It's really mind boggling how bad this sketch was drawn. They say "East Midlands" to be ambiguous, as on that Longitude it could only be referring to Derby instead of Nottingham, being the last much more populated. And Derby is about the same size as Stoke-On-Trent. (Not Drawned on the map). Manchester's conurbation is 3 times bigger then Sheffield, and is also about the same size as Birmingham's (2,6mi). It clearly deserved a direct route after Birmingham with an obvious station in Stoke in Between. That is basic first principles reasoning. Unbelievable.
)In my mind if a high speed rail is proposed, it should be done right. That translates to fewer curves and more direct routes. Dead-end stations are a no go! And face busy stations, with too much traffic and risking a poor reliability is also not desired. Furthermore, highspeed trains could lose a lot of time Taxiing in and out of city centers. In my view, they require deditated lines and platforms, the whole line must have the ETCS in order to assure ponctuallity and only trains with ETCS enabled should be allowed on that track. I follow at close what they are doing in Stuttgart. The tunnels arriving at the new main station are designed for high speed aproach. If we are already spending billions, let we spend a bit more and do it perfectly. I'm not proposing new stations entirely, I'm proposing 2 platforms underground, sometimes 4 (Birmingham and Manchester, and only if the line diverged to Dublin/Liverpool), just like subwaystations but with larger diameter size for the higher speeds, but nothing too fancy.
Surely an enormous amount of the released capacity comes from the fact that end-end passengers are no longer taking up room on the trains? What proportion of the passengers on a London-Birmingham train are doing the whole journey? 50%? 75%?
Each platform can take between 4 and 6 trains per hour. Trains would stop for around 5 minutes, and then go on. I guess on peak hours a frequency of 1 train every 10 minutes. And off Peak hours every 15 minutes. With a main Trunk connecting all those cities, it seems doable. ETCS is a must!
Yes, but the problem is I'm not sure how many of those seats you can sell if you are politically constrained to the current stopping patterns.
There would not be the same stopping patterns on the legacy network though, so that’s moot.
Much as I'd love to see through trains to Europe, I agree with this. Birmingham to Scotland is a much bigger market to target than Birmingham to Paris, likewise there are major gains that could be made with London-Scotland, if only the full HS2 network could be built (incidentally why were the Newcastle services proposed to terminate there rather than continue to Edinburgh? Wouldn't London-Edinburgh be faster via Newcastle than via Carlisle?
What's up there, out of interest? Presumably no parcels since the opening of PRDC.
So a total of four multiple units, each with 320kph crumple zones/pointy noses, each with full sets of catering facilities, first class, accessible toilets etc. (let's face it, this is a journey long enough to demand proper catering). Well I suppose that you'll have no need to worry about lack of patronage, you'll have similar issues to class 220s!
Famously: la gare des betteraves (station in a beetroot field).
Bear in mind that HS2’s Eastern Leg went no further than Leeds, even though services continued to Newcastle.
I thought that it was 3:48 (though I'd have to flick back through Wikipedia's page history to check if this was amended after Golborne was dropped).
1:24 on Lumo.
True, unless they're like the Sprinters, but that makes them less aerodynamic.
That states that Edinburgh and Glasgow would both be 3hrs 38 via Carstairs. I'm going to take that with a pinch of salt given that there should be a five minute difference anyway.Three-hour Scotland to London rail journeys on track
Governments agree joint aim on train times.www.gov.uk
Only 2tph with 200m units. Extending the Eastern Leg services allows 4tph to Edinburgh, removing the fast trains from the Southern ECML and freeing up the paths for services calling at more stations. We currently have both slower and faster trains to Edinburgh and even the slower ones are well patronised by end-to-end passengers. 3x200m per hour would just about equal the current London to Edinburgh capacity, so why not go to 4x200m?
You can't be serious. You're joking, right?
Yes, I was being sarcastic.
Remember that Edinburgh is to the West of Carlisle. Since services to Glasgow would already be going via Carlisle, it makes sense to concentrate investment on that axis.
What investment would be required other than a few extra "classic compatible" sets on the rolling stock order?
Edinburgh is West of Carlise?
To some extent this makes sense, but the problem with that is there is no significant population, other than Carlisle itself, between the Scottish Central Belt and Lancaster!
Yes, Edinburgh is also west of Bristol. The railway doesn't run in a straight line however, so you have to go the long way around to get there.
I was talking geographically.
So was I. Edinburgh's longitude is 3°11'W, Carlisle is 2°56'W, Bristol is 2°35'W. In fact Edinburgh is pretty much due north of Cardiff.
This image from Google Earth with lines of longitude added illustrates it well. Edinburgh is further west than the vast majority of England.
It is if you're in Glasgow.
Wow, really makes you appreciate that the Earth is a sphere but also how maps often displace things wrong.
Fully agree, one mistake was to make Curzon Street a HS station only, meaning only HSR trains will call there.