Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lordo]

ehem ehem. at least have a stab at understanding. hs2 was concieved in 2009 by labour government. the feasability study was done in 2012.

so what steps were between the two then.
at least have some fakin idea what you are talking about.

you are showing yoursels for what you are. bunch of welsh sheep farmers

[Lordo]

perhaps i can explain to the sheep farmers what really went on with hs2

there was labour looking the the problem of north and south divide and how unfair it was and decided to look into it and considered doing something about the rail network. so from the the tory boys decided they wanted a brand new rail line being able to do 250 miles per hour.

it like deciding that we need to move away from using horse and cart and deciding to bring in a car and the tories deciding to go buy a lambourgini. i mean mavro laoman fahousan navgaladede.

and the sheep farmers love it

[supporttheunderdog]

This what HS2 is about. Not enabling fast journeys on HS2 but freeing up space on other lines to eg run extra freight trains, potentially taking lorries of the road, or facilitating better services to and from many places not on the HS2 route.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hs ... 6.html?amp

The speed increase on HS2 itself is a aside benefit from having a route not constrained by the relatively tight turns on much of the Victorian era lines, where only very limited opportunities exist to upgrade to bring the benefits of HS2.

[Lordo]

This what HS2 is about. Not enabling fast journeys on HS2 but freeing up space on other lines to eg run extra freight trains, potentially taking lorries of the road, or facilitating better services to and from many places not on the HS2 route.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hs ... 6.html?amp

The speed increase on HS2 itself is a aside benefit from having a route not constrained by the relatively tight turns on much of the Victorian era lines, where only very limited opportunities exist to upgrade to bring the benefits of HS2.

so why build a train line and put trains on it that can do 250 miles per hour. you clearly do not understand economics or construction.

if indeed the idea was to expand the rail network, why start totally a new line. why not expand the two lines to four lines, one on each side. that would be a hell of a lot cheaper. so what if they have to expand a vew bridges along the way.

as to freight trains if they intend to run trains every 10 minutes surely they can fit it all into the the current system without the need of any new lines. as to offer services to areas that don't have any rail, thats bullshit as the reason why there is no rail services there is becasue there is no demand for it and hence the rial srvice has been withdrawn even beofre privatisation.

in anycase, virgin currently runs journeys every 20 minutes at 95 miles an hour from london to the north. they could easily increase to 4 or even double to 6 journeys an hour. there is an issue though with virgin trains half the train is first class. while less than 75% of first class seats are left unoccupied, the ordinary class you cannot get seats. despite this they refuse to increase the ordinary class seats. the real issue is privatisation. return rail system to state control and you can run it anyway you like.

[supporttheunderdog]

Plainly you did not read the article.

This one explains it https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hs2-logistics-financial-benefit-controversy-a8937936.html

Two key points

But speed is not the main point of the new line. The objective is capacity, and not just capacity for fast intercity services, either, but for those local regional and commuter services between small towns that have been so neglected. The complicated bit is explaining why that is.

Britain’s railways were largely built in the Victorian era, for a different kind of travel. Today, the same lines carry a mix of express intercity trains – the kind which HS2 will take – and stopping local and commuter services, the kind people use to get to work, or pop to a neighbouring town.

Read more

The colossal HS2 bill could cost the north its much-needed railway
This mix is a very inefficient way to run a railway, for a reason that is quite obvious if you think about it: trains cannot overtake each other on the same set of tracks. They would bang into the back of one another if they tried. Not good. To get around this, local stopping trains need a large gap behind them in the timetable, so the express trains behind them do not catch up. That reduces the number of trains you can have per hour on a line, dramatically reducing its capacity for every type of service – local and express.

The engineering thinking behind HS2 is to take those express services off the older mainlines, leaving them for stopping local and commuter services. When trains are all travelling at roughly the same speed on a line, you can fit a lot more in, because the gaps needed between them are smaller.O

Consider one much-touted alternative: upgrading the West Coast Main Line with an extra pair of tracks for more capacity. There are several thousands houses built facing onto the line, and you’re going to need to knock them down to put a railway there. And it won’t be high-speed, it’ll be more expensive to do it, and it’ll be massively disruptive – not just for people losing their homes, but passengers who would face about a decade of closures and replacement buses. The more general problem with suggestions that existing lines should simply be “upgraded” (a rather vague proposal) is that there are simply diminishing returns to what you can do with 150-year old infrastructure. The West Coast Main Line already benefited from a major upgrade programme ending in 2005; it took a decade of disruption and cost over £10bn in today’s money, provided only a fraction of the benefits of HS2, and is already full. Plans to upgrade it further were abandoned because they weren’t seen as practical, and planning for a new line that became HS2 is a direct result of that process.

[cyprusgrump]

return rail system to state control and you can run it anyway you like.

Oh yes, bring British Rail back because things were sooooo much better then...

[supporttheunderdog]

So Lordo, you have a length of track say 50 miles long. You have express that only calls at the first and last station and averages 100 mph. Slow trains call at more stations and average 50 mph. For safety you have to allow five minutes headway between trains.
The express leaves on the hour.. it will take 30 minutes to make the trip.
The slow train leaves at 5 minutes past the hour. It takes an hour to do the trip.
The next train is an express. What is the earliest time an express can then depart without being held up by the slow train?

That will show you the real problem that arises when trains with markedly different speeds use the same track...
If all the trains ran at the same average speed, whether express or slow train, one could in theory run 12 trains an hour, but with mixed use one is down to a lot less...simply putting in one train markedly slower and one then has to allow the difference in time to do the journey plus headway after such a slow train before a fast train can depart. It is why Virgin is limited in how many trains it can run, as eg it has to share track with NW trains,....

Build a new line and then Segregate the fast and slow trains on dedicated lines and you are up to a theoretical 24 trains an hour.

As to adding extra lines, Expanding the existing tracks is simply not practical...it is far more than just widening a few bridges,,, it is widening cuttings and embankments, adding tunnels, it is wholesale demolition of thousands of trackside buildings, plus disruption on the existing lines. That is why expanding existing lines has by and large been dismissed.

I would venture to suggest it is in fact you who do not understand rail construction...

And btw if you look at the Virgin Website you can see the train and carriage layouts, and first class is nowhere near 50 percent of seats.

Answer..
The first express arrives at +30 minutes.
The slow train arrives at +65 minutes
The next express cannot arrive until +70 minutes (or later) so can leave at +40 minutes (at the earliest).
The next slow train can leave at +45, at the earliest, meaning intermediate stations see two trains in an hour stopping at best every 45 minutes, not twelve trains an hour.

[Lordo]

return rail system to state control and you can run it anyway you like.

Oh yes, bring British Rail back because things were sooooo much better then...

you actually think they privatised becasue it is better you stupid fool.

[cyprusgrump]

return rail system to state control and you can run it anyway you like.

Oh yes, bring British Rail back because things were sooooo much better then...

you actually think they privatised becasue it is better you stupid fool.

Well, anybody that actually used BR and has used the privatised services knows it is better...

Why do you think passenger numbers have increased so much...?

[Lordo]

So Lordo, you have a length of track say 50 miles long. You have express that only calls at the first and last station and averages 100 mph. Slow trains call at more stations and average 50 mph. For safety you have to allow five minutes headway between trains.
The express leaves on the hour.. it will take 30 minutes to make the trip.
The slow train leaves at 5 minutes past the hour. It takes an hour to do the trip.
The next train is an express. What is the earliest time an express can then depart without being held up by the slow train?

That will show you the real problem that arises when trains with markedly different speeds use the same track...
If all the trains ran at the same average speed, whether express or slow train, one could in theory run 12 trains an hour, but with mixed use one is down to a lot less...simply putting in one train markedly slower and one then has to allow the difference in time to do the journey plus headway after such a slow train before a fast train can depart. It is why Virgin is limited in how many trains it can run, as eg it has to share track with NW trains,....

Build a new line and then Segregate the fast and slow trains on dedicated lines and you are up to a theoretical 24 trains an hour.

As to adding extra lines, Expanding the existing tracks is simply not practical...it is far more than just widening a few bridges,,, it is widening cuttings and embankments, adding tunnels, it is wholesale demolition of thousands of trackside buildings, plus disruption on the existing lines. That is why expanding existing lines has by and large been dismissed.

I would venture to suggest it is in fact you who do not understand rail construction...

And btw if you look at the Virgin Website you can see the train and carriage layouts, and first class is nowhere near 50 percent of seats.

Answer..
The first express arrives at +30 minutes.
The slow train arrives at +65 minutes
The next express cannot arrive until +70 minutes (or later) so can leave at +40 minutes (at the earliest).
The next slow train can leave at +45, at the earliest, meaning intermediate stations see two trains in an hour stopping at best every 45 minutes, not twelve trains an hour.

you can read all the crap you like. when you see they are building a 250 miles an hour train line, you can clearly see that the intention is not to build it but defraud the tax payer. and they have done that very well. over 7 billion spent and not a single track laid. says it all.

there is plenty capacity on the line and there is a lot of ways to improve transport especially off the road for goods transport.

british rail was brilliant at designing the railways and has plenty of places they can hold a slow trains without affecting the express trains. there are express and slow trains on every single line.

with a bit of luck corbyn will bring them back free of charge as they will not renew their licences.