Jump to content

HS2 canal crossing points


Peter-Bullfinch

Featured Posts

11 minutes ago, KevMc said:

OK ... so I dug around a bit and according to KPMG (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/487395/response/1177578/attach/4/FOI18 2020 Annex A.pdf) HS2 phase 1 & 2a will need 1.2 TWh ... and eventually this will rise to 3TWh (an increase of between 40% and 67% on total electric demand from the rail sector). Now I always get a little confused when we try to convert Wh figures into total demand so I'm sure someone will contradict me and point out the correct comparison but that does look pretty close to 50% of Hinckley Point C (and more once fully operational).

Presumably the quoted demand is PEAK and not continuous?

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, KevMc said:

OK ... so I dug around a bit and according to KPMG (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/487395/response/1177578/attach/4/FOI18 2020 Annex A.pdf) HS2 phase 1 & 2a will need 1.2 TWh ... and eventually this will rise to 3TWh (an increase of between 40% and 67% on total electric demand from the rail sector). Now I always get a little confused when we try to convert Wh figures into total demand so I'm sure someone will contradict me and point out the correct comparison but that does look pretty close to 50% of Hinckley Point C (and more once fully operational).

OK, the fish are in the barrel, let's shoot them!

 

Reading the link the number you give are annual consumption, so HS2 will use between 1.2TWh and 3Twh per year. 

 

Question. How much power will Hinkley C generate per year? The depends on the capacity factor, which is the proportion of the time the plant is available, and the proportion of the maximum output that's used during that time. Nuclear is baseload, so the later is "all of it".  PWR nuclear power stations need to be shut down for refuelling, so the former is not 100%, but it's not far off that: say 95%. So Hinckey is 3260MW, from my previous answer. So it produces 3260 MWh each hour. If it's running 95% of the time, in a year it produces 0.95*3260*24*365 = 27129720MWh 

 

A TWh is 1000000MWh, so 27129720MWh is 27TWh

 

So there's you answer. HS2 will use  5% of the output of HC to start with (up to 2027) rising to 11% of the output of HC once it has all been built.

 

Hardly 50%?

 

MP.

 

9 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

Presumably the quoted demand is PEAK and not continuous?

 

George

No. It's amount of energy used in a year.

 

MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MoominPapa said:

OK, the fish are in the barrel, let's shoot them!

 

Reading the link the number you give are annual consumption, so HS2 will use between 1.2TWh and 3Twh per year. 

 

Question. How much power will Hinkley C generate per year? The depends on the capacity factor, which is the proportion of the time the plant is available, and the proportion of the maximum output that's used during that time. Nuclear is baseload, so the later is "all of it".  PWR nuclear power stations need to be shut down for refuelling, so the former is not 100%, but it's not far off that: say 95%. So Hinckey is 3260MW, from my previous answer. So it produces 3260 MWh each hour. If it's running 95% of the time, in a year it produces 0.95*3260*24*365 = 27129720MWh 

 

A TWh is 1000000MWh, so 27129720MWh is 27TWh

 

So there's you answer. HS2 will use  5% of the output of HC to start with (up to 2027) rising to 11% of the output of HC once it has all been built.

 

Hardly 50%?

 

MP.

 

No. It's amount of energy used in a year.

 

MP.

I did say I was confused by the differing rates being thrown around .... so someone somewhere appears to have misplaced a decimal point in their calculations and made 5% into 50% (quite easily done) ..... but with this one line expected to increase rail demand for electricity by a staggering 40-67%; and bring no benefit at all to people whose lives are being disrupted for the duration of the work and after, causing untold irreparable damage to the environment I still can't see one good reason for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, KevMc said:

I did say I was confused by the differing rates being thrown around .... so someone somewhere appears to have misplaced a decimal point in their calculations and made 5% into 50% (quite easily done) ..... but with this one line expected to increase rail demand for electricity by a staggering 40-67%; and bring no benefit at all to people whose lives are being disrupted for the duration of the work and after, causing untold irreparable damage to the environment I still can't see one good reason for it.

But it will presumably reduce demand for road and aeroplane fuel by a large amount at the same time.

 

Being a boater, and therefore spending lots of time in transport corridors, I've never understood why people are silent about road and motorway building but get upset about railways. Unless it's because the people complaining are happy to drive their cars wherever and whenever they want, and hang the residents on either side of the road, but would never use more environmentally and socially benign rail transport.

 

MP.

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MoominPapa said:

I've never understood why people are silent about road and motorway building but get upset about railways.

MP.

 

I think there is often considerable local opposition to the building of new roads - though few are built nowadays. I don't think there's much opposition to the building of railways - there is opposition to the building of one particular very major railway. This opposition is magnified by the fact that this new railway will have a national effect, whereas most new road schemes which are going ahead at present affect only a small area - a town by-pass for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MoominPapa said:

But it will presumably reduce demand for road and aeroplane fuel by a large amount at the same time.

 

Being a boater, and therefore spending lots of time in transport corridors, I've never understood why people are silent about road and motorway building but get upset about railways. Unless it's because the people complaining are happy to drive their cars wherever and whenever they want, and hang the residents on either side of the road, but would never use more environmentally and socially benign rail transport.

 

MP.

 

I doubt there is much air traffic between London and Birmingham, and if I was travelling to Birmingham city centre I would already consider rail ... but not by HS2 because I'd have to make my way into central London (minimum 30 minutes at a cost of nearly £20) to get to a train that will take nearly an hour and cost who knows how much more than a direct train which currently takes slightly over an hour for £35, so it'll take longer and cost more.

 

HS2 will not service any intermediate stations between London and Birmingham so it's pretty much aimed purely at the business traveller and with a capacity in the thousands / day I think it will end up as a massive white elephant.

 

Of course if there was more than just me travelling it becomes increasingly cheaper to travel in the comfort of a car and we wouldn't be subject to missing connections.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MoominPapa said:

The problem, I think, is phase balance. The national grid is three-phase, hence the sets of three cables you see hanging from each side of pylons. Rail traction current is single phase, on a single wire with return through the rails. A feed point consists of a transformer with its primary connected across two grid wires and its secondary connected between the rail and the overhead. This takes power from one phase of the grid, which unbalances the current flowing in the three phases and causes problems if it's too large. Avoiding too large unbalance is a bit of a delicate balance involving no using too large a proportion of the capacity of the grid circuit for rail, different tracks and directions from the feed point on different phases, etc etc. Feeding power unbalanced back into the grid just makes the balancing that much more difficult.

 

MP.

 

 

Easily resolved using a single to three phase converter, although they are typically used to supply three phase industrial equipment from a single phase supply.

 

However whether it would worthwhile I dont know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, KevMc said:

I doubt there is much air traffic between London and Birmingham, and if I was travelling to Birmingham city centre I would already consider rail ... but not by HS2 because I'd have to make my way into central London (minimum 30 minutes at a cost of nearly £20) to get to a train that will take nearly an hour and cost who knows how much more than a direct train which currently takes slightly over an hour for £35, so it'll take longer and cost more.

 

HS2 will not service any intermediate stations between London and Birmingham so it's pretty much aimed purely at the business traveller and with a capacity in the thousands / day I think it will end up as a massive white elephant.

 

Of course if there was more than just me travelling it becomes increasingly cheaper to travel in the comfort of a car and we wouldn't be subject to missing connections.

Once again the fallacy surfaces that HS2 is simply a connection between London and Birmingham.

 

EVERY city north of Birmingham will also benefit from faster trains using the new line as will EVERY community on the WCML south of Birminham having room on the classic lines for better services as will EVERY motorist on the M1 seeing less HGVs, much freight having been transferred from road onto the classic lines.

 

George

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Athy said:

I think there is often considerable local opposition to the building of new roads - though few are built nowadays. I don't think there's much opposition to the building of railways - there is opposition to the building of one particular very major railway. This opposition is magnified by the fact that this new railway will have a national effect, whereas most new road schemes which are going ahead at present affect only a small area - a town by-pass for example.

Towns are bypassed because the traffic is not local. Benefit to residents from reduced congestion but benefit to wider users through improved journey times (unless the scheme simply transfers the problem elsewhere, not unknown!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, KevMc said:

Of course if there was more than just me travelling it becomes increasingly cheaper to travel in the comfort of a car and we wouldn't be subject to missing connections.

Its almost always cheaper for me to use my diesel car than travel by train, not to mention its quicker as well. However I rarely go to city centres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Towns are bypassed because the traffic is not local. Benefit to residents from reduced congestion but benefit to wider users through improved journey times (unless the scheme simply transfers the problem elsewhere, not unknown!)

When the Whaley Bridge and Chapel en le Frith bypass opened in the late 1980s it was wonderful for those two towns.  Sadly, the faster road traffic meant that five railfreight stone depots closed and the traffic transferred to road.  In my village, beyond the end of the bypass, I used to be able to walk up the white centre line of the A6 on the way home at midnight.  Within months that was transformed into constant 24 hour convoys of stone lorries.  It was the same for Disley, High Lane and Hazel Grove.

 

Now traffic has expanded, Whaley and Chapel are as busy as ever but the railfreight depots have reopened rather than having HGVs sat in traffic jams.

 

Traffic expands to fit the available road space.......FACT.

 

George

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

On TV last night a train direct from China to London, cheaper and quicker that transporting containers by sea

That's a pretty impressive feat considering there appears to be no continuous standard gauge route from China to London. A direct service involving a couple of transhipments of the containers is probably closer to the truth. The first train of this nature was a couple of years ago now.

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why there are objections to HS2 as it will bring substantial employment opportunities . One of the main aims is to improve travel for business users . People travelling for leisure may select other means if they wish  - unless tempted by off peak fares .

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480649/annex-hs2-and-the-market-for-business-travel.pdf

If business is successful it will benefit everyone whether employed or not. Would the canal boating public prefer if to go back to the dark ages ?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, MartynG said:

I don't understand why there are objections to HS2 as it will bring substantial employment opportunities . One of the main aims is to improve travel for business users . People travelling for leisure may select other means if they wish  - unless tempted by off peak fares .

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480649/annex-hs2-and-the-market-for-business-travel.pdf

If business is successful it will benefit everyone whether employed or not. Would the canal boating public prefer if to go back to the dark ages ?

 

 

 

So there will be thousands of business travellers from London to Birmingham (and points North) using the new train service every day .... only in cloud cuckoo land methinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A QUESTION ASIDE.

 

This is a new railway network, with new track, tunnels, bridges and rolling stock, yes?

 

Is the loading gauge and track clearances of a size to allow high speed freight use when the expected passenger increase doesn't happen?

 Will a standard 12m shipping container fit everywhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KevMc said:

So there will be thousands of business travellers from London to Birmingham (and points North) using the new train service every day .... only in cloud cuckoo land methinks.

Demonstrating demand is the easiest bit of the equation. There's broadly 20,000 direct journeys between London Euston and Birmingham New Street or Manchester Piccadilly every day now. There are three trains an hour for 16 hours a day, 7 days a week to both Birmingham and Manchester from London. The passenger numbers have doubled over 20 years at the same time that road usage has also increased and all despite (or perhaps in part because of) the boom in mobile communications and agile working. All future forecasts say demand for travel will continue to grow, the only real debate is by how much and how to solve the demand it brings. The alternative is to accept the UK will stagnate economically and we all become relatively poorer.

 

The scope of HS2 will link the centres of five metropolitan areas totalling 20 million people (one third of the UK population) with journey times of 45 to 90 minutes. There is over 50 years of evidence from around the world of the impact of doing that kind of thing. So there is a strong degree of certainty over the likely outcome. There is proven technology so providing the right specification and procurement strategies are put in place the risks are quite low for a project of such magnitude.

 

The chances of it being a white elephant are pretty much nil. That hasn't happened in Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain or indeed in the South East of the UK where we already have HS1. These places have been building high speed rail for half a century and continue to expand their networks. The Chinese will trump all of the combined achievements of the rest of the World in terms of scope of operation if they haven't already done so. What is it about the UK that is different?

 

Also, have a think about your 40-67% power consumption increase figure. Moomin Papa has given you the demand required by the HS2 fleet so now go and research the demand of the existing electric train fleet of the UK and see if even your low end of 40% can realistically be anywhere near accurate.

 

My personal view is that London to Birmingham is the obvious starting point but the real goal is to link all those cities directly and the UK will feel the benefit as a whole once the gaps between Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds are closed. There is a risk of a brain drain effect by better connecting provincial cities to London but not to each other.

 

To realise the benefits we need to get on with and do it properly.

 

JP

 

 

 

 

Edited by Captain Pegg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Demonstrating demand is the easiest bit of the equation. There's broadly 20,000 direct journeys between London Euston and Birmingham New Street or Manchester Piccadilly every day now. There are three trains an hour for 16 hours a day, 7 days a week to both Birmingham and Manchester from London. The passenger numbers have doubled over 20 years at the same time that road usage has also increased and all despite (or perhaps in part because of) the boom in mobile communications and agile working. All future forecasts say demand for travel will continue to grow, the only real debate is by how much and how to solve the demand it brings. The alternative is to accept the UK will stagnate economically and we all become relatively poorer.

 

The scope of HS2 will link the centres of five metropolitan areas totalling 20 million people (one third of the UK population) with journey times of 45 to 90 minutes. There is over 50 years of evidence from around the world of the impact of doing that kind of thing. So there is a strong degree of certainty over the likely outcome. There is proven technology so providing the right specification and procurement strategies are put in place the risks are quite low for a project of such magnitude.

 

The chances of it being a white elephant are pretty much nil. That hasn't happened in Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain or indeed in the South East of the UK where we already have HS1. These places have been building high speed rail for half a century and continue to expand their networks. the Chinese will trump all of their achievements in terms of scope of operation if they haven't already done so. What is it about the UK that is different?

 

Also, have a think about your 40-67% power consumption increase figure. Moomin Papa has given you the demand required by the HS2 fleet so now go and research the demand of the existing electric train fleet of the UK and see if even your low end of 40% can realistically be anywhere near accurate.

 

My personal view is that London to Birmingham is the obvious starting point but the real goal is to link all those cities directly and the UK will feel the benefit as a whole once the gaps between Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds are closed. There is a risk of a brain drain effect by better connecting provincial cities to London but not to each other.

 

To realise the benefits we need to get on with and do it properly.

 

JP

 

 

 

 

Any chance you can tell me where you get the 20k a day figure from ? What percentage of that is business travel ?  HS2 is likely to price out the leisure traveller.

 

Nothing you have said above comes close to justifying the damage being done to the environment by the construction of HS2 - we have a government by a Tory party that has the gall to use an Oak tree as their symbol .... but HS2 is destroying acre upon acre of ancient woodland, and who knows how many other irreplaceable natural assets - just to feed an ever increasing demand for more more more, faster faster faster. 

 

The 40-67% figure wasn't my calculation - it was published by KPMG in the document I linked to : https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/487395/response/1177578/attach/4/FOI18 2020 Annex A.pdf)

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, KevMc said:

Any chance you can tell me where you get the 20k a day figure from ? What percentage of that is business travel ?  HS2 is likely to price out the leisure traveller.

 

Will the market forces and pricing strategies be much different from the present? I almost always use the rail system off peak ('cos I can) but I am also aware that other people on that train making exactly the same journey may well have paid very different prices (I get a third off anyway just by being ancient). Travel at peak times is driven significantly by business (or more accurately travel-to-work) journeys and the pricing seeks to even out the demand into the other times of the day (and long may it continue!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

Demonstrating demand is the easiest bit of the equation. There's broadly 20,000 direct journeys between London Euston and Birmingham New Street or Manchester Piccadilly every day now. 

I've had a little dig around ...... HS2 is intending to run between 14 & 18 trains per hour each way with a capacity of 1100 seats..... now correct me if I am wrong but that looks like a daily capacity of 246,400 each way per day at the low end (assuming your 16 hours operation) .... an overcapacity of 1132% based on your 20,000 journeys per day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, KevMc said:

Any chance you can tell me where you get the 20k a day figure from ? What percentage of that is business travel ?  HS2 is likely to price out the leisure traveller.

 

Nothing you have said above comes close to justifying the damage being done to the environment by the construction of HS2 - we have a government by a Tory party that has the gall to use an Oak tree as their symbol .... but HS2 is destroying acre upon acre of ancient woodland, and who knows how many other irreplaceable natural assets - just to feed an ever increasing demand for more more more, faster faster faster. 

 

The 40-67% figure wasn't my calculation - it was published by KPMG in the document I linked to : https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/487395/response/1177578/attach/4/FOI18 2020 Annex A.pdf)

And it is quite likely that the route chosen had more to do with creating a massive amount of brown field for development purposes, as the original route would have followed the M40 motorway, an ideal solution with easy access for delivered materials, an existing scar on the environment would have only been made larger and those displaced from properties beside it would be far less in number, and potentially end up in an improved situation. But the appeal to developers to build adjacent to the motorway would not be great. 

They have already earmarked all pristine green space between the northern end of Ickenham and Harefield as needed during development of that stretch, which in any sane mind is absurd and hard to justify. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, KevMc said:

Any chance you can tell me where you get the 20k a day figure from ? What percentage of that is business travel ?  HS2 is likely to price out the leisure traveller.

 

Nothing you have said above comes close to justifying the damage being done to the environment by the construction of HS2 - we have a government by a Tory party that has the gall to use an Oak tree as their symbol .... but HS2 is destroying acre upon acre of ancient woodland, and who knows how many other irreplaceable natural assets - just to feed an ever increasing demand for more more more, faster faster faster. 

 

The 40-67% figure wasn't my calculation - it was published by KPMG in the document I linked to : https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/487395/response/1177578/attach/4/FOI18 2020 Annex A.pdf)

The figure came straight out of my head from memory.

 

If you want to form an understanding of the issues behind the idea for HS2 search on "West Coast Main Line Route Utilisation Strategy" and you will find a document published in 2011 which will give the background to the challenges that created the idea for HS2. It also contains passenger numbers for 2009/10 in Table 3.9 on page 47 which were 2.7m London to Manchester and 2.3m London to Birmingham and growth at 5% year on year. Work it out and you should get to something in the order of 20,000 passengers per day currently.

 

All major transport projects have an environmental impact; always have had and always will do. If you want to address the demand for travel then rail is generally a more friendly way of doing it than the alternatives. It's perfectly fine to want to suppress economic growth in favour of protecting the environment but I don't think it's where society is at as a whole. Your argument is more against the desires of society as a whole than against HS2.

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, KevMc said:

I've had a little dig around ...... HS2 is intending to run between 14 & 18 trains per hour each way with a capacity of 1100 seats..... now correct me if I am wrong but that looks like a daily capacity of 246,400 each way per day at the low end (assuming your 16 hours operation) .... an overcapacity of 1132% based on your 20,000 journeys per day.

I only quoted numbers of direct journeys between London Euston and Birmingham New Street, and London Euston and Manchester Piccadilly in order to demonstrate that were thousands of people wanting to make that journey each day in response to you questioning the demand for such.

 

Those are the largest long distance flows from London Euston but they only represent about 10% of the overall numbers of people using the routes out of Euston station.

 

HS2 Ltd has stated that it will have increased capacity but it is essentially a replacement for both West Coast and East Coast main lines once Phase 2b is built.That additional capacity is nothing like the number you have calculated.

 

JP

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.