Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Infrastructure & Stations' started by deltic, 10 Nov 2011.
What not to do? Dont cave in to local pressure for a station for every town?
Unless King's Cross and Moorgate are planning on closing some time soon there will be plenty of paths on the southern ECML that dont involve heading into Thameslink.
As I understand it the Thameslink paths are supplementary
Hmm,I can see the logic of Toton, since it's in between Derby & Nottingham, since Nottingham would be too much of a dog-leg & Derby wouldn't have the population density. I suppose local services could potentially stop there with a few new chords installed. Likewise the NET tram is already planned to run to a park & ride ont the A52 near stapleford, so extending NET to Toton sidings would only need short extension.
I can also see why running into Sheffield would be difficult / costly, owing to extreme congestion already in & out of sheffield & lack of space for any new surface lines.
However, advice from SNCF to the transport select committee, seemed firm that new lines HS(/high capacity lines) give greater benefits when they run into city centres.
I suspect for a large proportion of Sheffield residents Meadowhall will mean either changing buses in the city centre, or having to first get a train from the city centre or quite a long tram or taxi ride, this will surely reduce the useage. On the flip side I suppose north Sheffield and Rotherham will be pleased.
Being cynical one might have expected HS2 to go to Derby because of the Bombardier fiasco!
They can be, at least, a bit more imaginitive than not thinking beyond the usual 'regional capitals'.
They dont have to really, look at the geography, if you imagine France is a circle, the centre Paris is just north of the centre and all the other large cities are on the edge of the circle, which means the ideal network arrangement is radial. While there are some small towns inside the circle theres no cities so very little reason to stop other than occasional services and yet local governments forced them to build lots of stations in the middle of nowhere with tiny userships in order to pass through their territories. These stations serve a regional purpose ensuring the populations of the rural regions can access the services as the regional network in France is pretty **** poor but very little economic purpose due to sparse population. This slows the trains down even if their not stopping and SNCF says its their biggest regret when the network was built.
Now look at Britain and its more like a reverse L shape with two vertical lines being the East and West coast, all the cities are arranged along these lines so its more like sewing the populations together along the line. Theres plenty of possible large city locations along the lines that slowing is inveitable. There is however no need to go even further and add stops for small towns because they already have a very good existing network to use.
The effect of "slow down for stops" is quite heavily overstated in my opinion, if you look at the Tokaido Shinkansen for instance, you can see that it has more stops per unit length than the ECML does, and that manages to serve "minor towns".
When you can build trains that apparently do a standing start to 170mph in 3 minutes and can brake over and over with little to no brake wear the conventional wisdom starts to make less sense.
(TGVs have limited tractive effort due to the limited number of drive axles and limited regenerative braking effort for the same reason)
Well, if you think it through, let's suppose you build an HS2 and decide to put in a stop for Birmingham Airport (and/or Manchester Airport).
You then decide than in addition to the two platform lines it makes sense to have two avoiding lines; so very fast trains can overtake. The stopping lines need to be in a convenient place for passenger interchange (around an airport this might mean crossing the airport underground) and that adds to their cost.
But the two avoiding lines have no need to follow the same right of way and can take a diversion a few miles long by whatever route is cheaper. The stopping lines rejoining the avoiding lines a mile or two North and South of the stop. In the end this is almost the same as putting the stop on classic lines (loading gauge being the only real difference), so if a classic line stop already exists you might as well use it. For Birmingham airport this would mean that Southbound HS2 trains could diverge onto the WCML a mile or two North of Birmingham International and rejoin HS2 a mile or two South. Conversely for Northbound.
This may not be quite as good in some ways as putting in a completely new HS station but it would be one heck of a lot cheaper for almost as good. And there are compensating advantages. Of course Manchester Airport being a terminus rather then a through station is a fly in the ointment, but it would still be cheaper to build a tunnel and make it a through station than create an entirely new quad track HS2 stop.
Theres another problem, points. A high speed train has to slow down for points, it cant take them at full speed or it would derail. The more turnoffs you have the more you would have chokepoints.
As I understand it, German and Japanese high speed lines use points with diverging routes allowing above 110mph and no major restrictions on the through route, but I might be wrong on the latter.
Either way, once you have near fully motored axle trains decelerating for points is a minor concern.
The Guardian are reporting that the Northern end of HS2 won't come before the London end. However, they are saying a recommendation is to start at both ends and meet in the middle, speeding up the process of delivering HS2 in the North without slowing down the process of building HS2 in the South.
It makes sense to start building in London, after all, that is where some of the biggest capacity problems exist.
couldn't they start building it in lots of places at the same time? That's what DB have been doing with the Nuremberg-Erfurt-Leipzig high speed line
Do they want to commit to building it all though at this time? It is quite expensive. It may be that once built from London to Birmingham that there are no finances available to continue for some time.
Its expensive and the planning and parliamentary process for phase 1 is more advanced. There are also cost savings to be made by a phased construction.
I fear that you have made a very valid point here. Financial constraints that apply at present may well affect many projects over the future years and the Euro situation at present is the worse that has ever afflicted this currency. China is the financial power behind many thrones at present and the dollar may not always be the reserve currency that it has been for many years.
Call me cynical, but I'm of the belief it will (if at all) be built to Birmingham and not further.
I'm not the only person to hold this view either. I'd imagine it has crossed various ministers minds before aswell.
So even if the budget allowed, i think this would never happen as the political will isn't there either.
No they aren't, they are mostly diversions of existing services. That's how it's explained in the relevant RUS:
NR London and SE RUS Section 5
Didn't we have a thread on the same thing recently?
The fact that they aren't starting in the North first isn't really news - I'm not sure anyone really expected them to? (in the way that I don't expect Abbey Wood - Docklands to be built before the rest of Crossrail is)
Sorry to sound cynical
Alright then, the current paths will be diverted into Thameslink instead of KGX or Moorgate.
Once the HS2 to Leeds section has captured the Intercity market north to York, FCC will claim they have insufficient capacity and demand that the "worthless" fast paths to Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford and Doncaster be disposed of and replaced with "more cost efficient" commuter paths.
They will then use those paths to increase commuter service and then extend outer suburban trains to Doncaster stopping all stations.
This is all the more likely to happen if a speed limit of 100mph is imposed as someone earlier in the thread suggested.
Either way the ECML south of York looses its intercity service and gets a poor suburban service in return.
Also: As for leaving more paths open for "local trains" on the ECML..... where will these locals even go?
I'm from Grantham (studying at Manchester University but still), the next station going south is in Peterborough, the next one going north is in Newark..... both of which are stations served by Intercity trains (Infact the next northbound station without good intercity service would be Northallerton/Thirsk and the next one southbound is Huntingdon.
There are no small stations around here where service could be improved by deployment of more regionals simply because they are spaced to be suitable for intercity trains already.
The HS2 branch to Leeds is on shakey ground as it is, especially considering the damage it will undoubtedly lead to to the economy of the East Midlands, a far more cost effective solution would be to get the ECML more rapidly accelerating stock, extension of four track lines to Doncaster and cab signalling if the budget covers it.
But thats my 2p.
Costs per mile are cheaper in the North.
Building all three legs of the Y simultaneously is a way to stimulate development and competition, especially if three different contracts to three different engineering firms are handed out. If one believes in a privately funded railway then this is the way to go over a single large tender from government.
Why is it be cheaper to build in the North? Even if it is, it will still be more expensive than just building the London to Birmingham section and then continuing if and when finances are available.
Because land costs are far cheaper. Labour costs are far cheaper and people in the north probably want the thing whereas many in the south don't so pressure for public inquiries.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But this about the UK economy not just about having a new railway.
Even if that is the case (and don't think it will be, given enough time) it will still mean faster journeys from folkstone/london to scotland, because they'll get to Birmingham sooner.
The issue here is finance, the Governments committed to spending £2bn a year formerly Crossrail spend on the project, that means a slow pace of construction taking decades for full completion. They could build it a lot faster but they would have to spend more than £2bn a year and they wont.
So let each leg be privately financed and privately owned when completed. And compete on a basis of time and price with stopping trains on the classic lines.
London to Leeds, half the price for twice the journey time on Network Rail versus HS2 (or some such); which do you want? There is a market for both.
Unless they allow the Pendos onto HS2, which apparently they wont as it would "kill capacity", they will not be able to use it for journies to Scotland because they would have no tilting stock, which means timings above Birmingham would be back to the Class 87/90 era.
Im of the opinion that it wont be built above Birmingham due to the inevitable balooning in costs, and that the leg to Leeds is a bad idea in the first place as it would simply route all the ECML traffic into Euston, HS2 should concentrate on the west midlands/north west and leave an ECML upgrade (quadroupling and cab signalling perhaps) to provide the neccesary capacity into Leeds and the north east.
For the North East its the Birmingham connection which is more important than the London connection.
This is a point I have often wondered about, what will they do with all the pendilions?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Exactly. That would be something new. Going york Birmingham London instead of York Doncaster London is hardly an improvement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If you want to see where the money is being spent look at this.
HS2 and Crossral are nothing compared with what is being spent on building windmills in the middle of the sea.