Go to first unread
Back
to top
Why doesn't the government build magnetic levitation trains instead of HS2? Watch
Was just doing some research and came across Maglev (Magnetic Levitation Trains) which are already built in Shanghai and a couple of other places.
Why is the government proposing to build high speed technology that is already out of date (HS2) before we have even built it?
Why doesn't the government build Maglev instead which would cut journey times between London and Manchester to just 56 minutes (approx), this seems like a much better solution.
See Shanghai here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train
What is the justification amongst government for not doing this? The train can travel across 20 miles in just 6-7 minutes (250-300mph)
By the time HS2 is built, it will be cripplingly out of date.
Why is the government proposing to build high speed technology that is already out of date (HS2) before we have even built it?
Why doesn't the government build Maglev instead which would cut journey times between London and Manchester to just 56 minutes (approx), this seems like a much better solution.
See Shanghai here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train
What is the justification amongst government for not doing this? The train can travel across 20 miles in just 6-7 minutes (250-300mph)
By the time HS2 is built, it will be cripplingly out of date.
0
reply
Report
#3
Considering Shanghai's maglev train loses 600-700 million yuan a year, in addition to its massively expensive build cost. That is probably why.
The standard TGV, has been clocked at 350mph+ and regularly travels at over 200mph, and the network can be run at a profit. Traditional high speed rail is economically viable.
The UK needs high speed rail but what it really need is a rail network that benefits other cities and regions not simply makes it easier to drag business towards London.
The standard TGV, has been clocked at 350mph+ and regularly travels at over 200mph, and the network can be run at a profit. Traditional high speed rail is economically viable.
The UK needs high speed rail but what it really need is a rail network that benefits other cities and regions not simply makes it easier to drag business towards London.
5
reply
Report
#6
Won't matter either way you really think ordinary people will be able to afford to use it?
0
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by will2348)
Was just doing some research and came across Maglev (Magnetic Levitation Trains) which are already built in Shanghai and a couple of other places.
Why is the government proposing to build high speed technology that is already out of date (HS2) before we have even built it?
Why doesn't the government build Maglev instead which would cut journey times between London and Manchester to just 56 minutes (approx), this seems like a much better solution.
See Shanghai here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train
What is the justification amongst government for not doing this? The train can travel across 20 miles in just 6-7 minutes (250-300mph)
By the time HS2 is built, it will be cripplingly out of date.
Was just doing some research and came across Maglev (Magnetic Levitation Trains) which are already built in Shanghai and a couple of other places.
Why is the government proposing to build high speed technology that is already out of date (HS2) before we have even built it?
Why doesn't the government build Maglev instead which would cut journey times between London and Manchester to just 56 minutes (approx), this seems like a much better solution.
See Shanghai here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train
What is the justification amongst government for not doing this? The train can travel across 20 miles in just 6-7 minutes (250-300mph)
By the time HS2 is built, it will be cripplingly out of date.
0
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by will2348)
Why is the government proposing to build high speed technology that is already out of date (HS2) before we have even built it?
Why doesn't the government build Maglev instead
Why is the government proposing to build high speed technology that is already out of date (HS2) before we have even built it?
Why doesn't the government build Maglev instead
0
reply
Report
#12
Magnetic levitation technology is indeed somewhat interesting.
However the most interesting HS2-related technology is the mysterybox possessed by the government that tells it how many hundreds of billions of Pounds it is worth to be able to get from London to Birmingham in 120, 90, and 60 minutes.
However the most interesting HS2-related technology is the mysterybox possessed by the government that tells it how many hundreds of billions of Pounds it is worth to be able to get from London to Birmingham in 120, 90, and 60 minutes.
0
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by Observatory)
However the most interesting HS2-related technology is the mysterybox possessed by the government that tells it how many hundreds of billions of Pounds it is worth to be able to get from London to Birmingham in 120, 90, and 60 minutes.
However the most interesting HS2-related technology is the mysterybox possessed by the government that tells it how many hundreds of billions of Pounds it is worth to be able to get from London to Birmingham in 120, 90, and 60 minutes.
There are two values to HS2.
One is the very real value of increasing capacity on the railway. It is perfectly true that another conventional rail line over exactly the same route as HS2 would have greater capacity and cost less but no-one could "sell" that proposal.
The other is the perception of connectivity which generates economic growth. There are a number of towns Skipton, Lincoln, Harrogate that have one direct train a day to London. The vast majority of travellers connect but the perception of having a direct train to London have a very large economic impact in selling those towns. As far as government is concerned HS2 is about joining Birmingham and Nottingham/Derby to the South East.Whilst the South East embraces places as far north as King's Lynn and Newark and as far west as Salisbury and Bath, in the heart of England, Banbury Milton Keynes and Luton is about as far north as you get. HS2 makes the South East about 1/3 bigger.
0
reply
Report
#14
Why doesn't the government do anything else instead of HS2?
0
reply
Report
#15
Hi, Maglev suffers from a long-unresolved problem of floor-level radiation, akin to microwaves, due to the frequency of the system electricals.
Even in China, the trips are short and less harmful.
There is also no economy in suspending a train above the track vs. steel-on-steel.
HS2 is bad for a number of other factors, such as necessity to stop & pick up paying passengers.
Don't be fooled by simple arithmetic. The trip time will also include acceleration, deceleration and dwell time at the stations.
Throw in a few station and we are back to HS1 travel times with HS2 costs, proportional to the highest speed attainable.
All in all, very fast systems are only good for A-B alignments, such as airport runs, not for daily commutes.
Regards, Martin
Even in China, the trips are short and less harmful.
There is also no economy in suspending a train above the track vs. steel-on-steel.
HS2 is bad for a number of other factors, such as necessity to stop & pick up paying passengers.
Don't be fooled by simple arithmetic. The trip time will also include acceleration, deceleration and dwell time at the stations.
Throw in a few station and we are back to HS1 travel times with HS2 costs, proportional to the highest speed attainable.
All in all, very fast systems are only good for A-B alignments, such as airport runs, not for daily commutes.
Regards, Martin
(Original post by will2348)
Was just doing some research and came across Maglev (Magnetic Levitation Trains) which are already built in Shanghai and a couple of other places.
Why is the government proposing to build high speed technology that is already out of date (HS2) before we have even built it?
Why doesn't the government build Maglev instead which would cut journey times between London and Manchester to just 56 minutes (approx), this seems like a much better solution.
See Shanghai here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train
What is the justification amongst government for not doing this? The train can travel across 20 miles in just 6-7 minutes (250-300mph)
By the time HS2 is built, it will be cripplingly out of date.
Was just doing some research and came across Maglev (Magnetic Levitation Trains) which are already built in Shanghai and a couple of other places.
Why is the government proposing to build high speed technology that is already out of date (HS2) before we have even built it?
Why doesn't the government build Maglev instead which would cut journey times between London and Manchester to just 56 minutes (approx), this seems like a much better solution.
See Shanghai here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train
What is the justification amongst government for not doing this? The train can travel across 20 miles in just 6-7 minutes (250-300mph)
By the time HS2 is built, it will be cripplingly out of date.
0
reply
Report
#16
Suspended monorails are much cheaper and very promising.
They are basically electric buses suspended from a steel guideway, without the disadvantage of surface road interference.
mm
They are basically electric buses suspended from a steel guideway, without the disadvantage of surface road interference.
mm
0
reply
Report
#17
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Now you are into the mysteries of marketing.
There are two values to HS2.
One is the very real value of increasing capacity on the railway. It is perfectly true that another conventional rail line over exactly the same route as HS2 would have greater capacity and cost less but no-one could "sell" that proposal.
The other is the perception of connectivity which generates economic growth. There are a number of towns Skipton, Lincoln, Harrogate that have one direct train a day to London. The vast majority of travellers connect but the perception of having a direct train to London have a very large economic impact in selling those towns. As far as government is concerned HS2 is about joining Birmingham and Nottingham/Derby to the South East.Whilst the South East embraces places as far north as King's Lynn and Newark and as far west as Salisbury and Bath, in the heart of England, Banbury Milton Keynes and Luton is about as far north as you get. HS2 makes the South East about 1/3 bigger.
Now you are into the mysteries of marketing.
There are two values to HS2.
One is the very real value of increasing capacity on the railway. It is perfectly true that another conventional rail line over exactly the same route as HS2 would have greater capacity and cost less but no-one could "sell" that proposal.
The other is the perception of connectivity which generates economic growth. There are a number of towns Skipton, Lincoln, Harrogate that have one direct train a day to London. The vast majority of travellers connect but the perception of having a direct train to London have a very large economic impact in selling those towns. As far as government is concerned HS2 is about joining Birmingham and Nottingham/Derby to the South East.Whilst the South East embraces places as far north as King's Lynn and Newark and as far west as Salisbury and Bath, in the heart of England, Banbury Milton Keynes and Luton is about as far north as you get. HS2 makes the South East about 1/3 bigger.
You've forgotten that it allows the UK to integrate with the European high speed network as well though.
0
reply
Report
#18
(Original post by autoidea)
Suspended monorails are much cheaper and very promising.
They are basically electric buses suspended from a steel guideway, without the disadvantage of surface road interference.
mm
Suspended monorails are much cheaper and very promising.
They are basically electric buses suspended from a steel guideway, without the disadvantage of surface road interference.
mm
0
reply
Report
#19
It only looks like that on the surface.
Suspended monorails are much easier to integrate with the existing infrastructure, as they can go into 2nd stories of city buildings and have only 1-car long stations.
Every solution has its niche, but this niche is quite huge.
Suspended monorails are much easier to integrate with the existing infrastructure, as they can go into 2nd stories of city buildings and have only 1-car long stations.
Every solution has its niche, but this niche is quite huge.
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
And are incompatible with any existing or future infastrastructure in the UK or Europe.
And are incompatible with any existing or future infastrastructure in the UK or Europe.
0
reply
Report
#20
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Excellent points.
You've forgotten that it allows the UK to integrate with the European high speed network as well though.
Excellent points.
You've forgotten that it allows the UK to integrate with the European high speed network as well though.
The first level crossing North of London on the old Great Central was in north Nottinghamshire as part of Edward Watkin's vision of a railway from Manchester to Paris.
It didn't happen in 1890 and it won't happen in 2030.
Money spent on European rail integration would be better spent on the freight loading gauge.
Rail loses its competitive advantage over aviation for passenger transport regardless of speed at about 500-600 miles.
I have no doubt we could spend the HS2 budget on better rail projects than HS2 but it is likely to be HS2 or nothing (or perhaps Boris Island or the tunnel from Larne to Stranraer)
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
Today on TSR
-
.jpg)
Not drinking at fresher'sHow to handle starting uni as a non-drinker
- Is my boyfriend right?
- Uni not living up to expectations
- Your climate change questions answered
- Rugby Union World Cup