The Javelin high speed train is here

[teuchter]

I realise I'm sounding like a cynical moany old git again here (which I am ) but I do wonder what the actual benefit of that will be.

1) Huge swathes of Kent will become commutersville for London, pushing up house prices, possibly out of reach of the locals.

2) People in London will remain unemployed/in crap jobs while people commute in over large-ish distances.


Of course there will be winners too....people in small Kent towns who previously had the choice of a crap job locally or moving to London will be able to have many more options- providing they can afford the fares. However I fear many of the passengers on HS1 will be people who have moved out of London.

Yeah, I do agree to you up to a point.

The other thing is that high speed rail is less energy-efficient than traditional rail.

I'm more in favour of high speed lines where they help displace other modes
of transport like driving or flying. Not sure that'll particularly be the case here.

 

[Cobbles]

Hopefully the success of this line will help further the case for a high speed domestic line between London and the North.

Not if 140 mph is the best that it can manage.

That won't get the London to Edinburgh journey time down to an hour and a half or two hours.

 

[Crispy]

Not if 140 mph is the best that it can manage.

That won't get the London to Edinburgh journey time down to an hour and a half or two hours.

The proposed HS2 line will be designed for much higher speeds. 150mph minimum, but up to 250. The javelin high-speed commuter trains only do 140 because the distance between stops is much less than for long distance HSR.

Of course, it will only go as far as Birmingham to start with, so will only take 30-40 minutes off the total journey to Scotland, but the major motivation is relieving capacity on the WCML. Further extension to Scotland could bring the journey down to under 2.5 hours, which is very competitive with flying (esp. given the convenience of arriving in the city center)

 

[untethered]

Further extension to Scotland could bring the journey down to under 2.5 hours, which is very competitive with flying (esp. given the convenience of arriving in the city center)

With so many hardworking families "not waving but drowning" I think something like this could really make a difference. That would definitely beat the plane!

 

[Spymaster]

These trains do 140mph. Thirty odd years ago the Intercity 125 could do 125mph.

A derisory 15mph gain in 30 years when the French and others have trains that can do nigh on 200mph, AND we had to buy the trains from a Japanese tv firm.

There's progress for you!

 

[Crispy]

The HS1 track and eurostar trains are good for 186mph
As already said, these trains only do 140 because they're commuter trains with relatively short distances between stations.

 

[Cobbles]

The HS1 track and eurostar trains are good for 186mph
As already said, these trains only do 140 because they're commuter trains with relatively short distances between stations.

Indeed, even the existing trains could cut out a lot of the current 4.5 hours if they didn't bother stopping at intervening stations.......

Just like a plane flight.

 

[mattie]

Indeed, even the existing trains could cut out a lot of the current 4.5 hours if they didn't bother stopping at intervening stations.......

Just like a plane flight.

Personally, I'd call the airport terminus an intervening station. Unless you live in Heathrow.

 

[teuchter]

These trains do 140mph. Thirty odd years ago the Intercity 125 could do 125mph.

A derisory 15mph gain in 30 years when the French and others have trains that can do nigh on 200mph, AND we had to buy the trains from a Japanese tv firm.

There's progress for you!

Erm... trains have been doing 140mph on the East Coast Line every day since 1989.

 

[kyser_soze]

Can't believe that this thread has got to 39 posts and no-one has made any spam javelin jokes.

at train geeks

 

[Crispy]

Erm... trains have been doing 140mph on the East Coast Line every day since 1989.

No they haven't
The trains can do it, the line can do it, and test runs have gone up to 160, but the signalling can't cope with those speeds. 125mph max until they upgrade to in-cab signalling.

 

[Roadkill]

Erm... trains have been doing 140mph on the East Coast Line every day since 1989.

They haven't. The IC 225s are designed for 140mph but 125mph is the maximum line speed.

<e2a> Crispy got there first

 

[teuchter]

All these years I've been living under an illusion!

 

[T & P]

If they do build High Speed 2 it will be at least a 186mph-capable line. Trains would be able to travel at those speeds, and journey times would be reduced to some 2.5h to Scotland, meaning only a complete fool would possibly want to fly.

 

[Roadkill]

If they do build High Speed 2 it will be at least a 186mph-capable line. Trains would be able to travel at those speeds, and journey times would be reduced to some 2.5h to Scotland, meaning only a complete fool would possibly want to fly.

Thing is, plenty of people fly from London to Birmingham now, which is only 1hr 20mins on the train. London City Airport is handy, but Brum International is miles out of town, so I can't believe there's much of a time-saving to be made by flying it, and yet people do.

High Speed 2 certainly would take a lot of traffic from airlines on the London-Edinburgh route, but some people still would fly it, and certainly a lot of people travelling to and from destinations north of Edinburgh still would.

 

[Spymaster]

If they do build High Speed 2 it will be at least a 186mph-capable line. Trains would be able to travel at those speeds, and journey times would be reduced to some 2.5h to Scotland, meaning only a complete fool would possibly want to fly.

I'd use it to and from Edinburgh, so long as the fare was comparable to the £80 it costs to fly.

 

[deadringer]

silly question but how does the train get from stratford to gravesend? is there already a tunnel for this in operation or is it being built?

 

[jakejb79]

Yes it may be faster but what no one seems to mention that in order to accomodate these trains operating (which will cost 40% more) Trains services on some routes will be cut 50%. For example my local station has 4tph to Victoria and 6tph in the peaks to Cannon St when these start running we will only get 2tph to Victoria and 2tph to St Pancras meaning the trains will be packed. Its Cr@p

 

[T & P]

Thing is, plenty of people fly from London to Birmingham now, which is only 1hr 20mins on the train. London City Airport is handy, but Brum International is miles out of town, so I can't believe there's much of a time-saving to be made by flying it, and yet people do.

Really? I didn't even know such route was operated. That's just taking the piss, frankly.

And I thought flying London-Manchester was bad...

 

[roryer]

I bought a house in Ramsgate years ago in the hope this would happen. Commuting times will be cut from 2 hrs to 1 hr 20mins. So I hope masses of commuters will turn Ramsgate into the next Brighton or something. It's the only chance I've got of retiring on anything better than a state pension.

Get ready for disappointment, house prices will drop through the floor throughout the UK, and never recover. The peculiar paradigm of property being an investment rather than somewhere to live is over, and thank goodness for that.

The idea that you can use your house to subsidise a pension will be long gone by the time I retire at least, which will be at 69 at the earliest, in 2039.

But Ramsgate is brilliant, and when oil prices make all budget airlines go bust we will all be holidaying there again soon enough. So turn your house into a hostel and you'll be sorted. What with short journey times from London Ramsgate might become the English version of Cannes?

 

[tim]

Which platforms are they going to use at St Pancras then?

The ones used by all domestic services which are 10 minutes walk from the tube! Still you get to see all those sub-airport terminal shops on the way or the the nic e long champagne bar, that fill up the space where the platforms used to be.

 

[tim]

These trains do 140mph. Thirty odd years ago the Intercity 125 could do 125mph.

A derisory 15mph gain in 30 years when the French and others have trains that can do nigh on 200mph, AND we had to buy the trains from a Japanese tv firm.

There's progress for you!

The Mallard could do 125 mph in the 1930's, though presumably not all the way

 

[London_Calling]

silly question but how does the train get from stratford to gravesend? is there already a tunnel for this in operation or is it being built?

It's the channel tunnel line - spare capacity so they put this service in.

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

The Mallard could do 125 mph in the 1930's, though presumably not all the way

Nah, it just hit that speed briefly.

Even so, it does make you wonder how fast a steam train could be made to go if you used the benefit of modern materials and modern CAD/CAM.

 

[bigbry]

Thing is, plenty of people fly from London to Birmingham now, which is only 1hr 20mins on the train. London City Airport is handy, but Brum International is miles out of town, so I can't believe there's much of a time-saving to be made by flying it, and yet people do.

High Speed 2 certainly would take a lot of traffic from airlines on the London-Edinburgh route, but some people still would fly it, and certainly a lot of people travelling to and from destinations north of Edinburgh still would.

Is this true - I went to the Birmingham Airport website, can't find London amongst the 'destinations flown to from this airport'.

 

[Roadkill]

Nah, it just hit that speed briefly.

Even so, it does make you wonder how fast a steam train could be made to go if you used the benefit of modern materials and modern CAD/CAM.

Some think Mallard might have been able to go a little faster than it did in 1938: the record run had a very slow start because of workers on the track, and IIRC the driver thought without that he could have cracked 130mph. Not for very long, though. No conventional steam loco was capable of sustaining much more than about 100mph for very long.

Is this true - I went to the Birmingham Airport website, can't find London amongst the 'destinations flown to from this airport'.

I thought it was, judging from a google, but you prompted me to go and have a look at Brum International's site and London doesn't show on the destinations there either, so perhaps not.

 

[T & P]

I'd be a fucking crime against humanity if people flew that route.

If it was down to me I'd impose a big fat tax on several domestic routes- London to Manchester or Liverpool for instance- to discourage such stupid use of an airplane.

 

[Spymaster]

If it was down to me I'd impose a big fat tax on several domestic routes- London to Manchester or Liverpool for instance- to discourage such stupid use of an airplane.

Thing is it often comes down to cost. I have several friends in Manc and have flown twice purely because the cost was less than half the rail fare at short notice. That said, with the improvements this end of the M1 and the M6 toll, Manchester can be driven in 3 hours on a fair day and then there's the bonus and convenience of having the car whilst you're there.

The railway system's biggest drawback is not scheduling, routes or speed, but the often ludicrous pricing and ridiculously confusing ticketing.

 

[Bungle73]

The ones used by all domestic services which are 10 minutes walk from the tube! Still you get to see all those sub-airport terminal shops on the way or the the nic e long champagne bar, that fill up the space where the platforms used to be.

I'm sure there's an exit for the Tube that comes out just about where the domestic platforms are.

 

[Cobbles]

Personally, I'd call the airport terminus an intervening station. Unless you live in Heathrow.

Oh indeed - loads of people live slap bang on top of Waverley too........