Don't think the UK taxpayers are paying anything upfront for HPC, it's all being funded by EDF, which is part of the French gov?

In exchange the UK public have agreed to buy the electricity at £89.50 per MWh once it's built. That's looking like an absolute bargain just now (market prices have been £200-£500 this year). Possibly that's why EDF are not offering us the same deal for Sizewell C!

But who knows whether that will still be such a good deal in years to come. It will have to compete against CCS and hydrogen and batteries for the "not sunny or windy times" power price, we dont know yet how much they are going to cost, so presently all horses are being backed.

And UK taxpayers 100s of years from now will get the bill for decommissioning it (and for the effects of climate change). Neither of which are counted as public borrowing by our generation of taxpayers.

Posted By: fostertom

Posted By: WillInAberdeenDon't think the UK taxpayers are paying anything upfront for HPC

True.

Unfortunately the excellent idea of dumping HS2, at this late, or any, stage won't bring in the excellent alternative, HSUKhttp://highspeeduk.co.uk," rel="nofollow" >http://highspeeduk.co.uk,which would have spent the same money in a vast progamme of large and small cures of the network-pinch-points throughout the whole existing system, to improve capacity, speed, reliability, usefulness and pleasantness, consistently everywhere, for freight and passenger traffic alike.

Interesting article - thanks for the link. (N.B. the comma at the end of the link needs to be removed as currently it forms part of the URL and hence will not work). I'll send it to the new minister for transport Mark Harper.

I wrote to the Dept of Transport a few years back about my objections to HS2 and got a 2 page reply basically extolling the virtues of the scheme and that their position was non-negotiable i.e. a done deal. I presume the money spent thus far on HS2 would not be entirely wasted i.e. could the London to Birmingham section be incorporated into the HSUK scheme?

Can't say I'm impressed by their [lack of a] plan for East Anglia. No improvements to Stansted-London. No improvements to direct Norwich-London route. No improvements for Ipswich and especially a proper freight link to Felixstowe

Nothing for the SW too - not even the N Dartmoor (old Southern mainline) to Plymouth, which ever so nearly made it onto the to-do list after the Western mainline collapsed at Dawlish

Isn't it the point that straightening the critical kinks (and other kinds of pinch-points) in a 500mi existing route, though major, would be a fraction of the cost (per mile of total route) than blasting a brand new route thro virgin countryside and outskirts of towns?

And the national benefit could be huge and disproportionate, especially when 'other pinch-points' can include long (dynamic) passing loops, and short loop/platforms at reinstated small-town stations, so expresses could routinely overtake slow trains without either one having to stop and wait, meaning that mainlines can once more be double-used to serve communites along the way by stopping trains, and triple-used for re-expansion of heavy freight, rather than having to be kept empty for the inter-cities. With modern signaling, mainlines have far more capacity, for these reinstated uses, than they can presently deploy. That would be a really 'integrated' plan - tripled revenue, communities served, heavy traffic off the roads ...

Posted By: WillInAberdeenI don't believe it will save money to halt work and start again though!

Yes unfortunately the opportunity for a bit of thought has passed.

As usual, Will digs excellently into the material deeper than I do, when I'm supposed to be getting some proper work done, but they do say
"The development of detailed comparative cost estimates which show equivalent elements of HSUK to be over £20 billion cheaper to construct than HS2." Whatever that means.

Actually I've also dug in a little more and am disappointed to find Will is right - a completely new 500mi HS line and a parallel freight system contradicts all that I'd understood about the 'remove the bottlenecks' philosophy of HSUK. Sustained 200mph is a dispensable 'benefit' if it means newbuild - existing lines greatly-optimised for 125mph has to be right for intricately crowded UK, even if it means rebuilding bridges for electrification, freight clearance and passing loops (occasional stretches of quadruple track).

Rail won't be the sole answer for ever - driverless road and electrified air are set for expanded capacity at vanishing GHG/pollution cost - all three systems should be optimised within what they are rather than newbuild-expanded.

Posted By: CWattersIf looking for sacred cows... How about joining the Common Market to boost growth?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-rejoin-poll-b2212730.html

"Rejoining EU takes record 14-point lead in latest poll"

Ah, but how many of those are in Scotland? What order should we hold the referendums - brexit reversal first, or Scottish exit first, or maybe Northern Ireland exit first?

Posted By: lineweighthigh speed ... means you can shove a greater number of trains along the pipeline per hour, than you can on a slower line

Really? Only if the critical factor is distance between trains - but at higher speed reaction time covers more distance pro rata, and stopping distance increases (kinetic energy to be dissipated) as the square of the speed. Safe frequency of trains is governed by the signalling system - how quickly and reliably it can detect and locate train problems, react appropriately and automatically and reliably stop the following train(s).

With new signalling, train frequency ("number of trains along the pipeline per hour") can increase considerably on present practice. If that gets solved for driverless cars (cars joining in to hi-speed, close-tandem 'trains', branching off), trains should be a doddle. In fact, whether on steel tracks or tarmac, driverles cars and 'trains' may merge and become indistinuishable.

Until then, various other bottlenecks e.g. availability of places where expresses can be scheduled to overtake local and freight trains are what limits capacity. Fast, local and freight don't have to be separated onto dedicated lines, nor do local and freight services have to be limited for lack of same - overtaking can be eased greatly.

Posted By: lineweightThe HS2 trains apparently can operate as paired units with a total length of 400m and carry 1100 passengers.

And apparently Swiss trains can be a kilometre long, with seven drivers, and I think it was 150 passengers?

Posted By: fostertomWot r u even talkin about Dave?

or

Sounds interesting - say more?

https://youtu.be/qjvz52iJafA

OK, but not being fluent in Schweizerdeutsch, what's this about - a Guiness Book of Records attempt?

I do remember, as a student on architectural study trip, incredible train trip, maybe this line, over the Alps to Tuscany. Descending down valleys at stately 40mph, an Alfa racing the train on dusty lanes, through villages, over level crossings ... yes, Italy!

Posted By: fostertomRail won't be the sole answer for ever - driverless road and electrified air are set for expanded capacity at vanishing GHG/pollution cost

...This.

I think it is underestimated the difference that efficient, electric, driverless cars, buses and lorries (driving in automated convoy) will make. The massive benefits being it is 'door to door' and will be as simple to arrange as clicking a button on your phone. This will be the next main revolution in transport...as soon as the technology passes the tipping point for reliability, safety, etc - at least 5 years yet imho.

EVTOL aircraft will start as a niche product for businessy types to hot-foot it from the airport to the city office...but...as costs come down it will trickle down to the masses. Just like the sci-fi movies, there is nothing to stop there being multiple highways in the sky and being VTOL, they can take off and land pretty much anywhere.
They are now only a year or two from being accepted by regulators.

These things may seem pie in the sky, but within HS2 timescales they may well become mainstream.

No-one knows when driverless cars are going to become feasible for widespread use. I'd put my money on decades.

Electric vehicles solve almost none of the fundamental problems with car dependency. They don't address congestion. They don't address the negative effects that the infrastructure needed for widespread individual vehicle use has on the daily environment we live in. They don't solve issues to do with equity of access to transport. They don't even solve problems with local air pollution - just make it less bad.

Smart motorways just facilitate more car journeys that have negative impacts during their non-motorway portions.

Lots of people love the idea of driverless electric vehicles because they appear to solve all our problems without anyone having to make any change in their habits.

We should be focused on reducing dependancy on individualised, private transport, and investing in public transport that is available to everyone.

HS2 is, in the end public transport. It *is* an optimisation of the network that already exists. The existing network will benefit from it. The network as a whole needs extra capacity. Not just for passenger but for freight, and not just in dribs and drabs. We should be getting hugely more freight onto rail, and one of the things this is constrained by at the moment is capacity. HS2 largely relieves pressure on the trunk portion of the west coast mainline, which has already had capacity and speed upgrades, within the past twenty years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Main_Line_route_modernisation

That proved to be costly, disruptive and slow. The west coast mainline remains at capacity - I believe it's the most intensively used stretch of mixed passenger/freight line in Europe.

Everyone can argue about whether HS2, as is being built, was the best route, and about various details, but the fact is that it is a major, long term investment in the future of the UK's rail network and consequently public transport system - something that rarely happens in the UK (outside of London at least). Other countries have been supplementing their rail network with newbuild high speed lines for decades - we are way behind.

There's no benefit in cancelling it now in any case. But I find it a bit depressing to see major investment in public infrastructure written off as a "vanity project".

Posted By: lineweightNo-one knows when driverless cars are going to become feasible for widespread use. I'd put my money on decades.

My 'best guess' is feasible within 10 years, but another 5-10years for widespread take up.

Posted By: lineweightElectric vehicles solve almost none of the fundamental problems with car dependency. They don't address congestion. They don't address the negative effects that the infrastructure needed for widespread individual vehicle use has on the daily environment we live in. They don't solve issues to do with equity of access to transport. They don't even solve problems with local air pollution - just make it less bad.

Driverless cars, in time, will mean much lower car ownership, freeing up roads from parking - which can either mean more lanes or hopefully more green / pedestrian space.
No numbers to back it up but EVs must make local air pollution massively less bad - no local emissions and (going by my EV use over last 3-4 years) about half the brake dust pollution.

Posted By: lineweightLots of people love the idea of driverless electric vehicles because they appear to solve all our problems without anyone having to make any change in their habits.

I'm a realist. Also, I see transport and the face to face communication that it brings a good thing - provided we can limit the negative effects.

Posted By: lineweightWe should be focused on reducing dependancy on individualised, private transport, and investing in public transport that is available to everyone.

There's a place for both. Driverless cars can effectively become a form of public transport. Rather than a car each, it will average 1 car between 10 (or whatever we need to cope with rush hour). I think there will be plenty car-sharing opportunities/apps too for folks going the same way.
Unfortunately lots of taxi drivers will be out of work, but sometimes these changes need to happen.