die belebende Bedenkung

Archive for the ‘gibberish’ Category

Crewe to be ‘HS2 central hub’

with one comment

Malcolm Smith, ‘director of international masterplanner Arup’, said ‘Crewe will be a different place in 10 years, reinvigorated by HS2 and the town’s status renewed as the central hub of the national rail network’ (reported Place North West).

Crewe will be the busiest stop on the HS2 railway, according to Cheshire East council leader Rachel Bailey

Crewe will be the ‘busiest stop on the HS2 railway’, according to Cheshire East council leader Rachel Bailey (reported Place North West)

Written by beleben

March 16, 2017 at 11:49 am

Posted in gibberish, Politics

HS2 and West Coast passenger capacity

with one comment

On 29 April 2014, Robert Goodwill MP ‘answered’ the question ‘What is the percentage increase in capacity on the West Coast Main Line from HS2’, by not answering the question.

Robert Goodwill avoided answering a parliamentary question about West Coast Main Line rail capacity after HS2

As can be seen from HS2 director Andrew McNaughton’s February 2015 diagram (below), HS2 would not allow any more trains to run on the West Coast Main Line. And in HS2 Ltd’s vision, West Coast intercity and commuter trains would have pretty much the same maximum capacity as they do now.

Andrew McNaughton West Coast and HS2 capacity slides, 2015

According to Andrew McNaughton's presentation, WCML fast line train path utilisation would fall, not rise

Furthermore, the HS2 project entails reducing West Coast Main Line tracks into, and platforms at, Euston. How that is compatible with ‘increasing West Coast capacity’, has never been explained.

According to Prof McNaughton’s slides, WCML combined train paths would increase from 23 to 23, making the percentage increase 0%.

Written by beleben

October 16, 2016 at 11:55 am

Posted in gibberish, HS2

High speed rail versus ‘Victorian infrastructure’

leave a comment »

Did someone claim 'Victorian infrastructure' capacity is outperformed by 'the start of the art'?

In his speech to the 2016 Conservative conference, transport secretary Chris Grayling said that HS2 is “about a new, 21st century, Elizabethan era for our railways, not going back to the Victorian one”.

And at the Transport Times HS2 conference on 12 October 2016, he said HS2 is needed “So that in 2033, we no longer have a rail network with a Victorian heart, but a network with an Elizabethan heart, able to deliver everything we expect of a 21st century transport system“.

[Chris Grayling, Transport Times conference, 12 Oct 2016]

A national transport artery as important as the West Coast Main Line still suffers from the need for freight, local and intercity trains to be carried on the same two tracks.

The fast trains catch up with the slow trains and are unable to get past, chug along behind.

So, imagine what Britain in 2033 would look like without HS2.

The forecasters tell us that Britain’s population will have hit 72 million.

Rail journeys will have risen by a further 40%.

And rail freight will have doubled once more.

Yet in that future without HS2 we’d still be relying on a rail network whose central components are in places nearly 200 years old, built to compete with the stagecoach and the horse-drawn canal barge, and for a population almost 5 times smaller.

Mr Grayling’s speeches are good examples of ‘post-factual politics’.

  • The West Coast Main Line trunk between London and Rugby has four tracks. So, on its busiest section, the need for ‘freight, local and intercity trains to be carried on the same two tracks’ does not exist.
  • The vast majority of Britain’s rail travel takes place on so-called ‘Victorian infrastructure’, and there is no possibility of HS2 ever changing that. In Kent, it appears that around 95% of rail journeys do not involve HS1.
  • The problem of ‘fast trains catching up with the slow trains and being unable to get past’ is more of a limitation for the twin-track HS1, than the ‘Victorian’ West Coast Main Line (because of a mismatch between the maximum speeds of domestic HS1 and Eurostar trains). Such freight as exists on HS1 is generally limited to night-time, when no passenger trains run., 'transport secretary Chris Grayling says the case for HS2 is strong' (speech extract), 12 Oct 2016

@HitachiRailEU, Chris Grayling at the Transport Times HS2 conference, 12 Oct 2016

Written by beleben

October 14, 2016 at 1:46 pm

Posted in gibberish, HS2

What is ‘a legacy of high-speed rail-building skills’?

leave a comment »

HS2 Y-network map showing separate Sheffield serviceForeign construction companies chasing nearly £9 billion of HS2 contracts have ‘been warned by the government that unless they create thousands of local jobs and invest in a legacy of high-speed rail-building skills they will not be welcome in Britain’, The Times reported.

[Create jobs or miss out on HS2, foreign engineers told, Robert Lea, The Times, 13 Oct 2016]

The country’s biggest infrastructure bidding competition, for seven packages of civil engineering work between London Euston and Birmingham Curzon Street to build the first phase of HS2, starts today, with nine international consortiums submitting final bids. Each is led or significantly influenced by groups from overseas.

This sounds like a load of old nonsense. What exactly is ‘a legacy of high-speed rail-building skills’?

By its nature, construction work tends to be temporary. Roads such as the M25, and railways like the Great Western, and Crossrail, were built by workers from overseas prepared to move with, and live on, the job. It seems likely that HS2 would be highly reliant on such workers.

Most of the remaining GB train-building industry closed down in the 1980s, and over the last few years, billions of pounds worth of train contracts have been handed out to the likes of Siemens and Stadler, without any requirement to ‘create thousands of local jobs’, or a ‘legacy of skills’. So why is this suddenly going to be a requirement for HS2?

Written by beleben

October 13, 2016 at 3:21 pm

Posted in gibberish, HS2

Tagged with

The nocturnal thoughts of chairman Higgins

with 2 comments

AJ interviews HS2 chairman David Higgins, 13 July 2015

In an interview with Architects Journal last year, HS2 chairman David Higgins said, “We spent a massive amount of money patching up a  Victorian network. It is soul destroying for staff, who are out every night with limited access to the track, trying to keep a network going that gets a bigger pounding than anything else in Europe. So what a luxury to be able to build and maintain a state-of-the-art system.”

Is “patching up a Victorian railway” soul-destroying for maintenance staff, or what they are paid to do?

What about ‘patching up’ London Underground, or the 1960s motorway network? Is it “soul-destroying” for roadworkers to see their nocturnal tarmacking efforts ground down by thousands of pesky motorists?

If HS2 is built, are there no longer going to be ‘staff out every night’ on the Victorian network? Does that mean they would be getting their P45s?

Would there not be any maintenance staff out ‘every night’, to keep HS2 going? If not, how and when would its upkeep be done? With ’18 trains per hour’ running, wouldn’t there be quite limited access to the track during the day?

Written by beleben

October 5, 2016 at 4:49 pm

Posted in gibberish, HS2

How would HS2 ‘free up space for faster, more frequent trains’?

leave a comment »

According to Network Rail, “HS2 frees up space for faster, more frequent trains” on the West Coast Main Line.

Network Rail: 'HS2 frees up space for faster more frequent trains'

But the HS2 Economic Case is built on billions of pounds of ‘cost savings’ from running fewer trains on the existing track.

Prof Andrew McNaughton, 'Released Capacity', slide 13

Professor Andrew McNaughton’s February 2015 “Released Capacity” slides suggested that HS2 would not allow long distance services to be removed from the West Coast Main Line. Judging by page 13 of his presentation, it is hard to see how there would be “faster, more frequent trains” on the classic line.

According to ‘Released Capacity’, on the fast lines south of Rugby, fewer trains would operate. The idea that routeing trains via the Northampton loop, or inserting extra stops, would make them ‘faster’, is just silly.

Written by beleben

June 7, 2016 at 12:07 pm

HS2’s ruse to misinform

with 2 comments

Given Britain's small size, why would HS2 trains 
ever need to run at 300 km/h, let alone 400 km/h? The ‘over-priced, gold-plated’ HS2 rail project will fail in many of its objectives, a group of transport experts has warned.

[HS2 rail link ‘over-priced’ say transport experts, Roger Harrabin, BBC News, 26 May 2016]

The academics support high-speed rail overall, but say HS2 is five times more expensive than its French equivalent.

They argue that the benefits of HS2 can be achieved much more cheaply, with lower CO2 emissions, and they want their analysis examined by government.
HS2 has been designed to increase capacity and connections, regenerate the North and reduce climate impacts change.

Yet the critics say it will only achieve one of these – capacity. Many key rail journeys, they say, would be worse, including to Nottingham, Stockport and Wakefield.
One of them, Professor James Croll of UCL, told BBC News: “It is just vanity for the UK to have faster trains than the usual high-speed trains.
Professor Tony May from Leeds University told BBC News: “What’s needed is an independent, objective assessment of the alternatives. “These would include a less damaging version of HS2, a better-connected new line from London and transport investment in the North rather than to the North.

Contrary to what was said by Ben Ruse, train speeds are not 'rising throughout Europe'; in Germany, trains with a maximum speed of 249 km/h (or less) are replacing 300 km/h models

All that Ben Ruse, lead spokesperson for HS2, could say in response was that “HS2 would lure people off cars and onto trains, and so reduce carbon emissions”. Rail speeds, he claimed, “were rising throughout Europe – and keeping the speed lower would only cut carbon minimally”.

As train speed increases, the energy required and 
the carbon emissions increase much faster

[HS2 rail link ‘over-priced’ say transport experts, Roger Harrabin, BBC News, 26 May 2016]
Jim Steer, founder of the pro high-speed rail group Greengauge […] agreed that ultra-fast running would increase CO2 emissions by about 20% but said it was better than people driving cars.

‘Better than people driving cars?’ In the 2013 Economic Case, it was projected that just 4% of HS2 passengers would have previously used a car for their journey.

Written by beleben

May 26, 2016 at 2:15 pm

Posted in gibberish, HS2, Politics, Transport

Tagged with