DOCSLIB.ORG

Optimised Alternative

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Optimised Alternative Further written evidence from 51M (HSR 109B) This supplementary evidence is submitted to update the Committee on issues related to the “Optimised Alternative”, as described in Chapter 1 of our main submission, and to respond to the supplementary evidence submitted to the Committee by DfT and HS2 Ltd this week. Given the time constraints we have provided a detailed response on the Optimised Alternative and overview responses on a number of the issues raised in the DfT and HS2 Ltd supplementary evidence. We may provide a more detailed response to the Committee on certain items of the supplementary evidence in the near future. Optimised Alternative Neither DfT nor HS2 Ltd has made any attempt to engage with us directly on our proposed approach or the Optimised Alternative. DfT acknowledge that they have not carried out a full analysis of 51m’s alternative, despite its higher capacity and its lower capital costs than Atkins’ Rail Package 2. This is somewhat surprising since it has now been in the public domain for some 3 months. Below we respond to the statements made by DfT and HS2 Ltd in their supplementary evidence and the “Yes to High Speed Rail” campaign paper from William Barter, which purports to analyse the Optimised Alternative. • Both the DfT’s supplementary evidence and the William Barter paper assert that much of the 215% additional capacity set out in the Optimised Alternative doesn’t count, as any calculation of capacity increases should be based on the capacity after completion of the existing project to lengthen some of the current 52 Pendolino trains from 9 to 11 cars. This is fundamentally wrong as the HS2 Ltd business case has a 2007/8 base, from which the HS2 forecast of 102% background growth has been made, and any comparison clearly has to start from this same base, the capacity available in 2007/08. • In addition the DfT response asserts that the Optimised Alternative only provides around 30% more capacity than the capacity available following completion of the committed Pendolino lengthening project. However, the correct figure is 57%, as set out in Table 1.1 of Chapter 11 of our initial submission to the Committee. • The Barter paper claims that converting one first class car to standard ignores peak first class loadings. But first class passenger numbers have declined significantly in recent years, reflecting cut-backs in travel costs by both the private and public sectors, even though most first class passengers 1 http://www.51m.co.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/ch1.pdf are now using discounted, advance purchase fares – in some cases lower than standard class on the same train. First class loadings are not high even in the business peaks, and numbers on the great majority of trains don’t fill one first class coach, let alone four. • We are also accused of ignoring peak loadings generally. But the Network Rail WCML Route Utilisation Strategy2 shows only 2 out of 287 trains daily with standing passengers on the route, at around 1900 in the evening, reflecting time restrictions for regulated off-peak (“saver”) fares. This is an artificial peak – are “Yes to High Speed Rail” really saying that we should spend £32 billion on HS2 because of overcrowding caused by time restrictions on off-peak fares? The Optimised Alternative fully meets forecast background growth in peak periods, with a 138% increase in standard class capacity compared with the 2007/8 base. The Optimised Alternative is described in detail in Appendix 1 of 51m’s consultation response at www.51m.co.uk. – this updates and amplifies Chapter 1 of our original submission, and includes a detailed analysis of peak capacity 51m are criticised for not costing or scoping investment in additional vehicles, depot facilities, platform lengthening and any necessary track and signalling alterations to enable 12 car operations. Similarly, we are criticised for not carrying out a cost-benefit analysis of the alternative. We would strongly argue that it is DfT’s responsibility to ensure that all alternatives are properly considered before embarking on a project of the scale of HS2, and 51m do not have the technical and financial resources to undertake such work. However, it is clear from analysis of Atkins’ previous work for DfT3 that 12 car operations (except to Liverpool) would be achievable at a fraction of the cost of HS2. DfT challenge our view that there would be no adverse impact on performance as a result of increased services in the Optimised Alternative. But we propose investment to eliminate bottlenecks such as Ledburn Junction, and this approach is supported by Atkins’ previous work for DfT, which concluded: “Even with higher levels of train frequency, the packages may enhance train performance at a network level…..these locations may more than 2 http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisatio n%20strategies/west%20coast%20main%20line/westcoastmainlinerus.pdf page 48 3 Rail Interventions Report March 2010 Appendix C pages 35 – 39 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspee drail/alternativestudy/pdf/railintervention.pdf compensate for other areas where there will be an enhanced train frequency but no infrastructure enhancements” 4 DfT’s response contains factual inaccuracies: the correct position is that (1) the illustrative service pattern for the Optimised Alternative has fewer peak hour trains than Rail Package 2 and (2) no additional trains are proposed on the Coventry – Birmingham section of the route We are criticised for assuming that no additional platforms are necessary at Euston. However, HS2’s supplementary evidence claims that the current level of service can be maintained during Euston reconstruction with only 14 platforms. Our proposal only envisages an extra 2/3 peak trains an hour over present levels with the current 18 platforms – on the basis of HS2’s own submission, this is clearly achievable. DfT supplementary evidence (30th August) Oxera question 3 – Reliability of Conventional Services We would reiterate that the published service plans for HS2 have major reliability risks. In contrast, the Optimised Alternative envisages investment at key locations to remove conflicting movements (Ledburn Junction) and improve segregation between InterCity and freight trains (Colwich/Stafford). The reliability impacts are set out in Chapter 4 of our original submission.5 Oxera question 7 – Productive Time on Trains DfT imply in their response that HS2 will reduce crowding. This may be true on average, but we have shown (Chapter 8)6, that HS2’s planned capacity on key routes (Manchester [Phase1], Preston/Glasgow and York/Newcastle) is clearly inadequate, almost certainly resulting in a higher proportion of overcrowded trains overall, with inadequate capacity on some routes balanced by massive over- capacity to Birmingham as detailed in the 51m’s consultation response - Appendix 17. Oxera question 14 – Disruption Impacts The Optimised Alternative will result in significantly less overall disruption because of the impact of HS2’s major reconstruction construction at Euston (Chapter 10)7 4 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/alter nativestudy/pdf/railintervention.pdf Appendix B Section 1.1.1 page 16 5 http://www.51m.co.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/ch4.pdf 6 http://www.51m.co.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/ch8.pdf 7 http://www.51m.co.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/ch10.pdf HS2 supplementary evidence (30th August) HS2’s evidence starts with the statement that “the Committee asked a question on the proposed 18 trains per hour service level. We are aware that this has been raised as an issue during the consultation and we have begun further work in this area”. The delivery of 18 trains per hour is clearly a vital part of the HS2 business case, and we consider that it is extraordinary that HS2 Ltd and DfT had not satisfied themselves on the deliverability of the claimed capacity of HS2 prior to commencing consultation. Question 1 – when will WCML capacity be exhausted? HS2 state that actual growth on Virgin has been around 10% per year between 2008 and 2011, and imply that this high level of growth is likely to continue. We believe this is wrong; the route upgrade was completed in 2008, with major reductions in journey time and frequency increases, so high levels of growth would certainly be expected for three or four years, particularly after years of disruption during the upgrade – but this level of growth is most unlikely to continue. HS2 seek to dismiss pricing as a means of smoothing demand on the basis of a 2006/7 AECOM study for DfT – but it appears that this was focussed on commuter, not long distance flows, which have different characteristics. Question 4 – Implications of Evergreen 3 HS2 Ltd confirms they have not modelled the impact of Evergreen 3. This project, completed on 4th September, provides an attractive alternative to the WCML route to the West Midlands, with only slightly longer journey times and peak fares little more than half Virgin’s. Evergreen 3 has been carried out at the franchisee’s risk, at no cost to the taxpayer, and will certainly free up capacity on the current Virgin service, yet this significant upgrade has effectively been dismissed as irrelevant. HS2 Ltd also state that the Chiltern route is only a viable alternative for passenger travelling from London to Birmingham but this is vitally important as the first phase of HS2 is only from London to Birmingham and is the only phase upon which HS2 have produced any information or detailed analysis Question 7 – Disruption Impacts of HS2 Euston Works We note that, in contrast to their previous evidence of July 2011 which identified that they would be able to provide the off peak service during the reconstruction, this in itself being a 40% reduction from the peak service (ref), HS2 Ltd are now saying that they expect to maintain current service levels throughout the Euston reconstruction period, except for major closures at Bank Holiday periods, despite a reduction from 18 to 14 platforms and wholesale reconstruction of the approach tracks.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Taking Britain Further Heathrow’S Plan for Connecting the UK to Growth
    VOLUME 1 Taking Britain further Heathrow’s plan for connecting the UK to growth #BritainsHeathrow Disclaimer This document has been prepared by Heathrow Airport Limited solely in response to an invitation from the Airports Commission. It should not be used for any other purpose or in any other context and Heathrow Airport Limited accepts no responsibility for its use in that regard Contents Volume 1 - Technical submission Contents ........................................................................................................................ 3 Foreword ....................................................................................................................... 8 Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 11 Connecting for growth ................................................................................................................... 12 Listening to what our stakeholders say ........................................................................................... 18 Our vision for a world-class hub airport ........................................................................................... 20 Connecting all of the UK ................................................................................................................ 24 Building a sustainable Heathrow ..................................................................................................... 29 The deliverable solution .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the United States
    Parsons Brinckerhoff 2010 William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Monograph 26 Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the United States Fellow: Francis P. Banko Professional Associate Principal Project Manager Lead Investigator: Jackson H. Xue Rail Vehicle Engineer December 2012 136763_Cover.indd 1 3/22/13 7:38 AM 136763_Cover.indd 1 3/22/13 7:38 AM Parsons Brinckerhoff 2010 William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Monograph 26 Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the United States Fellow: Francis P. Banko Professional Associate Principal Project Manager Lead Investigator: Jackson H. Xue Rail Vehicle Engineer December 2012 First Printing 2013 Copyright © 2013, Parsons Brinckerhoff Group Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, mechanical (including photocopying), recording, taping, or information or retrieval systems—without permission of the pub- lisher. Published by: Parsons Brinckerhoff Group Inc. One Penn Plaza New York, New York 10119 Graphics Database: V212 CONTENTS FOREWORD XV PREFACE XVII PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH 3 1.1 Unprecedented Support for High Speed Rail in the U.S. ....................3 1.2 Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the U.S. .....4 1.3 Research Objectives . 6 1.4 William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Participants ...........................6 1.5 Host Manufacturers and Operators......................................7 1.6 A Snapshot in Time .................................................10 CHAPTER 2 HOST MANUFACTURERS AND OPERATORS, THEIR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 11 2.1 Overview . 11 2.2 Introduction to Host HSR Manufacturers . 11 2.3 Introduction to Host HSR Operators and Regulatory Agencies .
    [Show full text]
  • Heathrow Economics Study Expansion of Heathrow Airport
    Heathrow Economics Study Expansion of Heathrow airport GLA September 2006 Heathrow Economics Study Expansion of Heathrow airport Heathrow Economics Study Expansion of Heathrow airport Contents Page FOREWORD I SUMMARY II Background ii Methodology ii Main Findings ii 1. INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Background 3 1.2 Objective of the study 3 1.3 Methodology 4 1.4 Structure of report 4 2. TRANSPORT COSTS AND BENEFITS 5 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 General Assumptions 5 2.3 Passenger Demand Forecasts 7 2.4 Capacity Constraint 8 2.5 Benefits 10 2.6 Costs 12 2.7 Government Revenue 12 2.8 Conclusions 13 3. WIDER ECONOMIC BENEFITS 14 3.1 Introduction 14 3.2 Employment and regeneration 14 3.3 Agglomeration (Productivity and Business) 15 3.4 Tourism 15 3.5 Conclusion 15 4. EFFECTS ON THE SCALE OF CAPACITY REQUIRED 17 4.1 Introduction 17 4.2 Transport appraisal 17 4.3 Making more efficient use of existing capacity 17 4.4 Conclusion 20 5. EFFECTS ON THE CHOICE OF LOCATION 21 5.1 Introduction 21 5.2 Transport benefits 21 5.3 Environmental issues 22 5.4 The need for a transport hub 22 5.5 Conclusion 23 6. IMPACT ON THE AVIATION INDUSTRY AND REGIONS 24 6.1 Introduction 24 6.2 The impact of a third runway at Heathrow compared to an additional runway elsewhere in the South East 24 6.3 The impact of providing additional capacity in the South East compared to constrained capacity 24 Heathrow Economics Study Expansion of Heathrow airport 6.4 Conclusion 25 7.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of BAA
    House of Commons Transport Committee The future of BAA Fourth Report of Session 2007–08 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 5 March 2008 HC 119 Published on 14 March 2008 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Transport Committee The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Transport and its associated public bodies. Current membership Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich) (Chairman) Mr David Clelland MP (Labour, Tyne Bridge) Clive Efford MP (Labour, Eltham) Mrs Louise Ellman MP (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) Mr Philip Hollobone MP (Conservative, Kettering) Mr John Leech MP (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington) Mr Eric Martlew MP (Labour, Carlisle) Mr Lee Scott MP (Conservative, Ilford North) David Simpson MP (Democratic Unionist, Upper Bann) Mr Graham Stringer MP (Labour, Manchester Blackley) Mr David Wilshire MP (Conservative, Spelthorne) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/transcom. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Tom Healey (Clerk), Annette Toft (Second Clerk), Richard Ward (Assistant Clerk, Scrutiny Unit), David Davies (Committee Specialist), Tim Steer (Committee Specialist), Alison Mara (Committee Assistant), Ronnie Jefferson (Secretary), Gaby Henderson (Senior Office Clerk) and Laura Kibby (Media Officer).
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Pendolino High-Speed Rail on the Structure of Buildings Located in the Proximity of Railway Tracks
    Int. J. of Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2016, vol.21, No.1, pp.231-238 DOI: 10.1515/ijame-2016-0015 Technical note THE EFFECT OF PENDOLINO HIGH-SPEED RAIL ON THE STRUCTURE OF BUILDINGS LOCATED IN THE PROXIMITY OF RAILWAY TRACKS K. GRĘBOWSKI* and Z. ULMAN Department of Structural Mechanics Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering Department of Technical Bases of Architectural Design Faculty of Architecture Gdansk University of Technology ul. Narutowicza 11/12, 80-233 Gdansk, POLAND E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected] The following research focuses on the dynamic analysis of impact of the high-speed train induced vibrations on the structures located near railway tracks. The office complex chosen as the subject of calculations is located in the northern part of Poland, in Gdańsk, in the proximity of Pendolino, the high speed train route. The high speed trains are the response for the growing needs for a more efficient railway system. However, with a higher speed of the train, the railway induced vibrations might cause more harmful resonance in the structures of the nearby buildings. The damage severity depends on many factors such as the duration of said resonance and the presence of additional loads. The studies and analyses helped to determinate the method of evaluating the impact of railway induced vibrations on any building structure. The dynamic analysis presented in the research is an example of a method which allows an effective calculation of the impact of vibrations via SOFISTIK program. Key words: high-speed trains, FEM, dynamic analysis, railway tracks, structural damage.
    [Show full text]
  • High Speed Rail
    House of Commons Transport Committee High Speed Rail Tenth Report of Session 2010–12 Volume III Additional written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 24 May, 7, 14, 21 and 28 June, 12 July, 6, 7 and 13 September and 11 October 2011 Published on 8 November 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited The Transport Committee The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Transport and its Associate Public Bodies. Current membership Mrs Louise Ellman (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) (Chair) Steve Baker (Conservative, Wycombe) Jim Dobbin (Labour/Co-operative, Heywood and Middleton) Mr Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South) Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West) Kwasi Kwarteng (Conservative, Spelthorne) Mr John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester Withington) Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys) Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Julian Sturdy (Conservative, York Outer) The following were also members of the committee during the Parliament. Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton) Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South) Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North) Gavin Shuker (Labour/Co-operative, Luton South) Angela Smith (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Report: Commercial and Financial Analysis of the Iog Option Based on KPMG’S Analysis
    Inner Thames Estuary Feasibility Study Response to Airports Commission Call for Evidence The Mayor of London’s Submission: Supporting technical documents 23 May 2014 Title: Supplementary Report: Commercial and Financial Analysis of the IoG option based on KPMG’s analysis Author: Ernst and Young (EY) Purpose of paper: To identify the key assumptions used in the Airports Commission’s / KPMG’s analysis of the commercial viability of an Inner Thames Estuary hub airport, and adjust this analysis in light of market practice and precedents of regulated airports and other utilities. Key message: The threefold increase in landing charges claimed by the Airports Commission is a significant overestimate, and based on flawed financial and commercial assumptions. Isle of Grain Hub Airport Supplementary Report: Commercial and Financial Analysis of the IoG option based on KPMG’s analysis 22 May 2014 Ernst & Young LLP Ernst & Young LLP Tel: + 44 207 951 2000 1 More London Place Fax: + 44 207 951 1345 London ey.com SE1 2AF Tel: 023 8038 2000 Transport for London 22 May 2014 Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL Dear Sirs, A new Hub airport – the required increase in aeronautical charges In accordance with our appointment to provide services under the terms and conditions of our Framework Agreement with TfL (reference number TfL 90400), we have prepared this supporting document as per TfL’s instructions to perform a high level financial analysis to identify the key assumptions used in AC/KPMG’s analysis of the commercial viability of the IoG Hub. Then, based on market practice and precedents of regulated airports and other utilities, adjust AC/KPMG’s analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Airport for London
    November 2011 A new airport for London Part 2 – The economic benefits of a new hub airport Greater London Authority November 2011 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 Cover photograph © BAA Limited Contents 3 Mayor’s foreword 4 Executive summary 6 Introduction 20 1: The London economy 22 2: The benefits of aviation 26 3: The implications for airport capacity requirements 48 4: Requirements of an efficient national hub airport 64 5: The limitations of Heathrow 68 6: Future hub airport demand 78 7: Hub airport benefits 92 8: Meeting the Government’s growth agenda 98 9: Key findings 101 Appendices A: ‘Hubbing’ at Heathrow 105 B: Forecasting methodology 113 C: Other cities’ strategies 115 Footnotes and references 125 4 Mayor’s foreword Next summer, the eyes of the world will be on London as the setting for a contest on an epic scale. In many ways, London is involved in a less well known but nonetheless epic contest of its own – one for connectivity with the rest of the world. We cannot afford to lose. A host of up-and-coming competitors want to beat London at the things we have until now done best. By emulating and then leap-frogging London in terms of its aviation links, they hope to usurp us in terms of all the things aviation has enabled: a dynamic economy, a vibrant, international population and the cornucopia of cultural riches this brings with it, and much more besides.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Competitiveness in the Rail and Transit Industry
    Global Competitiveness in the Rail and Transit Industry Michael Renner and Gary Gardner Global Competitiveness in the Rail and Transit Industry Michael Renner and Gary Gardner September 2010 2 GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS IN THE RAIL AND TRANSIT INDUSTRY © 2010 Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C. Printed on paper that is 50 percent recycled, 30 percent post-consumer waste, process chlorine free. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Worldwatch Institute; of its directors, officers, or staff; or of its funding organizations. Editor: Lisa Mastny Designer: Lyle Rosbotham Table of Contents 3 Table of Contents Summary . 7 U.S. Rail and Transit in Context . 9 The Global Rail Market . 11 Selected National Experiences: Europe and East Asia . 16 Implications for the United States . 27 Endnotes . 30 Figures and Tables Figure 1. National Investment in Rail Infrastructure, Selected Countries, 2008 . 11 Figure 2. Leading Global Rail Equipment Manufacturers, Share of World Market, 2001 . 15 Figure 3. Leading Global Rail Equipment Manufacturers, by Sales, 2009 . 15 Table 1. Global Passenger and Freight Rail Market, by Region and Major Industry Segment, 2005–2007 Average . 12 Table 2. Annual Rolling Stock Markets by Region, Current and Projections to 2016 . 13 Table 3. Profiles of Major Rail Vehicle Manufacturers . 14 Table 4. Employment at Leading Rail Vehicle Manufacturing Companies . 15 Table 5. Estimate of Needed European Urban Rail Investments over a 20-Year Period . 17 Table 6. German Rail Manufacturing Industry Sales, 2006–2009 . 18 Table 7. Germany’s Annual Investments in Urban Mass Transit, 2009 . 19 Table 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Watchdog Probes
    ANOTHER BAD DAY FOR THE FTSE AS COVID-19 TAKES A TOLL P3 BUSINESS WITH PERSONALITY FRIDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2020 ISSUE 3,566 CITYAM.COM FREE Poor health: Watchdog GLOBAL BRITAIN: probes NMC ANNA MENIN @annafmenin NMC HEALTH had another torrid day yesterday. Trading in the FTSE 100 healthcare operator’s shares was suspended, the Financial DELAYED. Conduct Authority (FCA) HEATHROW EXPANSION HALTED AFTER COURT JUDGMENT launched an investigation into the company, and a major shareholder criticised its handling of an internal inquiry of its finances. News of the FCA probe came a day after the UAE-based hospital operator fired its boss and placed its finance chief on extended sick leave following its own probe into its finances. NMC said it would fully cooperate with the City watchdog. The FCA said earlier this month it was “making enquiries” into NMC after questions were raised over the size of major investors’ holdings in the firm. NMC shares have lost almost two-thirds of their value since December, when US shortseller Muddy Waters published a STEFAN BOSCIA Keith Lindblom found the policy Grant Shapps] has taken a review of it,” A separate legal challenge to the policy report questioning its finances @Stefan_Boscia statement written by the Department Lindblom said. statement by Heathrow Hub, authors of and governance. NMC denied for Transport (DfT) did not take account The challenge — brought forward by a rival airport extension bid, was wrongdoing. THE HIGH Court of Appeal put the skids of the UK’s Paris Climate Agreement mayor of London Sadiq Khan, similarly unsuccessful. On Wednesday, NMC fired on Heathrow airport’s third runway commitments and needed to environmental groups, several local Speaking outside the Royal Courts of chief executive Prasanth bid yesterday, ruling the plans as be re-written.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground-Borne Vibration Measurements of High-Speed Trains
    Ground-Borne Vibration Measurement@ of High-Speed Trains David A. Towers and Hugh J. Saurenman Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., 15 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803 USA Abstract: Ground-borne vibration measurements of high-speed train operations were carried out in France for the TGV (Nerd) and Eurostar trains, in Italy for the Pendolino ETR-450 trains and in Sweden for the X2000 trains. The results indicated a wide spread in the vibration data between the trainsets, and suggested that much of the difference is due to variations in the site geology rather than differences in suspension, axle load or wheel conditions of the trainsets. BACKGROUND Ground-borne vibration measurements ofhigh-speed train operations were carried out in Europe for the TGV (Nerd), Eurostar, Pendolino ETR-450 and X2~ trainsets. The objective of the measurements was to develop vibration- prediction models for a new guidance manual to be published by the U, S. Federal Railroad Administration on “High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.” The tests included measurements of ground- borne vibration at various distances from the track as well as an experimental method to characterize the ground vibration propagation characteristics at each measurement site (1). The propagation test procedure consists of dropping a weight on the ground and simultaneously measuring the impact force and the vibration pulses at various distances from the impact point. The transfer functions between the vibration pulses and the force impulse are then used to characterize vibration propagation. Assuming a linear system, these transfer functions define the relationship between any type of exciting force and the resulting ground vibration.
    [Show full text]
  • Britain's Rail Delivery Group, Comprising the Chief Executives of the Rail Owning Groups, Freight Operators and Network Rail T
    Written evidence from the Rail Delivery Group (ROR 01) 1. This is the response of the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) to the Transport Select Committee’s call for evidence on the reform of the railways. 2. The RDG welcomes the Government’s support for the RDG contained in the Command Paper ‘Reforming our Railways: Putting the Customer First’, which was published today. The Paper calls on the Rail Delivery Group to provide leadership to the industry and to respond to the Government’s strategic challenges. The Command Paper lays out the Government’s vision for an expanding and efficient railway that meets the needs of passengers, freight users and taxpayers. The Government sees the Rail Delivery Group leading the industry in driving up efficiency and demand for the railway. This is a challenge that the Group accepts. 3. The Command Paper calls on the Rail Delivery Group to lead the rail industry in working together to deliver a more efficient, more affordable railway. The Rail Delivery Group is pleased that the Government has recognised that the Group is taking and shaping the industry’s agenda for a sustained programme of improved management and running of the rail network. 4. The Command Paper lists the six priority areas being addressed by the Group • Asset, programme and supply chain management; • Contractual and regulatory reform; • Technology, innovation and working practices; • Train utilisation; • A whole-system approach; and • Industry planning 5. The Rail Delivery Group was created to unlock efficiencies that will improve Britain’s railways. In its first nine months the Group has identified opportunities for a range of savings, for example in asset management through earlier involvement of the operators in planning work on the network.
    [Show full text]