Article 50 Discussion

[tobyjugg2]

tut tut

 

Taking the telegraph at face value ...

 

 

 

In summary.

The EU's aim in that is to standardise the regulatory requirements and standards so train operators from all members can smoothly and safely run across borders without requiring specific member states licences/safety tests etc (or more accurately that they are aligned)

Rather like food standards etc.

 

Although it is also intended to increase level playing field competition.

 

 

How hs2 is applied in the UK is purely UK - apart from the standards required which are broadly already agreed world wide with some exceptions.

Edited January 22, 2020 by tobyjugg2

[brassnecked]

Yes we know about that , it's the way the Torygraph punts things, in reality commonality on loading gauges and rolling stock makes sense, but the UK loading gauge and profile is smaller than on the Continent  is it not?

[honeybee13]

I know very little about railways. Is that why Eurostar has a separate track?

[brassnecked]

Yes Eurostar would foul the platforms and be too big on standard infrastructure, which is why HS2 would be needed to connect the tunnel with other parts North.

[tobyjugg2]

good point

[brassnecked]

Which is why they say they can't update existing infrastructure, the tunnels are not big enough to accommodate Eurostar, or Continental stock. also platforms etc

[honeybee13]

This was well thought through, then...

[brassnecked]

Sort of HS2 would not really be able to run on other standard lines, so still not integrated in reality, so maybe updating existing is best option.

[tobyjugg2]

Didn't realise how far off the mark I might be

 

Just getting upto speed

Guide ,me

 

I thought the track gauge were the same and just higher specs required of the tracks/ground base for the higher stresses of higher speed.

Understand that wider etc trains wouldn't fit at old stations - but thats quite a minor issue compared to space between separate lines.

 

"In Britain, Eurostar trains had to run at a maximum of 160 km/h (100 mph) on existing tracks between London Waterloo and the Channel Tunnel.^[18] These tracks were shared with local traffic, limiting the number of services that could be run 2

 

 

Is that not correct

(interesting background stuff I'm filling in - like the sale of the UK part of Eurostar, the )

 

[brassnecked]

its the size of tunnel bores as well, they would need widening to allow clearance for 2 trains to pass probably.  Will do some more research into the issues.

[tobyjugg2]

another good point

 

Spent about 30 mins on it and stopped.

 

Quite clear that it cost 50 million plus a mile even back then to knock 20 minutes off a three hour journey on new special track.

(Most of that gain on the French side)

and expensive, despite subsidised in all sorts of ways unreliable service

and will cost double or more the projected time and price

 

Pointless.

They should sort out the existing trains everybody is trying to use before even considering this farce.

Half an hour reading through the wiki and some reports utterly demonstrates that.

 

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by tobyjugg2

[honeybee13]

£50m a mile? I can't believe it.

[tobyjugg2]

That was last century HB.

 

hs2 is projected at £400M a mile isn't it?

 

or is that the 2015 price and its double that now?

ner can't be - I'll look it up in a bit

 

quick look seems to show 400 million a mile as the new projected cost

Edited January 22, 2020 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

I've done a quick calc and I make it nearer £300M+ a mile compared to a quick google saying £400M a mile (prob where I got the figure without confirming it - naughty me)

 

Still astronomical.

Edited January 22, 2020 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

2 hours ago, brassnecked said:

HS2 was part of an EU designed link going back to the days of Jaques Delors  An article from 2012 in the Torygraph by the late Christopher Booker is worth a read.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/9015342/The-continent-is-the-final-destination-for-HS2.html

 

 

Just occurred to me

Passports please ... that'll slow it down ...

 

[brassnecked]

Doesn';t stack up on a cost/benefit calculation, plus the environmental damage, loss of habitats that will get the Eco Warriors and St Greta giving her Trump glare to the Tories.

[tobyjugg2]

As long as she's out of school and not being flagged for life as a terrorist by her teachers after a coursework geography/sociology debate....

Where she said she thought greepeace might be proving to have a point

Edited January 22, 2020 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

Ok, it was nagging at me a bit so I refreshed and updated my background info

 

 

Hs2 and the EU

 

The Eu has funded parts of hs2, and more importantly other more useful (IMO)  projects

some examples

https://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/news/uk-transport-infrastructure-chosen-eu-funding_en

 

 

Do the EU require new tracks generally  to meet the hs2 standard, through EU directive 96/48  or any other directive?

NO

 

BUT The EU DO require that EU member state infrastructure intended to be part of of TEN-R (Trans European Network - Rail) specifically - the EU high speed rail infrastructure

- of course it does - thats the standard for high speed rail interoperability as part of TEN-R

 

But the overall TEN-T (Trans European Network-Transport) covers a goods and people transportation system via water, rail, road etc etc

 

Its building a quality network for transport throughout hte EU - like a super spice road

 

 

The UK agreed the backbone bit running through the UK although what they have chosen to implement based on that seems primarily little more than a toy for rich folk to travel to London a bit faster - although there could be faster goods transport too - at a cost

eg Get your strawberries to wimbledon quicker ......

 

With Brexit that UK TEN backbone (HS2) is being bypassed with RoI connecting directly with Norway ... via other than Rail

Bet Scotland's looking at that ...

Edited January 22, 2020 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

Now it makes sense and the intransigent ultra-logical sh*t in my head has stopped nagging me that it don't seem right.

Edited January 22, 2020 by tobyjugg2

[brassnecked]

Yes HS2 is  a waste of space as a half hearted  implementation.

[tobyjugg2]

yep, the UK is a bumpy twisty crowded ISLAND whos layout and transport infrastructure is best suited to Sea and Road.

The rivers are generally to narrow and shallow, let alone steep, and the flat plains are simply to small and crowded to house a big rail system like Europe, China, India, Africa, Australia ............

 

So its smaller lots via road or ship em to the nearest port

 

Our railways are narrow and a bit cramped because they NEED to be.

Canals were our infrastructure

 

When putting in just a couple hundred miles of track disrupts half the country for a decade or more, and costs a not so small nations national debt - its the wrong choice.

Edited January 22, 2020 by tobyjugg2

[brassnecked]

St Greta would love a canal with solar powered narrowboats.........

[tobyjugg2]

She impresses me vastly

Lives by her beliefs too

 

[honeybee13]

8 hours ago, brassnecked said:

St Greta would love a canal with solar powered narrowboats.........

 

So would I.

[brassnecked]

Would be effective for bulky goods that are not time sensitive, could use old tech batteries like those used on submarines last century as well.

 

Only issue is who would be a 21st century bargee, the cramped cabins would likely breach Huma Rights.  Mind you a nice 50'  residential type narrowboat would be a relaxing holiday at 4mph tie up at the pub restaurant.