Ultra fast train system for the UK

[Horza2002]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8561286.stm

 

Wha are peoples views on spending such a vast amount of money on a new train system.

 

From my personal stand point, I kinda think its a waste of money. I can see that it might make long distance travelling a lot faster but is it not just going to increase train tickets higher than they already are!

 

The only really problem I have with trains is the massive overcrowding on them which could easily be solved by adding a few extra carriages to trains! I mean really, three carriages leaving London at 5pm on a Friday just asks for trouble!!

[insane_alien]

mmm, i agree that they would be better off spending the money lengthening some platforms and increasing the amount of rolling stock.

 

as it stands, trains are kinda terrible just now, particularly for the price of a ticket. even with the UK's extortionate petrol prices(what i wouldn't give to only have to pay what the US pays AND complains about) it can be cheaper to drive. and not just on short journeys either.

 

if i were to drive from glasgow to london it would be cheaper than by train and it wouldn't take much longer either.

 

and then there's the overcrowding. the last thing you need at 8am is to be sardined in a scottish train with a bunch of people that may have heard of soap, but are skeptical of its existance.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well the thing about high speed rail, is that it is a substitute for airplane flights, and faster than normal ground travel.

[Horza2002]

Thats a good point made there the price of petrol and that its cheaper just to drive and basically the same time. What if the rail network was replaced with motorways...road is more efficient that rail.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

road is more efficient that rail.

 

I doubt that. What kind of efficiency do you mean? Fuel efficiency, time efficiency, or something else?

 

Generally it's better to load one large vehicle than many small vehicles.

[Horza2002]

Well a road is in continuous use (pretty much) where as rail is only used by one train at a time and which maybe be 30minutes apart.

 

I also doubt that train is more fuel efficient than cars. There might be more people on a single train, but a train is a lot larger and heavier than a car. Even the electric ones, you still need to generate the electricity.

 

Time efficiency, road is probably better or at least equal...and in my personal experience, coaches are more comfortable than trains.

 

I can see how trains in the US which can be over a mile long are efficient yes...but in the UK, trains a mile long really aren't going to be practical...especially since alot of stations are only 5miles apart from each other anyway!

[vordhosbn]

http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/rail_vs_autoEE.html

 

Quite a surprise to me, it seems trains are only slightly more efficient than automobiles.

[Sisyphus]

I also doubt that train is more fuel efficient than cars. There might be more people on a single train, but a train is a lot larger and heavier than a car. Even the electric ones, you still need to generate the electricity.

 

They are, though, for many reasons. Trains don't have to brake and re-accelerate nearly as much, they get more direct routes, their shape cuts down enormously on wind resistance, and the steel wheels on steel track have far less rolling resistance than tires on pavement. And the electric trains, at least, don't have to take their power source with them.

 

The only exception would be on nearly empty trains, since a few cars still take less energy than one train in most instances.

 

One commonly cited statistic is that in 2007, trains in the U.S. moved freight 436 ton-miles per gallon of fuel consumed. (Each ton of freight moved 436 miles on average for every gallon.) To convert that to European measures, the equivalent would be about 0.6 liters per 100km for every metric ton of cargo. And that's the average, with our relatively outdated trains. Now granted, it is almost always going to be much more efficient to move cargo than people, but that does give you some idea of the efficiencies involved.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Sisyphus

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Similar reasoning applies to why it is better to use one 4mpg truck to carry a load than several 15mpg pickup trucks. The pickups may be more efficient, but not per pound of payload.

[Phi for All]

Let's not forget personal efficiency and safety. People riding in a train can do other things instead of driving, such as reading, working, relaxing. And it's much safer to have a train on a fixed rail instead of many vehicles driving independently. It's also safer to talk on the phone from a train.

[Mr Skeptic]

I wonder though, if it really is more efficient. Sure, the train itself is more energy efficient. But what of all the energy and labor that goes into making the tracks and the trains? Why does the train cost more?

[Sisyphus]

I wonder though, if it really is more efficient. Sure, the train itself is more energy efficient. But what of all the energy and labor that goes into making the tracks and the trains? Why does the train cost more?

 

Which costs more: building and maintaining a train track, or building and maintaining a highway? I don't know. Do trains cost more in energy and labor than cars, for how much use they get?

 

Also, with the exception of dense cities, usually trains require an additional form of transportation at the origin and destination. (However, that's usually just a car or truck of some kind, which is what it's being compared against anyway.)

[Mr Skeptic]

Which costs more: building and maintaining a train track, or building and maintaining a highway? I don't know.

 

It doesn't matter; as things are now the highway is necessary anyways.

[npts2020]

I think the money would be better spent automating the highways but then what do I know?

[Phi for All]

I think the money would be better spent automating the highways but then what do I know?

I know there have been a lot of ideas for controlling cars on a highway, but I think that's taking an inefficient system of transportation and making one part of it slightly more efficient. For more populous areas, I'd prefer to see a mix of short-trip personal vehicles (like the Smart Car or the Tango) and mass-transit rail for longer trips. We love the autonomy and convenience of our cars, but they and the road system are becoming increasingly more expensive and congested.

[Horza2002]

I'm also not sure which one costs for to build....steel is not exactly cheap...but more tarmac is required for the same length of motorway. For short distances though, I can see that cars would be more efficient....but once you start getting over longer distances then maybe

[npts2020]

Well, it really would not cost much if any more than high speed rail (the most expensive form of transit to build) to automate the highways and power the vehicles with wind and solar energy. I would like to give a reference for this but it is a compilation of literally hundreds of things from my research of the topic over the past 2 years (it is easy enough to find that high speed rails are the most expensive to build though). It would be nice to see an efficient train system in America but I think that we are fast approaching the point where we cannot afford both a high quality highway and rail system. It seems to me that getting Americans to give up the convenience and privacy of a personal vehicle for a train is a losing proposition, so I have been proposing that we combine the two and automate them. I believe that I have solved most of the problems associated with automation that people bring up, other than the obvious political one of bringing about a major change.

[SH3RL0CK]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that trains, while efficient, rarely go exactly where people need to go. In my particular case, I can drive to work in about an hour. Or I can take mass transit (there are several possible combinations of trains and buses, all of which wind up with the same time) in about 2 1/2 to 3 hours. First, I can't afford the extra time required for mass transit. But my point really is that any energy savings mass transit has over automobiles could be lost due to the extra distance involved.

[Sisyphus]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that trains, while efficient, rarely go exactly where people need to go. In my particular case, I can drive to work in about an hour. Or I can take mass transit (there are several possible combinations of trains and buses, all of which wind up with the same time) in about 2 1/2 to 3 hours. First, I can't afford the extra time required for mass transit. But my point really is that any energy savings mass transit has over automobiles could be lost due to the extra distance involved.

 

Yeah, it works best within, between, and to and from high density cities. Definitely not every situation.

 

Still, a high speed rail between, for example, city centers of the eastern seaboard would be preferable to either driving or flying. Much faster than driving, and city dwellers often don't have cars anyway. (I don't.) And much more convenient than flying, between security nonsense and the fact that airports have to be on the outskirts but train stations can be right under the city center.

 

And of course, the reason I don't have a car is that mass transit in such a dense city actually is much more convenient most of the time. Both because of the extent of the transit system, and because owning a car is much less convenient than it is most places.

[Severian]

if i were to drive from glasgow to london it would be cheaper than by train and it wouldn't take much longer either.

 

I do Glasgow to London quite a lot for meetings, but I never take the train. The plane is cheaper and faster.

 

In fact my wife has gone to work in London today, right in the city centre (near tower bridge). She caught the first plane down this morning, is in the office by 9am and I will pick her up at Glasgow Airport this evening.

[Horza2002]

I lived with a friend in Oxford and she was from Glasgow. She said that flying was 1/3 cheaper than getting the trains and was 4 hours quicker....I just fail to see how making an ultra modern rail system is going to make a journey like that cheaper or quicker!

[bascule]

I had a similar experience in Switzerland. Riding the SBB takes longer and is more expensive than flying. Same goes with the TGV had I taken that to Paris.

 

Trains have the advantage of running more regularly and being available on shorter notice (i.e. you can generally show up to the train station and buy a ticket on the spot).

 

There's also considerable overhead in flying. While the actual time you spend traveling is less, there's still all the overhead of check-in, security, boarding, retrieving your baggage, etc.