This discussion is closed.
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#21
Report 2 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by barnetlad)
I am not convinced about Maglev as the solution, given the need for several stops en route. I think HS2 should go-ahead, albeit that I would prioritise the second stage from Birmingham to Leeds ahead of that to Manchester.
I suggest actually reading the notes because they would give you some information on that front, even if the stations are only 12 miles apart speeds nearing 400mph would still be possible
0
ABCBAA
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 weeks ago
#22
Who is to say that should we scrap HS2 and adopt this Maglev solution, the whole project will go smoothly? Any big infrastructure project will have delays. Already £7.5 billion has been spent so far. I believe that the best way to bring effects sooner rather than later would be to press ahead with HS2.
0
quirky editor
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#23
Report 2 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by ABCBAA)
Who is to say that should we scrap HS2 and adopt this Maglev solution, the whole project will go smoothly? Any big infrastructure project will have delays. Already £7.5 billion has been spent so far. I believe that the best way to bring effects sooner rather than later would be to press ahead with HS2.
Hear Hear. Jammy will probably say that's the sunken cost fallacy.
0
ABCBAA
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#24
Report 2 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by quirky editor)
Hear Hear. Jammy will probably say that's the sunken cost fallacy.
Probably
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#25
Report 2 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by quirky editor)
Hear Hear. Jammy will probably say that's the sunken cost fallacy.
It by definition is... we have spent money on this therefore we must complete even if there are more cost effective alternatives is exactly what the sunk cost fallacy is

If you've spent £10bn building a power station and completion costs another £10bn, alternatively you can scrap the current project and build another station with the same outcomes for £5bn what do you do? You don't say "we've already spent £10bn, we must continue", you go for the £5bn despite the sunk cost of the existing project.
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 2 weeks ago
0
ABCBAA
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#26
Report 2 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
It by definition is... we have spent money on this therefore we must complete even if there are more cost effective alternatives is exactly what the sunk cost fallacy is

If you've spent £10bn building a power station and completion costs another £10bn, alternatively you can scrap the current project and build another station with the same outcomes for £5bn what do you do? You don't say "we've already spent £10bn, we must continue", you go for the £5bn despite the sunk cost of the existing project.
And how do you know that Maglev trains will be cheaper overall?
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#27
Report 2 weeks ago
#27
An obvious aye. HS2 is bad value for money and doesn't achieve what it set out to do. The opportunity cost is greater than the project cost.
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#28
Report 2 weeks ago
#28
As one of the most steadfastly pro-Maglev people in the Commons, I must state that I intend to abstain on this. I'm from God's own county myself, Yorkshire, and the dawn of HS2 has led to expansion of business and trade into Yorkshire and the wider north. It's not just a pork-barrelling project, it's an opportunity to empower future industrial prosperity of the North in general, and I think pulling it after making promises to people in Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, York, Hull about jobs on offer and new opportunities on show for all, it'd be a gross mistake and it'd go against everything we are supposed to stand for as elected representatives. Maglev itself was something to consider five years ago, before promises were made, and it's too little, too late. The HS2 train is well on the way to powering home and blocking it now would be a greater waste of money than letting it see full completion and bear full fruits
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#29
Report 2 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by SankaraInBloom)
As one of the most steadfastly pro-Maglev people in the Commons, I must state that I intend to abstain on this. I'm from God's own county myself, Yorkshire, and the dawn of HS2 has led to expansion of business and trade into Yorkshire and the wider north. It's not just a pork-barrelling project, it's an opportunity to empower future industrial prosperity of the North in general, and I think pulling it after making promises to people in Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, York, Hull about jobs on offer and new opportunities on show for all, it'd be a gross mistake and it'd go against everything we are supposed to stand for as elected representatives. Maglev itself was something to consider five years ago, before promises were made, and it's too little, too late. The HS2 train is well on the way to powering home and blocking it now would be a greater waste of money than letting it see full completion and bear full fruits
What is it about HS2 that you believe is leading to these expanded businesses and trade?

To an observer it looks unrelated to HS2
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#30
Report 2 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
What is it about HS2 that you believe is leading to these expanded businesses and trade?

To an observer it looks unrelated to HS2
Well, plainly speaking, at the moment, direct rail links to Yorkshire from London are sluggish, slow and frankly diabolical. HS2 changes the playing field in that regard, and stops northern towns and cities from being totally isolated from what is at the moment Britain's economic hub. And the more people there realise that the North does exist, the more they will come up and see that good things are going on and that moving operations here would be a worthwhile investment. A hyper-connected United Kingdom is absolutely in reach here, and the economic cost of HS2 already means it'd be dumb to turn our backs that so much time and targeted investment has gone into already, in both a project-specfic, and a region-specific context.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#31
Report 2 weeks ago
#31
sbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsb.jpg

If we do peruse Maglev in future i do hope that over the coming decades we can create a proper network connecting the capitals of the union and the core cities even if we limit the work to £100bn per decade.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#32
Report 2 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by SankaraInBloom)
Well, plainly speaking, at the moment, direct rail links to Yorkshire from London are sluggish, slow and frankly diabolical. HS2 changes the playing field in that regard, and stops northern towns and cities from being totally isolated from what is at the moment Britain's economic hub. And the more people there realise that the North does exist, the more they will come up and see that good things are going on and that moving operations here would be a worthwhile investment. A hyper-connected United Kingdom is absolutely in reach here, and the economic cost of HS2 already means it'd be dumb to turn our backs that so much time and targeted investment has gone into already, in both a project-specfic, and a region-specific context.
You claimed HS2 has led to expansion in the economy before it is even built? Where is the evidence that any expansion is a result of a possible future railway and not completely unrelated to HS2?

HS2 will be slow because it is stopping at intermediate stop to try providing extra capacity. HS2 can do one: capacity or speed. It cannot do both as the distance needed to reach top speed is not great enough between the intermediate cities. The time benefit does not exist with HS2, it would only exist with Maglev.

Claiming you need to continue because there has already been money spent is the sunk cost paradox. That money is never coming back to you regardless of what you do. There is no justification to keep wasting more money when an alternative project would be have better returns and be more future proof.
0
ABCBAA
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#33
Report 2 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
You claimed HS2 has led to expansion in the economy before it is even built? Where is the evidence that any expansion is a result of a possible future railway and not completely unrelated to HS2?

HS2 will be slow because it is stopping at intermediate stop to try providing extra capacity. HS2 can do one: capacity or speed. It cannot do both as the distance needed to reach top speed is not great enough between the intermediate cities. The time benefit does not exist with HS2, it would only exist with Maglev.

Claiming you need to continue because there has already been money spent is the sunk cost paradox. That money is never coming back to you regardless of what you do. There is no justification to keep wasting more money when an alternative project would be have better returns and be more future proof.
Again, like I said to someone else, how do you know that Maglev technology will be, (1) more cost effective to build, and (2) have better returns?

How do you know that Maglev will have better returns before it is even built?
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#34
Report 2 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by ABCBAA)
Again, like I said to someone else, how do you know that Maglev technology will be, (1) more cost effective to build, and (2) have better returns?

How do you know that Maglev will have better returns before it is even built?
Maglev allows for much greater acceleration. Trains can reach a high speed quicker than HS2 delivering an increase in speed and capacity. Delivering both will always result in higher returns than HS2 which can only do one
0
Mainline421
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#35
Report 2 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by Andrew97)
[field defaultattr=]We can see from the National Rail Passenger Survey from last Autumn(1) that the speed of trains is not a concern to the users, in fact it is the element of train facilities with the highest satisfaction nationwide, for regional travel, and for long distance travel and the only element of rail travel with higher satisfaction is the provision of train/platform information at the stations. Far more important to rail users than increasing speeds is simple things like better wifi. Given the unimportance to the end user of increased speed, and the lower costs associated with lower speeds (and greater energy efficiency) the first of two proposed alternatives would be a conventional speed line to prioritise the increased capacity requirement.

The second of these proposals would maintain the higher build cost and high speed capacity, but in such a way as to make the line simultaneously capable of truly high speed travel at the same time as increased capacity by dispensing with the 18th century technology of metal rails and join the Chinese and Japanese in utilising maglev technology. Based on Chūō Shinkansen line under construction in Japan costs would be comparable to HS2 as it currently exists, possibly lower owing to better terrain as the Japanese line passes through the mountains rather than around them as well as offering a truly high speed experience. Phase 1 is expected to be opened in 2027 allowing travel from Tokyo to Nagoya, a distance of 177.5 miles, in as little as 40 minutes, an average speed of 266.25mph, which currently takes nearly 2 hours.

The technology is also far more capable at accelerating and decelerating with the current maglev speed record being 375 mph, completed on a 12 mile track, for reference it took a TGV going down hill 93 miles to reach 358 mph and stop again, 45 miles to get up to speed and another 48 to stop again. Such trains are also far less susceptible to adverse weather conditions owing to the fact the vehicle is not reliant on friction to accelerate and decelerate, unlike conventional trains.

While it is true that maglev trains are not compatible with conventional rail networks this could be the first line of a new network that allows efficient high speed travel around the country without relying on aircraft to do so. Such a project would likely have greater long term economic benefits to the UK as not only would we have the benefit of the line itself, but the benefit of once again being a world leader in rail transport so British business can build the railways of tomorrow around the world.[/field]
Speed increases capacity, that really seems to be missed here. Of course if you survey people already traveling it won't be one of their major concerns because they will have looked at the timetable before getting on a train, and will have never known their destination to be any closer. I suspect if you surveyed 18th Century stagecoach passengers speed wouldn't have been one of their major concerns either. I do not know what building a new railway to only 125mph spec would cost but I suspect the saving would tiny and cost:benefit ratio would be significantly impacted from the reduced number of services per hour.

As for maglev yes it would work better for journeys wholly contained within HS2 but under current plans half the services using HS2 will use conventional track as well so it wouldn't really be practical on a route like this unfortunately. Even China has to this day only built one high-speed maglev line and only from Shanghai to Pudong Airport but yet we see high-speed lines built in China every year.
1
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#36
Report 2 weeks ago
#36
(Original post by Rakas21)
sbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsb.jpg

If we do peruse Maglev in future i do hope that over the coming decades we can create a proper network connecting the capitals of the union and the core cities even if we limit the work to £100bn per decade.
Er... Why send the maglev to Aberystwyth of all places?
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#37
Report 2 weeks ago
#37
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Er... Why send the maglev to Aberystwyth of all places?
Yeah come on, NE Wales is an absolute powerhouse why go to Aberystwyth?
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#38
Report 2 weeks ago
#38
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Er... Why send the maglev to Aberystwyth of all places?
Ignore that, old chart. Just the black lines are important.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 week ago
#39
(Original post by Rakas21)
Ignore that, old chart. Just the black lines are important.
Ah. That seems sensible.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 week ago
#40
(Original post by SankaraInBloom)
Well, plainly speaking, at the moment, direct rail links to Yorkshire from London are sluggish, slow and frankly diabolical. HS2 changes the playing field in that regard, and stops northern towns and cities from being totally isolated from what is at the moment Britain's economic hub. And the more people there realise that the North does exist, the more they will come up and see that good things are going on and that moving operations here would be a worthwhile investment. A hyper-connected United Kingdom is absolutely in reach here, and the economic cost of HS2 already means it'd be dumb to turn our backs that so much time and targeted investment has gone into already, in both a project-specfic, and a region-specific context.
How does it remove this supposed isolation though, not least given this isolation simply does not exist because we live in a data world, HS2 does not make digital communication any faster.

*cough* sunk cost fallacy
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (478)
66.48%
No (241)
33.52%

Watched Threads

View All