Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,794
- Location
- Cheltenham
Dammit - why did no-one think of ‘more trains’ before!
why all the hate for hs2?
- Thread starter 233
- Start date
A German company designed a double decker carriage specifically for the UK network, not sure what happened to that nor why it wasn't implemented.
It'd certainly help with capacity.
Be interesting to see it, but will have involved some big design compromises because of how relatively tight our loading gauge is compared to most European railways. Even if it was viable, double decker trains aren't necessarily always desirable though - you don't actually get double the capacity, and dwell times at stations have to be significantly longer because it takes longer for people to get on and off.
So on busy routes you might be able to fit more people on one train, but you might have to run fewer trains, journeys might be longer, and the trains themselves will be heavier and more expensive.
This looks like the one, proposed to be part of the HS2 fleet that would run on conventional lines after leaving HS2 infrastructure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroLiner3000
Aeroliner 3000 DOUBLE-DECK TRAIN FOR THE BRITISH LOADING
Could the classic-compatible AeroLiner3000 ease the UK capacity...
www.modernrailways.com
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 3,566
- Location
- UK
It kind of sums up the UK governments approach to everything infrastructure/construction wise in that they found out they could only afford one good aircraft carrier, so decided to build two average ones because two sounds more impressive
Then rent them out to the US because we don't have any planes for them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 3,566
- Location
- UK
It's still stuck under a bridge near St Pancras.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 3,566
- Location
- UK
The problem always seems to be the salespeople selling something to the government is unachievable. Once they have agreed a plan then all hell breaks loose because, right from the off, companies know they can't do what has been agreed. There never seems to be anyone in the meetings saying, no, that's ridiculous, we need a different plan. Once agreed, no one has the guts to turn around and tell parliament that the plan is not achievable.
The government doesn't know how to run a project. Instead of employing professionals, they try to do it themselves, and make decisions they aren't qualified to make. From day one the project is doomed because those initial bad decisions multiply and they end up running around like headless chickens putting fires out. I mean the way privately funded projects are run is completely different to government run projects.
We never used to be, we were the best at it for centuries. But we haven't had strong leadership for a very long time and it's getting worse.
The wrong people employed to call the shots. It has been generations since we had someone like Brunel, an actual engineer, running a large project. Things really aren't made like they used to be, not in the UK anyway.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 3,566
- Location
- UK
Personally, I think the failing is the civil service. The civil service need to be experts in the fields they represent and they usually aren't, they are career politicians.
The top level civil servants maybe.
But lower down there are skilled civil servants. Though most moved on over the past decade as it doesn't pay nearly enough anymore, thanks to never ending pay freezes.
By definition, civil servants are not politicians, they are literally apolitical.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 3,566
- Location
- UK
I don't mean that they are aligned with a particular party. Rather the people at the top of each department rarely has any experience in the field they represent, just like politicians and very unlike many businessmen.
Brunel was a man of his time. Building bridges, infrastructure.. amazing. Modern railways, big infrastructure projects these days are massively complex and it's not just about physically building a thing. Add in software, digital technology, products from all over the world coming in, people from all over the world.. it's an entirely different kettle of fish. It's project management in the most extreme way possible, and a lot.. actually most engineers would sink. It's an art managing that kind of project, stress and budget. Very few people can do it. That's why the best do projects all over the world, they are in great demand.
Yet without all of that, he managed to build better and cheaper rail networks back then than we have now
Literally, ignore the fact they were limited to steam power. Directly compared to what we have now, it was a better service all round. Also pretty much every town had a station, even some villages. Then 100ish years ago, the government decided to start dismantling it.
India kept their rail network from the empire days, didn't really improve anything and it's still better than ours.
Last edited:
Most lines closed because people stopped using them and started using cars, or people stopped shipping cargo on them and started using lorries.Yet without all of that, he managed to build better and cheaper rail networks back then than we have now
Literally, ignore the fact they were limited to steam power. Directly compared to what we have now, it was a better service all round. Also pretty much every town had a station, even some villages. Then 100ish years ago, the government decided to start dismantling it.
India kept their rail network from the empire days, didn't really improve anything and it's still better than ours.
Brunel also had many failed projects, wasted money etc which would simply not be acceptable today yet in the pioneering age it was just something that happened.
The biggest issue today is there are layers and layers of obstacles to actually getting something built, the actual engineering involved is actually very very good...
I’m not sure that’s as problematic as you think and most of them are very experienced in delivering public services.
Being an expert in say benefits doesn’t make you the best person to head up the DWP. A completely different skill set is needed to run an organisation with tens of thousands of staff and an operating budget in the (tens?) billions.
Everyone, and i do mean everyone involved, especially the politicians know full well the number given (x billion) is not the true cost. If the REAL cost was given the project would never get greenlit, ever. Military contractors are far worse but that’s a different story.
It’s that simple really - we know it can’t be delivered on time, on budget and probably out of date on delivery because decades not years to build.
But what other choice do we have? Either we legislate so we can just crack on with building, pushing aside legal requirements such as:
*carbon emissions consideration
*environmental protections
*people/houses in the way
*stop using pre-selected firms that rip us off
There’s probably a half way house but clearly something is wrong with our current system and needs real action.
Frankly, maybe it’s time we did a “UK First” policy and started really pushing the boat out on legislation, Trump style, NOW, not later…or spend 5 years of nothing really changing, tinkering around the edges because of our glacial pace at change, REAL change.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 3,566
- Location
- UK
Exactly. In the private sector, this is not allowed. The quote you make is the figure you stick to. I mean I have worked projects where the penalty for not finishing on time is £1m per day and the only way there is any re-negotiation of the price is if there is an unforeseen act of God! With the government, it's a given that it won't be completed on time or budget.
The private sector considers government contracts as a licence to print money. All because of the clueless way the government attempts to run projects.
Well, I know that, but what I am saying is that most business will employ people, even at the very top, who have experience in the particular business. The civil service don't. In fact they encourage people to move around.
The entire problem is short term inism - programmes are not planned for multi years, as the government might change and the programme gets canelled.
Look at new nuclear. in 2008 a programme was being put forward to replacing 6 nuclear reactors with new nuclear ( https://assets.publishing.service.g.../uploads/attachment_data/file/228944/7296.pdf ). 2010 and a change of government, the whole lot was cancelled. Here we are 15 years later, nothing has been built and the old nuclear stations are beyond the end of their design lives.
Look at new nuclear. in 2008 a programme was being put forward to replacing 6 nuclear reactors with new nuclear ( https://assets.publishing.service.g.../uploads/attachment_data/file/228944/7296.pdf ). 2010 and a change of government, the whole lot was cancelled. Here we are 15 years later, nothing has been built and the old nuclear stations are beyond the end of their design lives.