double decker trains. Much cheaper than adding track, I would think.

I was thinking more of a high speed-ish pair of tracks, with trains travelling 125 to 150mph stopping at few stations, I think in rail parlance up and down, and then a low speed pair with local services. When I used to be an unfortunate London commuter the line from Gidea Park to Liverpewl St was quad track with fast trains from Essex towns making their final stop in Romford before wizzing past on the fast pair of tracks whilst us unfortunate commuters had to make do with the slower pair of tracks stopping at every station in very nice diverse suburbs of East London.

Same happens with the East Coast main line I think until Peterborough.

I know there are some towns where four tracks through the centre of town would not be acceptable to NIMBYs or civil engineering constraints. The fast tracks would then simply bypass the town and the town would be on the slow tracks only station with resultant drop in property values thanks to said NIMBYs.

Sydney, Australia trains are double deckers - for the reason you suggest - with a small single deck near the doors at the end of each carriage. Since I usually have a heavy suitcase with me I always sit at the single deck area.

careful_eugene · Post by **careful_eugene** » 22 Aug 2019, 10:24

kenneal - lagger wrote:They could get extra capacity by raising bridges so that they can go over to double decker trains. Much cheaper than adding track, I would think.

Bridges is one thing, have you thought about tunnels?

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 22 Aug 2019, 16:51

Couldn't you bury one pair of lines below an existing pair? Ok, this would be prohibitively expensive

BritDownUnder · Post by **BritDownUnder** » 22 Aug 2019, 20:45

cubes wrote:Couldn't you bury one pair of lines below an existing pair? Ok, this would be prohibitively expensive

For short stretches through NIMBY infested towns it may be possible. I would guess that the cost of a tunnel / double decker line may be 10 to 100 million per mile.

careful_eugene · Post by **careful_eugene** » 23 Aug 2019, 09:34

cubes wrote:Couldn't you bury one pair of lines below an existing pair? Ok, this would be prohibitively expensive

This is done extensively in London (London underground, Crossrail etc.) but there probably isn't an economic case for tunnelling when there is space above ground for the railway.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 23 Aug 2019, 14:17

careful_eugene wrote:.......... but there probably isn't an economic case for tunnelling when there is space above ground for the railway.

Depends how much you value food production in the future.

careful_eugene · Post by **careful_eugene** » 23 Aug 2019, 14:57

kenneal - lagger wrote:
careful_eugene wrote:.......... but there probably isn't an economic case for tunnelling when there is space above ground for the railway.
Depends how much you value food production in the future.

I take your point but I don't believe that's a factor for those making these decisions. Do you know how much agricultural land is likely to be lost if HS2 gets built?