[Petrochemicals]

Reply: "Fifteen Oxford graduates have held the post of  Minister of Transport, and none from Cambridge."

For HS2 it's more likely to be the 28 vs 14 score line for Prime Ministers.

the actual point of the project- which is to more than double the rail capacity.

And thus double the amount of public revenue subsidy required to keep the owners happy once we have paid for the infrastructure.

Fact is that private railways make a loss despite charging 3 times as much and taking 3 times as long as profitable airlines on the same route, which suggests that there is something wrong somewhere.

I think if there is a lesson here its that train costs are exponentially linked to train speed. Diesil and coal are a bit slower but far cheaper.

[alancalverd (OP)]

I think the lesson is more about economics than physics. If a government says "help yourself", snouts will come to the trough. There are two ways to control costs: wholly private capital and operating risk, or wholly nationalised project and public service operation.

The "nationalised project" approach can be run by a series of genuinely competitive tenders but it is difficult to protect it from overruns and political interference, so it's really a last resort where the public interest outweighs the lack of market interest. In the case of HS2 I would argue that the public service aspect, at least of the only phase so far approved, is marginal, so the correct approach would have been to permit private enterprise, not to commit public funding.

There's an inevitable degree of mission creep, but it's slow and manageable. 150 years ago there was no conceivable requirement for flights to the Channel Islands, but public expectation of centralised health services, express mail, and easy family and business travel, has turned an unimaginable luxury into an everyday necessity. Hence, inter alia, the need to bring Northern Rail into the 19th century and move the lines around Dawlish and Crewe to less flood-prone ground, and for government to operate now-essential but unprofitable flights. The island council contracts Shetland inter-island air services very successfully.

As for the physics, airplane fuel costs rise with the cube of cruise speed, but infrastructure costs remain constant and negligible.

[Petrochemicals]

I think the lesson is more about economics than physics. If a government says "help yourself", snouts will come to the trough. There are two ways to control costs: wholly private capital and operating risk, or wholly nationalised project and public service operation.

The "nationalised project" approach can be run by a series of genuinely competitive tenders but it is difficult to protect it from overruns and political interference, so it's really a last resort where the public interest outweighs the lack of market interest. In the case of HS2 I would argue that the public service aspect, at least of the only phase so far approved, is marginal, so the correct approach would have been to permit private enterprise, not to commit public funding.

There's an inevitable degree of mission creep, but it's slow and manageable. 150 years ago there was no conceivable requirement for flights to the Channel Islands, but public expectation of centralised health services, express mail, and easy family and business travel, has turned an unimaginable luxury into an everyday necessity. Hence, inter alia, the need to bring Northern Rail into the 19th century and move the lines around Dawlish and Crewe to less flood-prone ground, and for government to operate now-essential but unprofitable flights. The island council contracts Shetland inter-island air services very successfully.

As for the physics, airplane fuel costs rise with the cube of cruise speed, but infrastructure costs remain constant and negligible.

Like i say the tender approach is working, the chinese have offered to build it.

https://www.ft.com/content/d5b6aaaa-4f1a-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5

Trouble is that this will highlight the cost of the construction and infrastructure and seperatley highlight the cost of administration and payouts. If china had spent 100 billion per 200 km  of track they would be broke as they have 25000km of it as stated in the article,  12. 5 trillion at these rates. If we have 2000 km of railways that need upgrading that is half of the uks GdP spent on it, that is without maintenance  and running costs. Truly ludicrous.

[David Cooper]

I hope they're considering cancelling this idiotic scheme again now - it's all money straight down the drain, building something that will have to be shut down in the future for environmental reasons due to the higher pollution involved in unnecessarily high speed travel and the noise nuisance to. It certainly won't make the money back on the investment because all those commuters are going to evaporate before the project is finished. It's just a vanity project.

[Petrochemicals]

I've been watching it for years. It is noticeable that these very successful airlines have been negotiating to take over Flybe routes in the last few days, suggesting that Flybe's suicide was at least encouraged if not actually assisted. It's also odd that Virgin Atlantic was involved in propping up Flybe - and VA are not amateur philanthropists. I think it unlikely that Ryanair or Easyjet will pick up the shortest routes which seem  more suited to turboprop and even piston  aircraft, but these are also the ones like Scillies and Channel Islands that are essential public services and not particularly price sensitive, so Aurigny and Loganair are likely to step in once the government reviews the tax situation.

With train companies charging upwards of 50 p per mile for standing room, there's plenty of fat in the market.

And now they are crying too, despite saying it was unfair comptition, or againt euro rules. You where quite correct.

[Bored chemist]

building something that will have to be shut down in the future for environmental reasons due to the higher pollution involved in unnecessarily high speed trave

Trains are generally more environmentally friendly than the road traffic they replace.

all those commuters are going to evaporate

Will I be able to buy tickets to watch that phenomenon?

[alancalverd (OP)]

Trains are generally more environmentally friendly than the road traffic they replace.

Yes and no. A train has to run if it is timetabled to do so. A train that is big enough for the rush hour will run almost empty the rest of the day. An empty car doesn't move.

from: David Cooper on 24/03/2020 19:10:03
all those commuters are going to evaporate

Will I be able to buy tickets to watch that phenomenon?

Maybe not, but you  can see them seething and fuming most days