CP6 funding cut by £1Bn: Where should the cutbacks occur?

[Bald Rick]

I don't think much was ready to activate on Ely anyway - it's a study at this stage and works would be well into the next CP.

Nope, the allocated spend was this control period. There’s more next control period too, potentially. It’s a big project.

This is a very good point - it might take another six months to see how demand patterns settle down

That’s rather optimistic. 2-3 years I’d say.

 

[Astradyne]

Initial development work started over 5 years ago.

And if it does not go ahead, the opportunity will be lost as the land will no longer be available, so will never happen.

 

[Bald Rick]

And if it does not go ahead, the opportunity will be lost as the land will no longer be available, so will never happen.

Most of the land has been bought - which is why tens of millions have been spent to date.

 

[Class 170101]

The problem is that in specifying very high performance bi-modes for the MML you now struggle to achieve any journey time savings with electrification.

And thus a business case, one assumes.

If there was a joined up railway the business case would surely take account of the advantages of moving bi-mode trains from a fully electrified route to a partially electrified one once a given route is electrified especially should it improve services on the partially electrified route.

 

[markymark2000]

Cost savings could be made in NR. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians. It seems like far too much planning goes into even just a weekend closure and too much oversight. NR seems to work like road workers where you need a 30 staff all sat watching over 1 guy doing the work. There seems to be a lot of planning for a small amount of work. Look at Croydon mentioned above. Being planned for the past 5 years with a lot of money already spent and they aren't even sorting the TWOA application until late next year and no spades and no actual work is due to take place until 2023/24. That is 9 years of planning. Even when projects have some spades in the ground, NR do things a slowly and as disruptive as possible. Planning loads of weekend closures and seemingly not doing very much in them or not maximising the amount that could be done. It feels as if it is 1 closure to check if everything can be done, another closure to prepare the site, another closure to do the work, another closure to check everything is working as it should, another closure so the management can nip down and verify the work has been done. It also seems like there is some sort of leader board in the offices for how much area can they get away with shutting down while doing the minimal amount of work ('1 set of points need replacing at Piccadilly, let's put a blockade down to Crewe so it makes it look like we are doing something').

In short, I think a number of people in NR are dragging out the project to try and justify their wages and make themselves look busy rather than getting the work done as quickly as possible and in the least disruptive way. They are meant to be professionals. A class of college students could sort out projects in half the time and much cheaper.

This comment is no reflection on the actual engineers which work on the track who do their best working under instruction from above, it is aimed at those higher up management. Track workers do a fantastic job on the ground and even more so when you look at the cards they are dealt.

 

[The Planner]

Cost savings could be made in NR. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians. It seems like far too much planning goes into even just a weekend closure and too much oversight. NR seems to work like road workers where you need a 30 staff all sat watching over 1 guy doing the work. There seems to be a lot of planning for a small amount of work. Look at Croydon mentioned above. Being planned for the past 5 years with a lot of money already spent and they aren't even sorting the TWOA application until late next year and no spades and no actual work is due to take place until 2023/24. That is 9 years of planning. Even when projects have some spades in the ground, NR do things a slowly and as disruptive as possible. Planning loads of weekend closures and seemingly not doing very much in them or not maximising the amount that could be done. It feels as if it is 1 closure to check if everything can be done, another closure to prepare the site, another closure to do the work, another closure to check everything is working as it should, another closure so the management can nip down and verify the work has been done. It also seems like there is some sort of leader board in the offices for how much area can they get away with shutting down while doing the minimal amount of work ('1 set of points need replacing at Piccadilly, let's put a blockade down to Crewe so it makes it look like we are doing something').

In short, I think a number of people in NR are dragging out the project to try and justify their wages and make themselves look busy rather than getting the work done as quickly as possible and in the least disruptive way. They are meant to be professionals. A class of college students could sort out projects in half the time and much cheaper.

This comment is no reflection on the actual engineers which work on the track who do their best working under instruction from above, it is aimed at those higher up management. Track workers do a fantastic job on the ground and even more so when you look at the cards they are dealt.

Clearly you have no idea. Knowing plenty about the processes plus work that goes into planning disruption with operators, who have to agree it, it is pretty insulting to those in the role.

 

[daodao]

Projects like HS2 have gone so over-budget

Which is a very good reason to stop once the first part of HS2 to Birmingham/Crewe is completed, instead of pouring tens of billions of pounds more down the drain. There is probably little need from a financial perspective to curtail other rail infrastructure expenditure if HS2b north of Crewe and HS2b's eastern leg were both scrapped. NPR should be ditched too in favour of lesser and much cheaper improvements to rail services in northern England. HS2 and NPR are environmentally unfriendly too, so abandoning HS2b and NPR would be good from a green perspective.

 

[Jozhua]

Which is a very good reason to stop once the first part of HS2 to Birmingham/Crewe is completed, instead of pouring tens of billions of pounds more down the drain. There is probably little need from a financial perspective to curtail other rail infrastructure expenditure if HS2b north of Crewe and HS2b's eastern leg were both scrapped. NPR should be ditched too in favour of lesser and much cheaper improvements to rail services in northern England. HS2 and NPR are environmentally unfriendly too, so abandoning HS2b and NPR would be good from a green perspective.

Hard disagree.

HS2 is still far cheaper than adding comparable capacity by fiddling with the existing network, not to mention far less disruptive. The second phase of HS2 provides the majority of the benefits, so to stop it at Birmingham would be a disaster. Remember, the whole point of HS2 is to get rid of these intercity services off the existing network, freeing up more space for the local and regional stuff.

Even with HS2, there is little need from a financial perspective to cut the rail budget, especially considering the fact government is literally spending £24bn on laser guns for the millitary.

HS2 and NPR are not that environmentally unfriendly, HS2 is planting far more trees than it is cutting down, and once open, it will be a 100% electric railway, which will be able to run more efficiently than trains on the existing network, due to the dedicated track and modern infrastructure.

 

[Purple Orange]

Hard disagree.

HS2 is still far cheaper than adding comparable capacity by fiddling with the existing network, not to mention far less disruptive. The second phase of HS2 provides the majority of the benefits, so to stop it at Birmingham would be a disaster. Remember, the whole point of HS2 is to get rid of these intercity services off the existing network, freeing up more space for the local and regional stuff.

Even with HS2, there is little need from a financial perspective to cut the rail budget, especially considering the fact government is literally spending £24bn on laser guns for the millitary.

HS2 and NPR are not that environmentally unfriendly, HS2 is planting far more trees than it is cutting down, and once open, it will be a 100% electric railway, which will be able to run more efficiently than trains on the existing network, due to the dedicated track and modern infrastructure.

It’s probably easier to construct a cut & paste response to people who repeat the same cut & paste claims.

 

[matacaster]

A particular problem arises when schemes which start (or are centred on) london overrun. This nearly always happens, so they have to be completed otherwise investment is wasted - eg do you refuse extra money for crossrail when so much money already spent and no trains running? Thus it's nearly always at the extremities of the project that cuts take place. So, we lose Eastern leg of HS2 etc. What should happen is all major projects with London at one end should start at the extremities. That way, cheese paring won't take place as the money will always be found to 'build an iconic structure (station) in London whatever the cost!

 

[RT4038]

Cost savings could be made in NR. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians. It seems like far too much planning goes into even just a weekend closure and too much oversight. NR seems to work like road workers where you need a 30 staff all sat watching over 1 guy doing the work. There seems to be a lot of planning for a small amount of work. Look at Croydon mentioned above. Being planned for the past 5 years with a lot of money already spent and they aren't even sorting the TWOA application until late next year and no spades and no actual work is due to take place until 2023/24. That is 9 years of planning. Even when projects have some spades in the ground, NR do things a slowly and as disruptive as possible. Planning loads of weekend closures and seemingly not doing very much in them or not maximising the amount that could be done. It feels as if it is 1 closure to check if everything can be done, another closure to prepare the site, another closure to do the work, another closure to check everything is working as it should, another closure so the management can nip down and verify the work has been done. It also seems like there is some sort of leader board in the offices for how much area can they get away with shutting down while doing the minimal amount of work ('1 set of points need replacing at Piccadilly, let's put a blockade down to Crewe so it makes it look like we are doing something').

In short, I think a number of people in NR are dragging out the project to try and justify their wages and make themselves look busy rather than getting the work done as quickly as possible and in the least disruptive way. They are meant to be professionals. A class of college students could sort out projects in half the time and much cheaper.

This comment is no reflection on the actual engineers which work on the track who do their best working under instruction from above, it is aimed at those higher up management. Track workers do a fantastic job on the ground and even more so when you look at the cards they are dealt.

Sounds good to me - the actual engineers on the ground entirely responsible for their own safety, and guaranteed to change a set of points at Piccadilly in between trains ....... Yeah, right! When it goes wrong they'll be the ones trying to push the blame up above.

 

[al78]

Hard disagree.

HS2 is still far cheaper than adding comparable capacity by fiddling with the existing network, not to mention far less disruptive. The second phase of HS2 provides the majority of the benefits, so to stop it at Birmingham would be a disaster. Remember, the whole point of HS2 is to get rid of these intercity services off the existing network, freeing up more space for the local and regional stuff.

Even with HS2, there is little need from a financial perspective to cut the rail budget, especially considering the fact government is literally spending £24bn on laser guns for the millitary.

HS2 and NPR are not that environmentally unfriendly, HS2 is planting far more trees than it is cutting down, and once open, it will be a 100% electric railway, which will be able to run more efficiently than trains on the existing network, due to the dedicated track and modern infrastructure.

High speed trains don't compare favourably with driving when comparing like journeys. The problem is the energy required to get a vehicle to speed is a non-linear function of the speed, it is something like a cubic relationship, so doubling the speed of a vehicle requires about eight times more energy. There is no getting around the fact that is requires significant energy to push air out of the way, and is the reason cyclists can't cycle at 100+ mph (at least not without a deliberately set up windshield). Standard long distance main line trains do well because they move slower, have long distances between stops, and have a small frontal area per passenger. Long thin vehicles are optimal for transporting many people as far as energy usage is concerned.

 

[squizzler]

Whilst @markymark2000 might be misinformed or just trying to be provocative, there is merit behind much of what he is saying.

The management buzzword of 'agility' seems to have fallen out of favour (it must have been fashionable quite a while back since it was the name chosen by the suppler of the IEP trains early in the last decade) but I think it is a principle that needs to be revisited.

We have learnt in the pandemic that timetables and - also to a degree - infrastructure work that everyone thought had to be organised and agreed years in advance can, in fact, be scheduled at quite short notice.

If the new model railway that rises from the ashes of the franchise system manages to align incentives between all parties as far as infrastructure upgrades is concerned, I feel that it should be possible to design and arrange works at much shorter notice. None of this is to imply a minibus of trackwalkers rocking up at a live railway with a wagonload of stuff to install and busking it!

'Agility' needs to be a guiding principle for the rail industry. As we come out of the pandemic with all the different travel patterns that implies, leave the EU transition period probably on a cliff edge, and - biggest of all - get on with the business of decarbonising the British economy in a decade or so, agility needs to be on the lips of almost all railway departments not just engineering teams.

 

[Elecman]

Clearly you have no idea. Knowing plenty about the processes plus work that goes into planning disruption with operators, who have to agree it, it is pretty insulting to those in the role.

Agreed!!

 

[Bald Rick]

If there was a joined up railway the business case would surely take account of the advantages of moving bi-mode trains from a fully electrified route to a partially electrified one once a given route is electrified especially should it improve services on the partially electrified route.

Who says it doesn’t do that?

 

[The Planner]

We have learnt in the pandemic that timetables and - also to a degree - infrastructure work that everyone thought had to be organised and agreed years in advance can, in fact, be scheduled at quite short notice.

To what cost though, it has pushed most NR and TOC planners to the limit. STP timetables will not recover to 12 weeks for another year. If this continues people will burn out.

If the new model railway that rises from the ashes of the franchise system manages to align incentives between all parties as far as infrastructure upgrades is concerned, I feel that it should be possible to design and arrange works at much shorter notice. None of this is to imply a minibus of trackwalkers rocking up at a live railway with a wagonload of stuff to install and busking it!

Unless there is a fundmental change in timetable and planning process then there won't be. Conformed peripd possession plans are 26 weeks out, TOCs bid at 18 weeks, NR offer at 14 for tickets at 12. We are already well into planning 2022 which TOCs are already objecting to parts of

 

[Class 170101]

Who says it doesn’t do that?

How can it when the those funding the OLE installation, the Treasury, cannot force the operator of the Bi-modes to give them up for electric trains and then dictate where the released Bi-modes go to the greatest advantage of the business case?

 

[Peregrine 4903]

To what cost though, it has pushed most NR and TOC planners to the limit. STP timetables will not recover to 12 weeks for another year. If this continues people will burn out.

Unless there is a fundmental change in timetable and planning process then there won't be. Conformed peripd possession plans are 26 weeks out, TOCs bid at 18 weeks, NR offer at 14 for tickets at 12. We are already well into planning 2022 which TOCs are already objecting to parts of

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Bald Rick]

It seems like far too much planning goes into even just a weekend closure and too much oversight. NR seems to work like road workers where you need a 30 staff all sat watching over 1 guy doing the work. There seems to be a lot of planning for a small amount of work. Look at Croydon mentioned above. Being planned for the past 5 years with a lot of money already spent and they aren't even sorting the TWOA application until late next year and no spades and no actual work is due to take place until 2023/24. That is 9 years of planning. Even when projects have some spades in the ground, NR do things a slowly and as disruptive as possible. Planning loads of weekend closures and seemingly not doing very much in them or not maximising the amount that could be done. It feels as if it is 1 closure to check if everything can be done, another closure to prepare the site, another closure to do the work, another closure to check everything is working as it should, another closure so the management can nip down and verify the work has been done. It also seems like there is some sort of leader board in the offices for how much area can they get away with shutting down while doing the minimal amount of work ('1 set of points need replacing at Piccadilly, let's put a blockade down to Crewe so it makes it look like we are doing something').

I really don’t know what to say. With the exception of some of the timescales for Croydon - which I told you - literally everything you have written is wrong.

Can I ask what you do for a living, and then I will happily write a load of rubbish about how you deliberately do it badly.

We have learnt in the pandemic that timetables and - also to a degree - infrastructure work that everyone thought had to be organised and agreed years in advance can, in fact, be scheduled at quite short notice.

Actually, we haven’t learnt that. We always knew it. What we have learnt is that when there’s no passnegers on the railway, it doesn’t matter if you don’t give them 3 months notice of engineering works, nor does it matter if you completely change the timetable at a few days notice to the travelling public. Unless you are the ORR of course, then it does matter.

Also, it has been reinforced that when you write a timetable in a hurry, it has lots of clashes that materialise as delays. However, when there’s many fewer trains on the network, and no passnegers, those delays don’t actually cause any problems. They will when passengers return and if we ever get back to a near full service.

To what cost though, it has pushed most NR and TOC planners to the limit. STP timetables will not recover to 12 weeks for another year. If this continues people will burn out.

As I’m sure you know, people have burnt out already. I know of several examples of people who have jacked it in or gone off with stress.

 

[Bald Rick]

How can it when the those funding the OLE installation, the Treasury, cannot force the operator of the Bi-modes to give them up for electric trains and then dictate where the released Bi-modes go to the greatest advantage of the business case?

Government are funding the project, and can very definitely require an operator to change rolling stock.

 

[Class 170101]

The DfT did just that with the IEP fleets (GWR and LNER).
They specified and contracted the trains (and the bi-mode/electric mix) and then told the franchise bidders how to use them (for 27 years!).
They did the same with the Thameslink class 700 fleet, and are doing the same with the HS2 fleet.
Other franchises (with private money) get a bit more choice, but it gave us 3 fragmented fleets on TPE.

That GWR doesn't operate any straight electric trains to Cardiff is entirely down to DfT (and NR's inability to wire to Bristol because of cost overruns).

On the other hand, when DfT has control of all the current franchises with direct awards, they can dictate what happens to the existing fleets.

But who is responsible for the leases on the stock, the DfT or the operator?

 

[coppercapped]

But who is responsible for the leases on the stock, the DfT or the operator?

The stock is not leased...

I attended a meeting/lecture arranged by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers on 27th June 2011 about the Intercity Express Programme. Those advertised as being present were Michael Hurn, Acting Director Rail and Road projects, DfT; Matt Dillon, Sponsor, Intercity Express Programme, DfT; Stuart Baker, Deputy Director, Major Network Upgrades, DfT and Alistair Dormer, Chief Executive Officer, Agility Trains (temporary).

In the event Mr Dillon did not attend.

At this meeting it was clearly stated there that the trains were not being leased but supplied under a Total Train Service Provision contract, Agility Trains only receiving payment if the train was properly presented at the scheduled time and place and completed its diagram.

The recently deceased Stuart Baker stated that the TOCs were responsible for making the train service provision payments but that these were guaranteed by the DfT.

In other words the DfT had guaranteed Agility Trains/Hitachi an income flow for 27 1/2 years.

Nice if you can get it.

 

[Class 170101]

The stock is not leased...

I attended a meeting/lecture arranged by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers on 27th June 2011 about the Intercity Express Programme. Those advertised as being present were Michael Hurn, Acting Director Rail and Road projects, DfT; Matt Dillon, Sponsor, Intercity Express Programme, DfT; Stuart Baker, Deputy Director, Major Network Upgrades, DfT and Alistair Dormer, Chief Executive Officer, Agility Trains (temporary).

In the event Mr Dillon did not attend.

At this meeting it was clearly stated there that the trains were not being leased but supplied under a Total Train Service Provision contract, Agility Trains only receiving payment if the train was properly presented at the scheduled time and place and completed its diagram.

The recently deceased Stuart Baker stated that the TOCs were responsible for making the train service provision payments but that these were guaranteed by the DfT.

In other words the DfT had guaranteed Agility Trains/Hitachi an income flow for 27 1/2 years.

Nice if you can get it.

Probably should have made that clearer, in terms of non Agility and Thameslink Stock eg Class 804s (or is it 810s?) for the MML which seems the most likely line to be wired or perhaps the Class 802s at Great Western these are leased are they not? And if so surely the DfT has no say, if the MML is wired, that it should lease new solely electric stock and no longer lease the Class 804s so they could be moved to say XC?

 

[coppercapped]

Probably should have made that clearer, in terms of non Agility and Thameslink Stock eg Class 804s (or is it 810s?) for the MML which seems the most likely line to be wired or perhaps the Class 802s at Great Western these are leased are they not? And if so surely the DfT has no say, if the MML is wired, that it should lease new solely electric stock and no longer lease the Class 804s so they could be moved to say XC?

The stock you mentioned which is outside the Intercity Express Programme is leased in the normal way. However the DfT had considerable influence on the GWR's contract with, IIRC, Eversholt for the 802 sets, apart from the number of sets it was willing to countenance the internal fixtures and fitting had to mirror those in the IEP sets.
So, yes, behind the scenes the DfT can certainly twist a few arms - he who pays the piper and all that.

 

[edwin_m]

High speed trains don't compare favourably with driving when comparing like journeys. The problem is the energy required to get a vehicle to speed is a non-linear function of the speed, it is something like a cubic relationship, so doubling the speed of a vehicle requires about eight times more energy. There is no getting around the fact that is requires significant energy to push air out of the way, and is the reason cyclists can't cycle at 100+ mph (at least not without a deliberately set up windshield). Standard long distance main line trains do well because they move slower, have long distances between stops, and have a small frontal area per passenger. Long thin vehicles are optimal for transporting many people as far as energy usage is concerned.

If road vehicles went as fast as high speed trains, they would have the same losses but also extra losses due to the inefficiency of the rubber tyre compared with the steel wheel. And although the train might be heavier, an electric train recovers most of the energy used to accelerate it through regenerative braking. So a train is the most energy-efficient option for reaching those sorts of speed.

 

[DerekC]

High speed trains don't compare favourably with driving when comparing like journeys. The problem is the energy required to get a vehicle to speed is a non-linear function of the speed, it is something like a cubic relationship, so doubling the speed of a vehicle requires about eight times more energy. There is no getting around the fact that is requires significant energy to push air out of the way, and is the reason cyclists can't cycle at 100+ mph (at least not without a deliberately set up windshield). Standard long distance main line trains do well because they move slower, have long distances between stops, and have a small frontal area per passenger. Long thin vehicles are optimal for transporting many people as far as energy usage is concerned.

Hmm - I think a bit of clarification is needed here!

The kinetic energy of motion is a square law (E=½ mv2) so twice the speed needs four times the energy input. However as @edwin_m says, in principle regenerative braking can get most of that back again - but both modern electric trains and battery electric vehicles can do that.

Aerodynamic drag is also a square law - so again, twice the speed means four times as much energy dissipated - and you can't get that back again! As you say, trains are long thin vehicles which have a small frontal area per passenger - but of course that's true of high speed as well as standard main line trains.

The comparison between car and high speed train is complicated because a lot depends on what loading you assume and how you take speed into account. A lot of cars run around with only the driver, but a lot of trains run around part loaded as well. And a car usually carries its passengers door to door, so a train may have to go faster to achieve the same overall journey time if the links either end are completed by bus, for example.

So making a comparison is anything but simple!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But who is responsible for the leases on the stock, the DfT or the operator?

The operator, but the rates were originally contracted by the DfT and the contract terms passed down to the TOCs.
Those costs then become fixed costs in the franchise payments, as the TOC can do nothing to change them.

 

[Jozhua]

It’s probably easier to construct a cut & paste response to people who repeat the same cut & paste claims.

Good idea, I'm working on it now!

A particular problem arises when schemes which start (or are centred on) london overrun. This nearly always happens, so they have to be completed otherwise investment is wasted - eg do you refuse extra money for crossrail when so much money already spent and no trains running? Thus it's nearly always at the extremities of the project that cuts take place. So, we lose Eastern leg of HS2 etc. What should happen is all major projects with London at one end should start at the extremities. That way, cheese paring won't take place as the money will always be found to 'build an iconic structure (station) in London whatever the cost!

You see there is good reason to have HS2 terminate in central London, but yes, perhaps the link between old oak common and Euston should have been shoved to "phase 3", making phase 2 slightly less palatable to be cut.

Which, in turn, is caused by our 'blame and shame' culture. We get what we deserve!

True, and the funny thing is, the politicians at the top who look to find someone to blame, have no-one but themselves to take it.

High speed trains don't compare favourably with driving when comparing like journeys. The problem is the energy required to get a vehicle to speed is a non-linear function of the speed, it is something like a cubic relationship, so doubling the speed of a vehicle requires about eight times more energy. There is no getting around the fact that is requires significant energy to push air out of the way, and is the reason cyclists can't cycle at 100+ mph (at least not without a deliberately set up windshield). Standard long distance main line trains do well because they move slower, have long distances between stops, and have a small frontal area per passenger. Long thin vehicles are optimal for transporting many people as far as energy usage is concerned.

I don't think you understand how trains work...
So yes, resistance increases with the square of the speed, so going twice as fast takes four times the energy. However, you assume the main limitation is aerodynamic, but the primary limitation with road/rail is resistance. The contact area of tyres with the road is usually quite significant, making going any faster than 70/80mph a pretty bad loss of efficiency. Plus with road, the skinnier the tyres, the less safe the vehicle is, which is problematic when sharing the road with a lot of other traffic. Trains have significantly less friction from the rails, both due to material (steel/steel vs rubber/asphalt) and contact area, which is significantly smaller for train wheels.
Cornering also increases resistance on road & rail, even our victorian lines tend to be a little straighter than your average motorway.

The best estimates I can find for efficiency is about 7x more efficient.

So with HS2, the primary reason for the speed is in order for it to replace the WCML, MML and ECML with comparable/faster journey times, than the slightly more direct routes.

So HS2 says their trains will be twice as efficient as existing ones, I'm assuming they mean the existing intercity services. Ultimately I can't find any information as to why, but there are a couple of reasons this may be:
-HS2 will have less corners and will not require tilt, cornering adds to friction and tilt equipment adds weight/power consumption to trains.
-HS2 will have less acceleration/deceleration along the route, as trains will not interface with local services.

There are lots of other reasons besides efficiency & shorter journey times many choose to do intercity trips by rail:
-Lots of people don't have cars!
-Parking is at a premium in many cities, especially London, or their destination (such as a friends, relatives, or hotel) may not have any.
-Traffic can be pretty bad, especially in London, where congestion charge has to be considered too! Rail is typically more reliable, even our old broken system!
-Long car trips can be quite fatiguing, with little ability to distract yourself. You have to stop moving if you need a pee, reply to text messages, or to grab some food/drink.
-^You can do work on the train!
-If you book in advance, adding the cost of parking on top of the fuel, rail can be cheaper.

What we have now in the railway industry, like many other ex-nationalised industries, is a market without prices and a central planning system with no planners.

Seems like it. It's essentially proto-nationalised anyway.

 

[daodao]

perhaps the link between old oak common and Euston should have been shoved to "phase 3", making phase 2 slightly less palatable to be cut.

That really would have made HS2 a white elephant. OOC is in outer London suburbia, but most travellers to London wish to visit the centre. It is the outer branches of any structure that are of least value and could be cut; in the case of railways they will carry the least traffic.

 

[edwin_m]

In other words the DfT had guaranteed Agility Trains/Hitachi an income flow for 27 1/2 years.

Nice if you can get it.

Apart from, of course...

Agility Trains only receiving payment if the train was properly presented at the scheduled time and place and completed its diagram.

So yes, resistance increases with the square of the speed, so going twice as fast takes four times the energy. However, you assume the main limitation is aerodynamic, but the primary limitation with road/rail is resistance. The contact area of tyres with the road is usually quite significant, making going any faster than 70/80mph a pretty bad loss of efficiency. Plus with road, the skinnier the tyres, the less safe the vehicle is, which is problematic when sharing the road with a lot of other traffic. Trains have significantly less friction from the rails, both due to material (steel/steel vs rubber/asphalt) and contact area, which is significantly smaller for train wheels.
Cornering also increases resistance on road & rail, even our victorian lines tend to be a little straighter than your average motorway.

The best estimates I can find for efficiency is about 7x more efficient.

Friction stops the vehicle from slipping on the rails but doesn't determine the energy loss at the wheel-rail interface. That's all about rolling resistance, essentially the heating caused by each part of the wheel and the surface being squashed and returning to its normal shape as the weight of the vehicle passes through them. As rubber is much more flexible than steel, this dissipates much more power in a rubber tyre than in a steel wheel under equivalent conditions.

I'd be interested in seeing a source for your efficiency figure, as the assumptions made are often critical to understanding that type of number.