Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 29 replies
  • Subscribers 17 subscribers
  • Views 3418 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

HS2 railway

CliveS
We would all agree that an express link fro London to Birmingham and Manchester would be of great benefit BUT do we have to electrify the entire length of track or just the parts inside city boundaries. 

We can half the construction/infrastructure cost if we use diesel electric trains cross country and convert to electric only inside the city. 

This is environmentally friendly as power stations are only 60% efficient at best and mostly use gas at normal/peak times anyway; isn't it ??
Parents
  • 0
    The idea that electric trains are more efficient than diesel engines needs to be looked at not just from a cost per kilometre of energy [ which is nearly the same] but in the cost of building, maintaining and financing the huge electric gantry infrastructure. Then there are grid and substation costs all unnecessary if the cross country line is just sleepers and 2 rails with fibre-optic signalling cable backed up by satnav checking.

    Same with electric cars.  Perfect for cities in fact a must environmentally;, but uneconomical and cumbersome for cross country transport.  Just imagine a 20 ton truck and trainer with 10 tons of battery and it can only move 50 miles and needs to stop for an hour to recharge the battery.  The recharge station already has a queue of 5 lorries and the grid is overloaded  so no extra charging point are planned.  A nightmare scenario.

    ANSWER  Long distance cross country heavy transportation will ALWAYS be cheapest and quicker using diesel which is no more damaging to the environment than a hydrocarbon burning power station anyway.
Reply
  • 0
    The idea that electric trains are more efficient than diesel engines needs to be looked at not just from a cost per kilometre of energy [ which is nearly the same] but in the cost of building, maintaining and financing the huge electric gantry infrastructure. Then there are grid and substation costs all unnecessary if the cross country line is just sleepers and 2 rails with fibre-optic signalling cable backed up by satnav checking.

    Same with electric cars.  Perfect for cities in fact a must environmentally;, but uneconomical and cumbersome for cross country transport.  Just imagine a 20 ton truck and trainer with 10 tons of battery and it can only move 50 miles and needs to stop for an hour to recharge the battery.  The recharge station already has a queue of 5 lorries and the grid is overloaded  so no extra charging point are planned.  A nightmare scenario.

    ANSWER  Long distance cross country heavy transportation will ALWAYS be cheapest and quicker using diesel which is no more damaging to the environment than a hydrocarbon burning power station anyway.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines