Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
Keep it Quiet

HS2 & Effects

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

 

Are you saying AMAZON/DHL/YODEL are pushing for H2S? 

I have no idea where you get the notion from on the basis of what I posted. I was just correcting your assumption that parcels make all of the journey by road based on how it gets to your door on it's last leg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

last word on this ................ the whole idea of hi speed trains is flawed, its matters not that 300 miles of a three thousand mile journey, or even half of a 600 mile journey is at 130mph instead of 100mph. Think about it.

Very few UK door to door journey times or business profits are going to be affected by this H2S nonsense, and yet the massive investment and widespread local disruption has just been accepted, with complete disregard for common sense. 

If I owned a farm for example and lost half of it, or if my house was to be flattened, I would be absolutely furious, I don't know who wants this, I don't know who proposed it, but more importantly, I don't know why. I suspect it is for short term profit. 

Edited by LadyG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

the percentage split is a lot closer when measured by a meaningful measure

We must agree to differ on your definition of meaningful....

Using a ton/mile analysis will of course tend to weight in favour of long distance movement of very heavy freight (historically, raw materials and commodity items such as coal, steel, etc)

The reason this is not used by the Department for Transport is that the UK's logistical requirements are increasingly concerned with the holistic problem of moving goods from points of entry to the doorsteps of consumers. This is achieved by a system of mainly palletised and containerised transport through national and regional distribution centres, overwhelmingly by road.

Rightly or wrongly, the decline in heavy industry in this country, and most significantly the transport of coal, has contributed most to the reduced demand for this kind of 'old world' freight. Rail remains the best possible solution for that kind of transport problem - it's just not the problem that we face any more. 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/09/2017 at 16:08, furnessvale said:

There is a desperate need to move more freight by rail rather than road.  The many container trains to be seen on the West Coast Main Line cannot be video conferenced.

George

HS2 is a people carrier not a freight route

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MJG said:

What you don't know though is what percentage of the journey was undertaken by rail.

Just because your parcel arrives at your door by road does not mean it's entire journey was completed thus.

perhaps we could build an interconnected waterways route system? Moving freight by water would be slower but plenty of stuff can be moved without great haste if people get a life. It would probably use less fuel internal combustion engine wise if 2 or more boats were coupled together? and several tons could be moved in boats that way. Perhaps we could build a large bore system capable of moving stuff inland from a large port such as Goole in shall we say 600 ton loads to Leeds and then onward to other major cities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

perhaps we could build an interconnected waterways route system? Moving freight by water would be slower but plenty of stuff can be moved without great haste if people get a life. It would probably use less fuel internal combustion engine wise if 2 or more boats were coupled together? and several tons could be moved in boats that way. Perhaps we could build a large bore system capable of moving stuff inland from a large port such as Goole in shall we say 600 ton loads to Leeds and then onward to other major cities?

We need to think about carbon neutral horsepower ........ one horsepower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LadyG said:

We need to think about carbon neutral horsepower ........ one horsepower.

but not greenhouse gas-less horsepower. Plenty of methane when it trumps, at least it is less than an oxen produces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

HS2 is a people carrier not a freight route

HS2 removes people from the classic lines leaving more room for freight on those lines.

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

We must agree to differ on your definition of meaningful....

Using a ton/mile analysis will of course tend to weight in favour of long distance movement of very heavy freight (historically, raw materials and commodity items such as coal, steel, etc)

The reason this is not used by the Department for Transport is that the UK's logistical requirements are increasingly concerned with the holistic problem of moving goods from points of entry to the doorsteps of consumers. This is achieved by a system of mainly palletised and containerised transport through national and regional distribution centres, overwhelmingly by road.

Rightly or wrongly, the decline in heavy industry in this country, and most significantly the transport of coal, has contributed most to the reduced demand for this kind of 'old world' freight. Rail remains the best possible solution for that kind of transport problem - it's just not the problem that we face any more. 

The reason that DfT use tons lifted as a measure is nothing to do with anything you say above.

Tons lifted favours road transport.  16000 civil servants in the DfT owe their existence to ensuring road transport flourishes.  The last time I saw the figures, around 200 civil servants owed their existence to railways.

I have already posted that more deep sea container traffic from the major south coast ports moves by rail rather than road, hardly the actions of "old world" freight.

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

perhaps we could build an interconnected waterways route system? Moving freight by water would be slower but plenty of stuff can be moved without great haste if people get a life. It would probably use less fuel internal combustion engine wise if 2 or more boats were coupled together? and several tons could be moved in boats that way. Perhaps we could build a large bore system capable of moving stuff inland from a large port such as Goole in shall we say 600 ton loads to Leeds and then onward to other major cities?

and it could easily be completely automated, so no need for tunnel lights! Just think of the savings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the ticket prices for HS2 will be ? I believe Reading to London season ticket is £5k+ Great if you can claim on expenses which the employer offsets against tax so we all pay for those journeys.The cost has to be subsidised or people will travel existing routes so again the public are paying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

HS2 removes people from the classic lines leaving more room for freight on those lines.

George

 

Yes it's odd how people who have a kneejerk objection to HS2 don't seem able to grasp it is not about making the journey faster, it is about adding to capacity.

If you're building a new route to double capacity, it is daft not to make it faster too. Faster is simply a by-product of building a new railway to modern standards.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

Yes it's odd how people who have a kneejerk objection to HS2 don't seem able to grasp it is not about making the journey faster, it is about adding to capacity.

If you're building a new route to double capacity, it is daft not to make it faster too. Faster is simply a by-product of building a new railway to modern standards.

But there is an alternative route to the North, serving Leicester, Sheffield and Manchester, which could ease congestion on the West and east Coast lines. The Great Central, it's known as....oh hang on, the far-sighted administrators closed most of it in the late 1960s. As with many railway closures, that now looks like a major error of judgement..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

But there is an alternative route to the North, serving Leicester, Sheffield and Manchester, which could ease congestion on the West and east Coast lines. The Great Central, it's known as....oh hang on, the far-sighted administrators closed most of it in the late 1960s. As with many railway closures, that now looks like a major error of judgement..

But its London terminus is now full of Chiltern trains, and huge chunks of the alignment have been built over at Rugby, Leicester and Notttingham (where the tram also uses part of the route), so any attempt at reopening would probably require more new route than old. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

But its London terminus is now full of Chiltern trains, and huge chunks of the alignment have been built over at Rugby, Leicester and Notttingham (where the tram also uses part of the route), so any attempt at reopening would probably require more new route than old. 

I fully realise that - added to which about 10 miles of it has these old steam thingies chugging about. I meant that it should not have been closed in the first place, then we'd have three routes instead of two from London to t'North, which would offer considerably grater capacity than we have now. The irony is that the powers-that-be at the time thought that this capacity was unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I have already posted that more deep sea container traffic from the major south coast ports moves by rail rather than road, hardly the actions of "old world" freight.

George

Must be misunderstanding - This is exactly what 'old-world' rail freight is good at, and it should be encouraged and invested in. Sadly, HS2 will go from London northwards.

Actually, the overall picture for the UK is that only around one quarter of all containers arriving at our ports find their way inland by rail. Again, this is not a happy statistic, but it is the trend.

Rail freight struggles to be anything more than a fairly blunt instrument - great for moving bulk commodities over long distances, but not so good for the agile, just-in-time supply chains of modern manufacturing.

The International Railway Journal puts it thus:

THE steep decline in demand for coal continued to erode rail freight traffic in Britain during the 2016-17 financial year, according to statistics published by the Office of Rail and Road on June 8.

The total volume of freight moved fell to its lowest level since the late 1990s, dipping 3% to 17.2 billion net tonne-km. Of the seven commodity groups coal suffered the sharpest drop declining 39% compared with 2015-16 to 1.4 billion net tonne-km.

The total volume of freight lifted dipped 8% to 79.4%, its lowest level since 1984-85, when traffic was hit badly by a lengthy strike by coal miners.

Freight train movements fell 5% to 224,000, while freight train kilometres declined 3% to 34 million-km.

 

RIP Capacity argument? Actually no..... we do need to invest properly in our railways. I just don't think HS2 is a good project.

 

Edited by zimzim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I fully realise that - added to which about 10 miles of it has these old steam thingies chugging about. I meant that it should not have been closed in the first place, then we'd have three routes instead of two from London to t'North, which would offer considerably grater capacity than we have now. The irony is that the powers-that-be at the time thought that this capacity was unnecessary.

It was unnecessary. The Great Central should probably never have been built. The Midland Railway had already built the railway that served Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Manchester decades before hand. Neither served Manchester particularly directly and even the Midland's rather more direct route to Manchester than the GC didn't itself survive. The GC's big problem was that it never secured it's own independent access to it's London terminus and had capacity issues in the early 20th century. It has no place in a mid-21st century strategy. The Midland route does still exist but is rather busy with commuters on its southern end and has already given up most of it's London terminus to high speed rail. It is also not designed to a significantly high enough standard for either modern passenger or freight demands. The answer doesn't lie in squeezing the extremes of historic transport infrastructure; it is about building new whether that be railways, roads or airports. The issue is the choice of which.

JP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/03/2018 at 16:27, zimzim said:

Must be misunderstanding - This is exactly what 'old-world' rail freight is good at, and it should be encouraged and invested in. Sadly, HS2 will go from London northwards.

Actually, the overall picture for the UK is that only around one quarter of all containers arriving at our ports find their way inland by rail. Again, this is not a happy statistic, but it is the trend.

 

Re your first point, one of the problems with increasing railfreight in general is that a major artery, London to the Crewe area, is heavily congested.  Removing some passenger traffic from the WCML onto HS2 will allow more freight trains.  Even now, work is in hand to increase the daily number of trains serving Felixstowe port from 66 to 90.  When that work is completed, only 82 of those trains will be able to run because the WCML is logjammed.

Re your second point, 25% of containers is counting by tons lifted, not ton/miles as I referred to in an earlier post.  Those 25% of containers travel the length of the country, as opposed to the majority of the 75% by road which travel distances as short as one mile from the dock gates.

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/03/2018 at 16:27, zimzim said:

Rail freight struggles to be anything more than a fairly blunt instrument - great for moving bulk commodities over long distances, but not so good for the agile, just-in-time supply chains of modern manufacturing.

The International Railway Journal puts it thus:

THE steep decline in demand for coal continued to erode rail freight traffic in Britain during the 2016-17 financial year, according to statistics published by the Office of Rail and Road on June 8.

The total volume of freight moved fell to its lowest level since the late 1990s, dipping 3% to 17.2 billion net tonne-km. Of the seven commodity groups coal suffered the sharpest drop declining 39% compared with 2015-16 to 1.4 billion net tonne-km.

The total volume of freight lifted dipped 8% to 79.4%, its lowest level since 1984-85, when traffic was hit badly by a lengthy strike by coal miners.

Freight train movements fell 5% to 224,000, while freight train kilometres declined 3% to 34 million-km.

 

RIP Capacity argument? Actually no..... we do need to invest properly in our railways. I just don't think HS2 is a good project.

 

Covering the second part of your post.  The answer is simple.  The recent bulk losses are coal, mainly to power stations.  With one exception those power stations were not on the WCML.  Capacity as provided by HS2 is needed on a route where coal trains didn't run in the first place, but container trains are waiting for paths.

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • 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.