So it’s one to me then
For the HS2 niche, that is not for point to point and metropolitan passenger mass transport it seems to come down to this:
Monorail is more expensive to build and uses more material than conventional track. There's much less experience with it. It has major problems with junctions and switching. And you can't run the vehicles from all of your other conventional track on it and vice versa. Evacuating passengers is difficult.
There's so little experience with maglev that it's hard to compare; only three countries have working systems.
Some current maximum speeds, in km/h, experimental in italics:
L0 maglev: 603TGV: 575Shanghai Maglev: 431Fuxing: 350HS2 (planned): 350TGV and Eurostar: 320Mallard: 203.
PS: I was fortunate to be taught about commercial technology by my father. He emphasised that you had to make choices between conventional and novel approaches. Examples were TGV and the British tilting train, and the 747 and Concorde. The approach that delivered the TGV was conventional but highly developed trains on brand new track. Seemed to work. And of course you can use the same axis to study the Founder's engineering choices. There's a bit on this in Haskell.
Ok I give in another to point To Johnathon
Maglev: very expensive to build, very expensive to run, great theory (I remember Eric Laithwaite frequently being on Tommorow's World and similar technology programmes). Derek, just think about the effort required to carry a 56lb load along a corridor rather than rolling it on a trolley.
Overhead: Barring the "Dockers Umbrella" in Liverpool (which is no more and was just a railway on stilts) the Wuppertal Suspension Railway is an example to examine. The simple fact that it is so unusual tells you an awful lot about its practicality. Its safety record is pretty good (but don't drive a crane into it). Considering how many Twitter notices I get from London Northwestern Railway about lorries hitting bridges (more than one a week), I'm not sure it would last so long here.
For both: how do you construct points?
Democratic dissent is not disloyalty, it is a positive civic duty
(Click the image for video of it working, but unfortunately only for the second picture!)
The Construction Index on the leaked report, includes:
"The Oakervee review of the HS2 project recommends that the project go ahead in full, it is reported today, but warns that the major civil engineering contracts ought to be re-tendered.""The Times also reports today that Labour peer Lord Berkeley, the civil engineer who was deputy chairman of the Oakerview review panel, is preparing a dissenting report to civil servants for the attention of the prime minister."
It always was a badly timed and over-politicised review.
And the dissenting report now exists. And soon it will be published. And we won't have moved on at all.
I think the fundamental issue with HS2 is no-one is really clear what it's for. Is it to move workforce into London so the commuter belt can be wider? From some cities but not others? Is HS2 then just reaffirming that London is where the work is, and there is no true committed efforts to pushing that work out into the rest of the UK? Is it to avoid investment on the current lines?
It's a shame that we already had a high speed line, built in 1899, with track inclines and curves to support high speed, stations built so we could move to broad gauge with no change to bridges, tunnels or platforms, and linking the North, Midlands and straight into London. It was the Great Central Line, cut by Beeching in 1969 when in fact it was the newest line we had.
Now we are looking to build HS2 with a 'fuzzy' set of requirements, serving some areas, and passing through others providing no service at all, just disruption and property blights and no benefit for that community.
Problems near me:
HS2 passes by Heathrow but will need a link service.
HS2 passes directly under East Midlands Airport, but there is no station.
East Midlands is served by a Parkway type station, roughly in the centre of Derby, Leicester and Nottingham. And nowhere near any of them, you have to drive to this station. Many people will have to drive North to this Parkway before a HS2 Train journey south again. Poor service to these major towns.
I feel we do need HS2, but I feel it needs to be redesigned along these lines:
HS route to be aligned to link Heathrow, Luton, Birmingham Airports as well as the major locations already seen. This would allow flight capacity to assist each airport, and remove the need for the 3rd Heathrow runway..Linking transport methods directly like this so buses and cars aren't needed to link them.
Use the money saved on 3rd runway to make major investment in existing lines, so they can operate at High Speed also.
Right - where do I collect my consultants fee...?
I feel we do need HS2, but I feel it needs to be redesigned...
Basically none of this works without an integrated transport policy, regional policy and energy policy.
PS: I don't care whether it's built north first or south first.
I think the fundamental issue with HS2 is no-one is really clear what it's for.
It is a case of mis-selling. The original proposal featured high speed (sexy, cutting edge stuff). When getting between Birmingham and London ten minutes more quickly was ridiculed, it suddenly morphed into a case for increased capacity. Such changes of business case lead, understandably to widespread distrust.
It was the Great Central Line, Whose course is used in parts by HS2.
I wholly agree about the absurdity of passing near to airports without an in-airport station (which I think is projected for Manchester). A link negates the high-speed aspect of the project and its associated high cost.
HS2's London terminus is illogically at Euston, having passed Old Oak Common which is on the Great Western Main Line into Paddington.
And agreed about the equal absurdity of failing to link with HS1 directly.