Moderator: Moderators
LOL, Sadly your right, we will have to wait for the next economic crash when the government starts investing money again, then we shall get what we want.Goingnorth wrote:
There's no way the government are going to take on very much, if any, of the cost of building such things. I mean we have wars to fight, immigrants to feed, inquiries to be had, and new decor in MPs offices, not to mention all those administrators in the NHS!
Well all in the world of make-believe at least.
Notice for one thing that I mentioned I have never travelled up the ECML, so I cannot provide evidence to back my claims.yorkie2k wrote:If you do some research you'll discover that it's cheaper to build a new high speed line than do an upgrade on the scale of the WCML.jjules wrote:Personally I, like the general train travelling public, am more concerned with how long I have to wait for a late-running service, and what the excuse of the day is than what new lines we may have in the future. Connect London and Edinburgh if you want, but this is a waste of money, which we don't have, seeing as we have the ECML already. I've not travelled along the ECML, so I cannot comment on its current state accurately. An upgrade would be most helpful.
Yes the ECML should be upgraded but in order for higher speeds to take place the whole signalling would have to be taken out and completely re-signalled so we'd have many weekends of disruption. And, as the WCML upgrade has proved, it still wouldn't be as good as a new high speed line.
London to Edinburgh high speed line would NOT be a waste of money! How the hell can you say that?! The ECML is FULL to capacity and people are ALREADY being priced off trains. Few cheap tickets are available. We've recently abandoned the idea of going to Boston on the train due to the ridiculously high cost of tickets.
If a high speed line was created it would take many new customers (off the roads and the airlines) and also ease the overcrowding on the ECML.
I'm not going to argue further with you, jjules, just do some research.
It has been conceded with the WCML upgrade (cost 10bn - which would have paid for 250-300 miles of new railway, even at our prices) was probably not the best move in the circumstances. All the classic main lines should have been upgraded on an ongoing basis over a period of years, it's because maintenance has such a huge backlog that it's costing a lot of money, for lets face it, a minimal upgrade.jjules wrote:Notice for one thing that I mentioned I have never travelled up the ECML, so I cannot provide evidence to back my claims.yorkie2k wrote:If you do some research you'll discover that it's cheaper to build a new high speed line than do an upgrade on the scale of the WCML.jjules wrote:Personally I, like the general train travelling public, am more concerned with how long I have to wait for a late-running service, and what the excuse of the day is than what new lines we may have in the future. Connect London and Edinburgh if you want, but this is a waste of money, which we don't have, seeing as we have the ECML already. I've not travelled along the ECML, so I cannot comment on its current state accurately. An upgrade would be most helpful.
Yes the ECML should be upgraded but in order for higher speeds to take place the whole signalling would have to be taken out and completely re-signalled so we'd have many weekends of disruption. And, as the WCML upgrade has proved, it still wouldn't be as good as a new high speed line.
London to Edinburgh high speed line would NOT be a waste of money! How the hell can you say that?! The ECML is FULL to capacity and people are ALREADY being priced off trains. Few cheap tickets are available. We've recently abandoned the idea of going to Boston on the train due to the ridiculously high cost of tickets.
If a high speed line was created it would take many new customers (off the roads and the airlines) and also ease the overcrowding on the ECML.
I'm not going to argue further with you, jjules, just do some research.
It would be a waste of money because it is only two cities linked. The ECML is the only viable route to Edinburgh without going through the Pennines, and that would be expensive. You'd need to link with Newcastle and York at the very least to make it worthwhile, so that passengers can go on from there to other destinations.
Also, why is it that London to Edinburgh is the only HSL that people want to have? A HSL from South Wales to London would be most appreciated down here.
You got figures to support your claims yorkie2k?
It is most unfortunate that one of my last posts has to be negative. I just don't think that the money used to make the line would be gotten back within our lifetime, if ever.
The GWML has new track (less than 10 years old) from Paddington-West Drayton, and it's mostly new going west. The trains are another question.222004 wrote:Hmm.
Well the GWML from Cardiff to Swansea needs sorting out. 43s are bouncy along it, so I'd hate to be on a 142/143 along that section. It'll never get done though.
Few if any railway lines ever make a return on their investment directly from the fare box. The benefits come to those living along the route, leading to a rise in living standards, growth in available markets, and increase in economic activity. This means that the end fiscal beneficiary of any new railway or improved service is usually property developers or the local council/national government treasury. The question therefore is not "would a HSL pay for itself by fares over a reasonable period of time", but "would the investment in the HSL be matched or bettered by the growth in economic activity and hence tax revenue". The answer to the former is definately not, the latter is debatable.jjules wrote:I just don't think that the money used to make the line would be gotten back within our lifetime, if ever.
The irony is, people would think it would happen (or even be a good idea) if a series of new motorways were to be built. Even though they would take up 3-4 times as much land, be only able to be used at 1/3 of the speed, and be less environmentally friendly and of-course less safe.mattvince wrote:There are only two problems with the UK network: Reliability, and Capacity.
Reliability: Simple maintenance, replacement of life-expired components, upgrading sub-standard components (think BR's ECML wiring).
Capacity: More loops, more grade-seperated junctions, expand the railway where possible. Should space permit, replace double-track with three-track (with bi-directional centre track), and four-track. Eventually, resignalling with Moving-Block signalling (ERTMS Level 3) should be implimented, when the technology has matured.
As for HSL: Yes, if the economics stack up. It would be nice to have all these fast trains, however, the project has to be viable, as opposed to sucessive increases in speeds over existing (upgraded) infrastructure. VT's Pendolinos are good for 140mph, as are the GNER '225s'. Upping line speeds where possible is a good policy: Brum NS to Bristol can be done 10 minutes faster by 220s than the timetable specifies, and that's 95mph line speed. 110-125mph would cut times considerably. The core of the Great Western (ie London-Chippenham/Bristol Parkway) is good for 140-150mph, with ERTMS and electrification.
I would like to see HSLs, however, I don't see Government having the guts to get it going. This report is, after all, only a proposal by an independant advisor (Prof. Begg, CfIT), and is like every other proposal - not considered seriously by the Department for Roads, sorry, Transport. Remember IC250?
Indeed. However, political cycles last 5 years maximum. CTRL took 1996-2003 (7 years) from Act of Parliament to completion of stage 1. Labour are in a pretty good position to win the next election, despite a mini-resurgence by the Tories. There will probably be a general election in 2005 or 2006 (the latter if the government are doing badly, which they're not especially since there's no really credible alternative), so any benefits now must be seen by 2009, which is a too tight timescale, particularly considering the absurd planning laws in this country that give too much power to the landed gentry, who have since lost their land and been replaced by Daily Mail readers, who still want to protect their property.alex2008 wrote:Another point to make to you posting slip...
Like you said its rare for a railway to earn its investment back, it also creates jobs, both in the building and in the running of it so it is good for the country, like I said before we should all lobby the govt. when the economy needs a boost.
A good link between any HSL and the CTRL would no doubt come in useful, I could see a lot of people using the train direct to the continent, even if it takes longer than flying, cost could well become a issue over longer distances.
Somehow I missed this post yesterday. Therefore I'll reply now.Goingnorth wrote:The GWML has new track (less than 10 years old) from Paddington-West Drayton, and it's mostly new going west. The trains are another question.222004 wrote:Hmm.
Well the GWML from Cardiff to Swansea needs sorting out. 43s are bouncy along it, so I'd hate to be on a 142/143 along that section. It'll never get done though.
