There was also a very peculiar train crash in the UK just a few days ago. A train hit a stationary train. That shouldn't really happen in this day and age. Sabotage was the first thing that came to my mind.
It also feels like "a train hitting a stationary one shouldn't happen", but that's the textbook rear-end-after-a-SPAD scenario - e.g. Ladbroke Grove. No official has hinted at foul play either. Everything so far points to an accident in the signalling chain or faulty TPWS. But the interim report is due in two days so we'll see more then.
Perhaps a signalling/protection sabotage?
> No official has hinted at foul play either
That doesn't really mean much. Officials in the UK are incredibly reserved in hinting at something that they can't back up with evidence. Since they're still investigating, they keep their mouth shut. But yes, the sensible thing is to wait for the report.
I'm sure that even if the official report totally excludes the possibility of sabotage, for some people that in itself will be the clearest possible sign that there was, in fact, sabotage at play.
[0] https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/nationwide-gsmr-outage-...
British person living in Berlin.
Trains in Germany and the UK for main-line running both use 1435mm gauge. UK trains are not a custom size.
They were trying to run trains faster than typical continental high speed lines, which meant custom design work that needs loads of additional testing and certification. Rather than just use the Spanish or French high speed designs.
This is a project with a 200+ year shelf life. Designing to 300 or less would have been short sighted, and many of the changes to accommodate such high speeds actually reduce costs in the long term (slab track, headroom to catch up delayed services, ability for one trainset to operate more services per day etc).
The cost overruns of HS2 are primarily from plain old poor project management, complex planning law and constant political meddling, not engineering decisions.
Air resistance is a killer as you go faster. So for trains 300 is usually about the best compromise between energy use and speed. If you want to go faster a jet at altitude is going to be much faster at a better fuel efficiency. High speeds make sense for long distances.
The vast majority of the tunnelling for HS2 has been either to get in and out of dense urban areas without too much demolition, or to reduce the political cost of driving a building site through Tory heartlands (Chilterns AONB).
That's already been reduced to 320 km/h under this year's "HS2 reset". Which I imagine in reality will be 300 km/h normally at most, with even lower speeds seen day to day
Interestingly the written report to the government stated "However, no railway in the UK, or globally, is currently engineered for 360 kph". Are you incorrect or did they forget to include China in their research?
Anyway, I thought these were last decade's talking points? I thought it was all about capacity now, not speed? Except I thought there were also rumblings about reducing capacity from the previous announcements? Hard to keep up...!
Indeed, which has eroded trust. That along with huge cost revisions, you can see why some people are incredibly pessimistic about the entire project
It was all planned lies: high speed rail is sexy. It sold the project.
> Consistently high average speeds increase capacity - I wish this had been actually communicated.
Show us the numbers then ;) And the cost benefit of higher speed vs longer stations and trains
Edit: AFAIK, some of it - mainly high-speed trains - is designed according to DB specs and subsequently offered under a new name (and with changes) to other train companies. For example DB ICE 3 (manufactured by Siemens) / Siemens Velaro.
The Flixtrain company uses 40+ years old IC (intercity) cars - they have no air conditioning and it's really loud inside with open windows, especially so in tunnels. That is the kind of stuff that DB sells.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofima_coach
Also no real opening of windows anymore, because early onset of https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druckertüchtigte_Schienenfahrz... <- meaning pressure protection against passing trains at high speeds, entering tunnels, and such.
Anyway, in the 80ies they had AC. In Germany, als die Bahn noch kam, regular IC, no matter if 4-, or 6-seat cabin(depending on class), or Großraumwagen. I remember because sometimes I've been naughty and dialed it down a little, after opening the panel at the end of the wagon with a multitool. Non-destructive, OFC :-)
Like this, but without screen, and more buttons.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/13-04-29...
I liked to sit on the window, and there was a metallic grille on the underside of the window. With small slits, maybe 2 to 3 cm long, 3mm wide, a few 100 at all? And that blasted right into your face, or your side if you sat upright, or leaned back. Not noisy, just cold.
Different, probably later design, and apparently adjustable.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/13-04-29...
In the Nahverkehrswagen (Silberlinge) it was different. They had no AC, just heating. Which you could turn down or fully off with an open lever. Nobody ever did that. Except me :-) At least their windows could be opened by pushing the upper half down.
https://www.360cities.net/image/abnrz-silberling-nahverkehr-...
This is totally incorrect.
We buy our trains from French/Swiss/German/Spanish/Belgian manufacturers, or build them ourselves in eg Derby.
We do not buy our trains from DB.