Jump to content

'Great Boris Canal' shipping water from Scotland to England to tackle drought


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

15 hours ago, Jerra said:

I don't mind trains but it is the mass rape of the countryside for little or no gain which annoys me with HS2.

What 'no gain' do you mean? AIUI, the network is, in the relevant places, already congested and unable to carry all the traffic that it could. HS2 is not about journey times even if those opposed keep banging on about it. (posted before I saw Jim Riley's similar post)

Edited by Mike Todd
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

What 'no gain' do you mean? AIUI, the network is, in the relevant places, already congested and unable to carry all the traffic that it could. HS2 is not about journey times even if those opposed keep banging on about it. (posted before I saw Jim Riley's similar post)

In which case if it is only congestion there is no need to build HS2 it would almost certainly be cheaper and cost less to build a conventional railway.  There would probably be less environmental disruption as well because the tracks wouldn't need to be as straight and level.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Jerra said:

In which case if it is only congestion there is no need to build HS2 it would almost certainly be cheaper and cost less to build a conventional railway.  There would probably be less environmental disruption as well because the tracks wouldn't need to be as straight and level.

 

Not sure that's true. High-speed lines which only carry high-speed trains (like the TGV) go up and down hill more steeply than lines which also carry freight, because the trains have much higher power-to-weight ratio and more speed and inertia to carry them uphill, they barely slow down. Anyone who has ever driven along the motorway where it runs parallel to the TGV line can't have missed the way it follows the motorway up and down some quite steep hills, and the way the trains pass you like you're going backwards...

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the wide swathes being cut up reflect the additional H&S and other regs in all its many and different guises now. Its probably much more valid to be campaigning against these H&S and other regs which cost huge amounts in so many ways for the environment than HS2 in general. 

 

The M5 embankment at Bredon  and the motorways M5 M6 etc going over Birmingham would never be allowed to be built in the way they were nowadays. The earth moving would be considerably more to satisfy all the regs/ fear of litigation etc etc etc.  

 

Jim Ryley is right  motorways afford fantastic wildlife corridors, there are more cowslips for example on the M5 than in most of the rest of  Gloucestershire put together. 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stroudwater1 said:

I suspect the wide swathes being cut up reflect the additional H&S and other regs in all its many and different guises now. Its probably much more valid to be campaigning against these H&S and other regs which cost huge amounts in so many ways for the environment than HS2 in general. 

 

The M5 embankment at Bredon  and the motorways M5 M6 etc going over Birmingham would never be allowed to be built in the way they were nowadays. The earth moving would be considerably more to satisfy all the regs/ fear of litigation etc etc etc.  

 

Jim Ryley is right  motorways afford fantastic wildlife corridors, there are more cowslips for example on the M5 than in most of the rest of  Gloucestershire put together. 

 

 

I doubt that "elf'n'safety" or "fear of litigation" has anything to do with it, more likely newer constructional standards restricting things like embankment angles because experience has shown that steep ones are too prone to landslips, especially with weather changes due to climate change.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

I doubt that "elf'n'safety" or "fear of litigation" has anything to do with it, more likely newer constructional standards restricting things like embankment angles because experience has shown that steep ones are too prone to landslips, especially with weather changes due to climate change.

 

Indeed - comes under other regs, which then link back to fear of litigation should something go wrong.  I suspect that over engineering may apply here. Ironic perhaps that more trees are being cut down to combat climate change effects? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

In

 

Indeed - comes under other regs, which then link back to fear of litigation should something go wrong.  I suspect that over engineering may apply here. Ironic perhaps that more trees are being cut down to combat climate change effects? 

 

Why do you think fear of litigation (from who?) is the reason for changes to railway construction regulations? Surely fear of the line being blocked for a long time if a landslip happens (like happened on the ECML) is a much more likely reason?

 

I get annoyed when people (or the Daily Wail) keep blaming "elf'n'safety" for things that are nothing to do with it -- while ignoring the fact that most of these rules are changed in reaction to something which went horribly wrong in the past, to prevent it happening again and possible killing people. Otherwise we'd still have unstable slag-heaps behind schools... 😞

 

If you disagree, maybe you could provide some evidence of where such changes to HS2 design are actually due to overcautious legislation-fearing "elf'n'safety" rules... 😉

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jim Riley said:

We had all this fuss and bother when the motorways were built, what about the trees, the wildlife!

 

5 hours ago, MtB said:

And once it is done and nicely bedded into the landscape like the canals are now...

 

I remember a cartoon in Punch or somewhere like that which showed a picturesque rural village, and on the roadside at the entrance to the village was a sign saying "Keep the canal out of Little Chipping", with the word "canal" crossed out and replaced by "railway", also crossed out and replaced with "motorway", also crossed out and replaced with "airport"....

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

 

I remember a cartoon in Punch or somewhere like that which showed a picturesque rural village, and on the roadside at the entrance to the village was a sign saying "Keep the canal out of Little Chipping", with the word "canal" crossed out and replaced by "railway", also crossed out and replaced with "motorway", also crossed out and replaced with "airport"....

 

 

Serial NIMBY's

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Not sure that's true. High-speed lines which only carry high-speed trains (like the TGV) go up and down hill more steeply than lines which also carry freight, because the trains have much higher power-to-weight ratio and more speed and inertia to carry them uphill, they barely slow down. Anyone who has ever driven along the motorway where it runs parallel to the TGV line can't have missed the way it follows the motorway up and down some quite steep hills, and the way the trains pass you like you're going backwards...

Strange I was told by a workman atone of the sites we cruised past there was a large embankment going in.  I asked why and I was told the track needed to be more level than for normal railways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jerra said:

In which case if it is only congestion there is no need to build HS2 it would almost certainly be cheaper and cost less to build a conventional railway.  There would probably be less environmental disruption as well because the tracks wouldn't need to be as straight and level.

Do you have evidence that construction costs per mile, inc land costs, would be cheaper? Or is it surmise - 'it is obvious that . . . ' 

 

All infrastructure projects are much more expensive now than a century (or more) ago, even after inflation, for all sorts of reasons, almost all of which are totally justified.

2 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

I suspect the wide swathes being cut up reflect the additional H&S and other regs in all its many and different guises now. Its probably much more valid to be campaigning against these H&S and other regs which cost huge amounts in so many ways for the environment than HS2 in general. 

 

The M5 embankment at Bredon  and the motorways M5 M6 etc going over Birmingham would never be allowed to be built in the way they were nowadays. The earth moving would be considerably more to satisfy all the regs/ fear of litigation etc etc etc.  

 

Jim Ryley is right  motorways afford fantastic wildlife corridors, there are more cowslips for example on the M5 than in most of the rest of  Gloucestershire put together. 

 

And railway embankments have some quite rare flowers . . . 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Strange I was told by a workman atone of the sites we cruised past there was a large embankment going in.  I asked why and I was told the track needed to be more level than for normal railways.

Either the workman was wrong, or whoever specified HS2 (the government?) was an idiot, or they wanted it also make it "freight-capable" just in case this was ever needed -- even though there's no plan for this -- and nobody pointed out how much money/time/construction could be saved by following TGV principles, where they allow gradients up to 1 in 30 which are *far* steeper than normal rail tracks.

 

Or maybe they didn't want to do that because it would imply the French teaching us how to do things, and that can't *possibly* be allowed... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Do you have evidence that construction costs per mile, inc land costs, would be cheaper? Or is it surmise - 'it is obvious that . . . ' 

 

All infrastructure projects are much more expensive now than a century (or more) ago, even after inflation, for all sorts of reasons, almost all of which are totally justified.

And railway embankments have some quite rare flowers . . . 

The massive swathe of land being cleared which I noted at a number of points as we cruised past is far wider than would be needed for a usual dual track.

 

Whitneyoxfordtransport suggest conventional railway £12m -£20m per mile. (excluding land acquisition costs).

 

The Guardian (the first reference I came across) suggests £307m per mile for high speed.   Even if that is twice the real price (which I doubt) the High speed is considerably more expensive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that rail wear is greater on lines that carry mixed traffic. Where a line is only used by one type of rolling stock, the wheel profile and rail head profile adjust to shapes that result in minimum further wear. When the London underground's Picadilly line was extended to Heathrow airport, it was done by providing a loop, avoiding the need for trains to reverse. But this meant that the profiles that were optimal for trains that had previously simply shuttled back and forth, was no longer optimal for trains that reversed the way they were pointing with every return trip. For some months after the loop was brought into use, the trains squealed their way along the line until  new optimum profiles had been reached. 

 

With high speed lines, the super-elevation of the outside rail on curves will normally be determined by the speed of the trains using the curve so that, ideally, the flanges do not rub against either rail, therefore  minimising wear. The flanges of a slower train going round the same curve will bear on the inner rail, with consequential increased wear of both rail and wheel. 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, IanD said:

 

I doubt that "elf'n'safety" or "fear of litigation" has anything to do with it, more likely newer constructional standards restricting things like embankment angles because experience has shown that steep ones are too prone to landslips, especially with weather changes due to climate change.

It was observed in "Modern Railways" a few years ago that, whereas  in pre-H&S days, something that needed attention by a small gang of workmen would be dealt with by them walking across a field with their tools,  lunchboxes, a primus stove and a roll of toilet paper, nowadays a temporary road has to be put in to provide access to a wheelchair-accessible temporary cabin with toilet and kitchen facilities. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jerra said:

The massive swathe of land being cleared which I noted at a number of points as we cruised past is far wider than would be needed for a usual dual track.

 

Whitneyoxfordtransport suggest conventional railway £12m -£20m per mile. (excluding land acquisition costs).

 

The Guardian (the first reference I came across) suggests £307m per mile for high speed.   Even if that is twice the real price (which I doubt) the High speed is considerably more expensive

I expect the figure for HS2 is so high because of the massive lengths of tunnels required to keep modern NIMBYs happy, because nobody wants a new noisy high-speed line at the bottom of their garden. The Guardian figure probably also includes land costs which the other one specifically excludes.

 

There's no inherent reason for a new high-speed line to cost much more than a new standard-speed line; in the UK in particular they would *both* be very expensive...

 

(but difficult to compare since there are almost no new standard-speed lines built nowadays)

 

2 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

It was observed in "Modern Railways" a few years ago that, whereas  in pre-H&S days, something that needed attention by a small gang of workmen would be dealt with by them walking across a field with their tools,  lunchboxes, a primus stove and a roll of toilet paper, nowadays a temporary road has to be put in to provide access to a wheelchair-accessible temporary cabin with toilet and kitchen facilities. 

 

 

And in "pre-H&S" days it was also fairly common for railway workmen to be killed either by workplace accidents or passing trains. Saved money though, funerals with bugger-all compensation were cheap... 😞

 

I suspect the Modern Railways article may have been somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it seems unlikely that there are many permanent way workers in wheelchairs for obvious reasons... 😉

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a few years sgo, in a piece highlighting reasons for the disproportionate rise in maintenance costs. I got the impression that the wheelchair bit was genuine,  but don't know the facts. 

 

Around that time, a job advert for a building inspector for one of the London Boroughs appeared, mentioning that the  job involved inspecting scaffolding and deep excavations, and that  applications from disabled persons were welcomed.  

Edited by Ronaldo47
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

It was a few years sgo, in a piece highlighting reasons for the disproportionate rise in maintenance costs. I got the impression that the wheelchair bit was genuine,  but don't know the facts. 

 

Around that time, a job advert for a building inspector for one of the London Boroughs appeared, mentioning that the  job involved inspecting scaffolding and deep excavations, and that  applications from disabled persons were welcomed.  

Not surprising, having an opinion which doesn't agree with the facts is a common feature in anti-H&S diatribes in places like the Daily Wail, which often turn out to be simply not true (conker bans etc.).

 

You do know that not all disabilities involve restricted movement, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, IanD said:

You do know that not all disabilities involve restricted movement, don't you?

 

 

It did however amuse me when back in the 90s, Wickes and other builders' merchants I used marked out for disabled parking, the parking spaces closest to the doors. I didn't and still don't know any builders so disabled they need such spaces. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

It did however amuse me when back in the 90s, Wickes and other builders' merchants I used marked out for disabled parking, the parking spaces closest to the doors. I didn't and still don't know any builders so disabled they need such spaces. 

 

 

 

 

What about family of DIYers.  I have used Wickes (and I am not a builder) and on occasion have had my brother with me who for covering distances such as round Wickes uses a Wheelchair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, IanD said:

Not surprising, having an opinion which doesn't agree with the facts is a common feature in anti-H&S diatribes in places like the Daily Wail, which often turn out to be simply not true (conker bans etc.).

 

You do know that not all disabilities involve restricted movement, don't you?


oh dear Ian two daily wail references in one thread, there ought to be a Godwins law equivalent for that 🤣😉 incidentally the local school has indeed banned conkers. 

One can’t legislate easily for common sense and one can’t legislate easily to prevent greed (it’s been attempted  for many years but still fails to catch those who mean to make money in possibly dubious or unwise ways)  . Lack of common sense or greed is often the cause of these deaths or disasters . Sometimes it’s just bad luck.
 

Trying to preserve life (or make it “fair”) at any cost by all legislative means is very expensive often  has little science behind it and results in environmental destruction  and other unintended consequences in various  ways. There needs to be more science as there always is a cost per life saved. That’s not in the analysis in most enquiries, parliamentarians thoughts or section 28 coroners reports it’s usually based on emotional costs with a legal response  ie it must never happen again or worse it must never make Media headlines again.  


In medical matters this cost benefit analysis is (sometimes!) done hence many screening procedures aren’t done even though  a life might be saved as the cost in saving it is deemed by scientific analysis not to be worthwhile, or there are unintended consequences  in trying to save life eg radiation from mammograms at earlier ages. 


In environmental terms I suspect we are overvaluing ourselves many times over. In other words human life is expendable after a point but environmental destruction when irreparable is much less so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:


oh dear Ian two daily wail references in one thread, there ought to be a Godwins law equivalent for that 🤣😉 incidentally the local school has indeed banned conkers. 

 

I am totally amazed.  Firstly because I haven't seen a child play conkers for over 20 years, but also if they pretend it is for H & S reasons rather than the awful mess the playgrounds used to get into in conker season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.