HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

NVA field agents would never use a high speed rail service anyway. The stations would be so infrequent that I don't see how it is beneficial. OK if I wanted to go from Leeds to Sheffield or Leeds to Birmingham or Leeds to London. How many car journeys is that really going to replace ? Very few in the grand scheme of things. They will only replace journeys that are already done by train. Simply electrifying the line achieves the same thing.

The answer is improved LOCAL services and electric cars. But above all that is a reduction in travel (and consumption of everything) full stop and I genuinely believe that we can not continue like we are.

Rail would be a lot more attractive if fairs were lower and local services better. Fairs have recently gone up a lot where I am and local services have been cut. If I am not on the beer it is always the car. The exception is the local bus service as it costs me nothing with my over 60s pass and the cost of parking is extortionate. I also have a discount for train travel in Wales, but if the route crosses the border it is the full price.

CN211276 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:02 am Rail would be a lot more attractive if fairs were lower and local services better. Fairs have recently gone up a lot where I am and local services have been cut. If I am not on the beer it is always the car. The exception is the local bus service as it costs me nothing with my over 60s pass and the cost of parking is extortionate. I also have a discount for train travel in Wales, but if the route crosses the border it is the full price.

There are certain rail-routes in Wales that offer pensioners FREE tickets.

See this link.

https://tfw.wales/info-for/over-60s/rai ... ary-travel

The Heart of Wales line would be a nice day out.

valvesRus wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:01 pm

There are certain rail-routes in Wales that offer pensioners FREE tickets.

See this link.

https://tfw.wales/info-for/over-60s/rai ... ary-travel

The Heart of Wales line would be a nice day out.

Not my routes unfortunately and my other half would still have to pay the full price on the heart of Wales line. I get a third off the price when I travel to the valleys.

karatestu wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:45 am NVA field agents would never use a high speed rail service anyway. The stations would be so infrequent that I don't see how it is beneficial. OK if I wanted to go from Leeds to Sheffield or Leeds to Birmingham or Leeds to London. How many car journeys is that really going to replace ? Very few in the grand scheme of things. They will only replace journeys that are already done by train. Simply electrifying the line achieves the same thing.

The answer is improved LOCAL services and electric cars. But above all that is a reduction in travel (and consumption of everything) full stop and I genuinely believe that we can not continue like we are.

Field agents won't be able to use trains, but there are plenty who would switch from car to train. Rail will always be more fuel efficient, regardless of the introduction of electric cars. The more you can switch from road to rail, the better for everyone. If we want to make that number significant, then we need more rail capacity for both local and long distance journeys. All empirical evidence, from all around the world, shows that when you provide capacity, competitive fares and convenient integration with bus services, then worthwhile numbers of people switch from their cars for at least some of their journeys.

The problem with reducing consumption is that each of us thinks that our own level of consumption is not the problem. More realistic to make consumption less harmful, overall.

Lack of capacity has recently been highlighted here with the autumn rugby internationals. People have been packed into trains like sardines during a pandemic.

CN211276 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:40 pm Lack of capacity has recently been highlighted here with the autumn rugby internationals. People have been packed into trains like sardines during a pandemic.

Lack of capacity is a problem, every day, on hundreds of routes.

savvypaul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:23 pm

karatestu wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:45 am NVA field agents would never use a high speed rail service anyway. The stations would be so infrequent that I don't see how it is beneficial. OK if I wanted to go from Leeds to Sheffield or Leeds to Birmingham or Leeds to London. How many car journeys is that really going to replace ? Very few in the grand scheme of things. They will only replace journeys that are already done by train. Simply electrifying the line achieves the same thing.

The answer is improved LOCAL services and electric cars. But above all that is a reduction in travel (and consumption of everything) full stop and I genuinely believe that we can not continue like we are.

Field agents won't be able to use trains, but there are plenty who would switch from car to train. Rail will always be more fuel efficient, regardless of the introduction of electric cars. The more you can switch from road to rail, the better for everyone. If we want to make that number significant, then we need more rail capacity for both local and long distance journeys. All empirical evidence, from all around the world, shows that when you provide capacity, competitive fares and convenient integration with bus services, then worthwhile numbers of people switch from their cars for at least some of their journeys.

The problem with reducing consumption is that each of us thinks that our own level of consumption is not the problem. More realistic to make consumption less harmful, overall.

I agree with most of this apart from the consumption bit. I recognise my own level of consumption is too high and am actively doing something about it.

I just don't see high speed rail to London with a handful of stops on the way as the answer. Yes it would provide more capacity but in the right places? I think not. Connecting adjacent centres of population would be more beneficial. Most journeys are very short, that is where the gains are to be made.

Electrification of all existing lines is much more important IMO. The Leeds to York line past my house is still not electrified.

karatestu wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:22 pm

savvypaul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:23 pm

karatestu wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:45 am NVA field agents would never use a high speed rail service anyway. The stations would be so infrequent that I don't see how it is beneficial. OK if I wanted to go from Leeds to Sheffield or Leeds to Birmingham or Leeds to London. How many car journeys is that really going to replace ? Very few in the grand scheme of things. They will only replace journeys that are already done by train. Simply electrifying the line achieves the same thing.

The answer is improved LOCAL services and electric cars. But above all that is a reduction in travel (and consumption of everything) full stop and I genuinely believe that we can not continue like we are.

Field agents won't be able to use trains, but there are plenty who would switch from car to train. Rail will always be more fuel efficient, regardless of the introduction of electric cars. The more you can switch from road to rail, the better for everyone. If we want to make that number significant, then we need more rail capacity for both local and long distance journeys. All empirical evidence, from all around the world, shows that when you provide capacity, competitive fares and convenient integration with bus services, then worthwhile numbers of people switch from their cars for at least some of their journeys.

The problem with reducing consumption is that each of us thinks that our own level of consumption is not the problem. More realistic to make consumption less harmful, overall.

I agree with most of this apart from the consumption bit. I recognise my own level of consumption is too high and am actively doing something about it.

I just don't see high speed rail to London with a handful of stops on the way as the answer. Yes it would provide more capacity but in the right places? I think not. Connecting adjacent centres of population would be more beneficial. Most journeys are very short, that is where the gains are to be made.

Electrification of all existing lines is much more important IMO. The Leeds to York line past my house is still not electrified.

Your thoughts are trapped in an 'either / or' mindset. The important thing about HS2 is that it would provide new routes that do not rely on the existing network. The HS2 route might not be a direct benefit to you, but your local and town to town routes would have benefitted from much greater increases to capacity because long distance services and freight trains would use the new HS2 route. That HS2 route would also have out of town parkway stations that would take traffic away form the existing, congested, town and city roads. It's good to upgrade existing routes, and we should do so, but by only doing that we limit the amount of capacity that can be created for the future. The (now abandoned) new HS2 routes would have taken 20 years to come to operation. How many more people / cars / road journeys will there be by then, and how much spare rail capacity will remain, by then, on even the upgraded local rail routes?

Forcing people to reduce their consumption is electoral suicide. It won't happen, and the vast majority will not reduce their consumption voluntarily. There will be some nice words (blah, blah, blah), but the only realistic option, imo, is to make each unit of fuel consumption far more efficient.

I'm not sure if it's planned that any freight would use HS2.

We all care about the environment, until we actually have to do something that affects our way of life, not all of us, but I suspect a greater majority.