If HS2 was canned, how could infrastructure be improved on the south WCML?

[Bletchleyite]

Note: this isn't for discussion of whether funding would be forthcoming for such changes, it assumes that funding would be available as the Telegraph seem to suggest.

Just going off post 4032 https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...r-hs2-discussion.177112/page-135#post-4390070

Cheers, so can the southern leg and extend platforms - what are we thinking, 16-car trains on LNR? That would be a long walk from the barrier! Hopefully such a project, if it did go that way, would include a rebuild of Euston with a new concourse in the old parcel deck so as to provide multiple ways down to the platforms.

To be fair, if you design infrastructure for the proposed timetable as the Swiss do there are ways capacity could be increased using small changes to infrastructure. For instance, there are few opportunities for trains to overtake on the slow lines from Euston which means that faster trains have to go onto the fast lines. Some stations could be rebuilt with slow-line platform loops to allow overtakes and move the whole LNR service onto the slows. There is space, off the top of my head, to do this at Watford, Tring and Bletchley to name three.

Similarly, if more ICs are needed to stop at MKC, you could add another platform (there is space alongside the A5 if you lop the embankment out) so there is a long loop in both directions rather than just the P5 loop. Added slow-line platforms would also be feasible at Watford Junction using part of the yard and car park.

 

[The Planner]

Watford has been looked at with your suggestions before, but this time a pot would be bigger I assume as they soon threw the fag packet away before. You are likely to have to bring any ETCS fitment forward I suspect and even then I don't believe that will get you huge amounts either, probably sections of 2 minute headway instead of the current 3 on the fasts. Slows would probably benefit more. Grade separation of Ledburn will resurface I expect. DfT might have to bite the bullet and decide on journey time vs more trains too.

 

[Gareth]

I think we'd have to think of platform lengthening, particularly at cities with intercity services.

Underground tunnels for commuter rail services in the large cities, also.

 

[adamedwards]

Widen the whole line by two more tracks at which point HS2 would seem very good value for money indeed given the disruption this would cause.

 

[EastisECML]

New tunnel out of Euston but heading North rather than West. Branches off to connect with the WCML, MML and ECML. I think that would amount to about 20 tph. Still have 415 metre long platforms at Euston and at key major stations (Leeds, Manchester, etc) for 'Super Express' services. Super Express being something like:

London Euston - Birmingham Curzon Street (still build that)
London Euston - Manchester Piccadilly
London Euston - Glasgow
London Euston - Edinburgh
London Euston - Leeds
London Euston - York - Darlington - Newcastle - Edinburgh

 

[Bletchleyite]

I certainly think Euston works remain essential. Perhaps a phased full rebuild to one set of uniform longer platforms, done by building the "HS2 station" first (but connecting it to the WCML instead) and then rebuilding each set of 3/4 in the current station one at a time? That half the platforms are only 8-car certainly causes LNR issues - ideally all peak LNR services could do with being 12-car, but presently that is out of the question even if they e.g. took more 319s or the 365s.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

This is a really interesting question. Hasn't the passenger growth on the Southern WCML over the last decade exceeded the 2.5% assumed in the HS2 business case?

If so and the growth continues at the current rate I can see any decision to cancel phase 1 of HS2 coming back to haunt the government later this decade as as the lack of capacity becomes more accute over the coming years. I carn't see what upgrades can be made on an already congested railway where trains are already 11 or 12 coaches long.

All those that are opposed to HS2 and say we should upgrade existing lines instead never actually specify what works that would entail, how much it would cost or how long it would take and what would be the disruption to existing services in the meantime.

 

[Meerkat]

I certainly think Euston works remain essential. Perhaps a phased full rebuild to one set of uniform longer platforms, done by building the "HS2 station" first (but connecting it to the WCML instead) and then rebuilding each set of 3/4 in the current station one at a time? That half the platforms are only 8-car certainly causes LNR issues - ideally all peak LNR services could do with being 12-car, but presently that is out of the question even if they e.g. took more 319s or the 365s.

Is the current HS2 Euston Plan suitable for connection to WCML or is it at the wrong level and need a new plan?

 

[The Planner]

Is the current HS2 Euston Plan suitable for connection to WCML or is it at the wrong level and need a new plan?

Wrong level, HS2 is a fair bit lower than the conventional railway so it can get down to the tunnel.

 

[DJ_K666]

Here are a few, since I have moved to Rugby the WCML is a stones throw from my house. I am assuming money is no object.

1. Rugby - Leamington and Rugby - Leicester via Ullesthorpe
Reinstate the west end bays at Rugby station to allow two platforms for each line. The line to Leamington would need housing to be demolished but the rest is largely there as the relief road was built to the side of it. Lots of bridges and viaducts are still extant and there's a mainly clear run. The school field in Leamington would most likely have to be crossed by a viaduct. The compulsory purchase laws would need to be modified so that those affected would A) Have a completely new and indistinguishable house (even down to the decor) built away from the path of the new line. Same street name, same layout, same knackered old shed in the back garden. B) Their mortgages would be paid off too, meaning there would be a massive advantage to them. The line into Leamington would have to be rebuilt further south otherwise, as loads of houses would come under the reforms as well as several businesses. A path of least demolition could run from the Banbury line and turn east, completely doubling back and regaining the formation at Radford Semele bridge, near Ricardo. Leicester via Ullesthorpe would have to be aimed at a direct RUG-LEI route avoiding the need to change at Nuneaton, plus the 30 minute wait that involves at present (honestly these timings are as bad as Southern) plus opportunities for a direct run to Nottingham which given the concert I went to at Motorpoint Arena in November would have been really useful.
2. Northampton - Bedford
The Northampton to Bedford route is listed as priority 2, meaning a good few houses need building to make it worthwhile. The fact they are planning to bu. A logical service could be Bedford to Rugby, using the bay platform (3?) then down the Bridge street line from Northampton. Perhaps this could link up to form a combined Bedford to Leamington route via Rugbyild right from Northampton to the M1 at junction 16 should give us all hope though. Probably the same at Bedford

 

[JonathanH]

Here are a few, since I have moved to Rugby the WCML is a stones throw from my house. I am assuming money is no object.

1. Rugby - Leamington and Rugby - Leicester via Ullesthorpe
Reinstate the west end bays at Rugby station to allow two platforms for each line. The line to Leamington would need housing to be demolished but the rest is largely there as the relief road was built to the side of it. Lots of bridges and viaducts are still extant and there's a mainly clear run. The school field in Leamington would most likely have to be crossed by a viaduct. The compulsory purchase laws would need to be modified so that those affected would A) Have a completely new and indistinguishable house (even down to the decor) built away from the path of the new line. Same street name, same layout, same knackered old shed in the back garden. B) Their mortgages would be paid off too, meaning there would be a massive advantage to them. The line into Leamington would have to be rebuilt further south otherwise, as loads of houses would come under the reforms as well as several businesses. A path of least demolition could run from the Banbury line and turn east, completely doubling back and regaining the formation at Radford Semele bridge, near Ricardo. Leicester via Ullesthorpe would have to be aimed at a direct RUG-LEI route avoiding the need to change at Nuneaton, plus the 30 minute wait that involves at present (honestly these timings are as bad as Southern) plus opportunities for a direct run to Nottingham which given the concert I went to at Motorpoint Arena in November would have been really useful.
2. Northampton - Bedford
The Northampton to Bedford route is listed as priority 2, meaning a good few houses need building to make it worthwhile. The fact they are planning to bu. A logical service could be Bedford to Rugby, using the bay platform (3?) then down the Bridge street line from Northampton. Perhaps this could link up to form a combined Bedford to Leamington route via Rugbyild right from Northampton to the M1 at junction 16 should give us all hope though. Probably the same at Bedford

Why is it reasonable to reinstate old lines on old alignments but not build HS2 on a new alignment?

How would either improve infrastructure on the South WCML? Are you suggesting movement of some flow away from the WCML as a result of these lines?

 

[Speed43125]

I'm surprised there aren't suggestions yet on 12-car Chiltern Main Line or the obligatory 3rd rail chiltern idea.

 

[tbtc]

I suspect that the answer will be "spend huge sums on infrastructure capable of taking fifteen/sixteen coach trains... remodelling stations/junctions to accommodate much longer services... disrupting almost every existing station for long periods to allow the work to happen... possibly spending just as much money as HS2 Phase 1 but with significantly fewer benefits"?

Why is it reasonable to reinstate old lines on old alignments but not build HS2 on a new alignment?

This is what we keep coming back to - it seems that new railway is fine as long as it's on the sacred lay-lines that our Victorian ancestors followed - people will complain about every tree chopped down or house repossessed if we build HS2 but seem capable of turning a blind eye to such things happening when re-opening lines (even though flora/fauna will have taken over parts of the trackbed in the past fifty years).

Any line would have to be built to modern standard, whether it was a re-opening or an old alignment, so it won't be a case of patching up old bridges - it'd be a case of "rip it up and start again" (you might argue with this but we have to deal with the reality of how complicated/expensive things would be - everything will have to be fit for purpose, everything will have to comply with modern standards - that may well mean knocking everything down, maybe even rebuilding embankments from scratch - this isn't a preserved railway where such standards don't matter

I'm surprised there aren't suggestions yet on 12-car Chiltern Main Line or the obligatory 3rd rail chiltern idea.

I only need "GCR" to come up and I've got a full house!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm surprised there aren't suggestions yet on 12-car Chiltern Main Line or the obligatory 3rd rail chiltern idea.

The Chiltern Line certainly needs electrifying though that is needed whether HS2 is built or not.

12-car equivalent on Chiltern is only an extension of 33m, remember they are a 23m railway (I think they can do up to 9-car?)

 

[The Planner]

Here are a few, since I have moved to Rugby the WCML is a stones throw from my house. I am assuming money is no object.

1. Rugby - Leamington and Rugby - Leicester via Ullesthorpe
Reinstate the west end bays at Rugby station to allow two platforms for each line. The line to Leamington would need housing to be demolished but the rest is largely there as the relief road was built to the side of it. Lots of bridges and viaducts are still extant and there's a mainly clear run. The school field in Leamington would most likely have to be crossed by a viaduct. The compulsory purchase laws would need to be modified so that those affected would A) Have a completely new and indistinguishable house (even down to the decor) built away from the path of the new line. Same street name, same layout, same knackered old shed in the back garden. B) Their mortgages would be paid off too, meaning there would be a massive advantage to them. The line into Leamington would have to be rebuilt further south otherwise, as loads of houses would come under the reforms as well as several businesses. A path of least demolition could run from the Banbury line and turn east, completely doubling back and regaining the formation at Radford Semele bridge, near Ricardo. Leicester via Ullesthorpe would have to be aimed at a direct RUG-LEI route avoiding the need to change at Nuneaton, plus the 30 minute wait that involves at present (honestly these timings are as bad as Southern) plus opportunities for a direct run to Nottingham which given the concert I went to at Motorpoint Arena in November would have been really useful.

Ok, we are talking money no object speculative stuff, but you are just importing a massive performance and clash by crossing trains from the west end bays across the main lines to the Leamington branch on the flat.

2. Northampton - Bedford
The Northampton to Bedford route is listed as priority 2, meaning a good few houses need building to make it worthwhile. The fact they are planning to bu. A logical service could be Bedford to Rugby, using the bay platform (3?) then down the Bridge street line from Northampton. Perhaps this could link up to form a combined Bedford to Leamington route via Rugbyild right from Northampton to the M1 at junction 16 should give us all hope though. Probably the same at Bedford

Northampton council would need to be persuaded to want to do that, they asked Network Rail to close part of the Brackmills branch to build a road across it.

The Chiltern Line certainly needs electrifying though that is needed whether HS2 is built or not.

12-car equivalent on Chiltern is only an extension of 33m, remember they are a 23m railway (I think they can do up to 9-car?)

9 car is a problem at the north end but far from insurmountable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

9 car is a problem at the north end but far from insurmountable.

They'll have to do something about that if they're going to reform all the 168s into 3-car units, as 6 is too short for some services.

 

[DJ_K666]

Ok, we are talking money no object speculative stuff, but you are just importing a massive performance and clash by crossing trains from the west end bays across the main lines to the Leamington branch on the flat.

Northampton council would need to be persuaded to want to do that, they asked Network Rail to close part of the Brackmills branch to build a road across it.


9 car is a problem at the north end but far from insurmountable.

I think running things from Northampton would relieve crossing the main lines as you'd be heading from that direction anyway. As for Bedford make that an extension of the same service to avoid using more rolling stock. That's if Leamington to Bedford is viable of course. Like I said it's speculative. Northampton council could be persuaded either by telling them it's a great idea they just had or just taking it out of their hands altogether and letting the DaFT do it over their heads.

 

[DJ_K666]

I suspect that the answer will be "spend huge sums on infrastructure capable of taking fifteen/sixteen coach trains... remodelling stations/junctions to accommodate much longer services... disrupting almost every existing station for long periods to allow the work to happen... possibly spending just as much money as HS2 Phase 1 but with significantly fewer benefits"?



This is what we keep coming back to - it seems that new railway is fine as long as it's on the sacred lay-lines that our Victorian ancestors followed - people will complain about every tree chopped down or house repossessed if we build HS2 but seem capable of turning a blind eye to such things happening when re-opening lines (even though flora/fauna will have taken over parts of the trackbed in the past fifty years).

Any line would have to be built to modern standard, whether it was a re-opening or an old alignment, so it won't be a case of patching up old bridges - it'd be a case of "rip it up and start again" (you might argue with this but we have to deal with the reality of how complicated/expensive things would be - everything will have to be fit for purpose, everything will have to comply with modern standards - that may well mean knocking everything down, maybe even rebuilding embankments from scratch - this isn't a preserved railway where such standards don't matter



I only need "GCR" to come up and I've got a full house!

It would relieve the freight paths by being able to route them onto the MML as well via Leicester and Derby plus give Rugby terminating trains an out of the way run to Leamington. There's a lot of freight to and from the DIRFT terminal so getting that away more quickly would increase capacity overall.

A full house would be the Clifton - Market Harborough line as well as the GCR That said the rolling stock at Finmere is being moved out so looks like a chunk of it will be becoming HS2 even if it isn't recognisably GCR.

 

[Speed43125]

The Chiltern Line certainly needs electrifying though that is needed whether HS2 is built or not.

12-car equivalent on Chiltern is only an extension of 33m, remember they are a 23m railway (I think they can do up to 9-car?)

That's correct they are up to 9-car.

 

[The Planner]

It would relieve the freight paths by being able to route them onto the MML as well via Leicester and Derby plus give Rugby terminating trains an out of the way run to Leamington. There's a lot of freight to and from the DIRFT terminal so getting that away more quickly would increase capacity overall.

A full house would be the Clifton - Market Harborough line as well as the GCR That said the rolling stock at Finmere is being moved out so looks like a chunk of it will be becoming HS2 even if it isn't recognisably GCR.

What are you doing on the MML to create the capacity for the freight?

 

[The Planner]

They'll have to do something about that if they're going to reform all the 168s into 3-car units, as 6 is too short for some services.

It is bread and butter stuff, signals just need moving etc, Chiltern are already asking us to look at/do it.

 

[DJ_K666]

Its a tertiary line so freight is using

What are you doing on the MML to create the capacity for the freight?

It's a lesser main line so freight is using spare paths. It's all speculative anyway.

 

[The Planner]

For 75mph 1800 tonne container trains? ok.....

 

[DJ_K666]

For 75mph 1800 tonne container trains? ok.....

Like I said, speculative and unlikely. Most of the ones going past my window are half empty

 

[ashkeba]

Northampton council could be persuaded either by telling them it's a great idea they just had or just taking it out of their hands altogether and letting the DaFT do it over their heads.

Isn't Northampton council being forcibly merged with others because of the football stadium scandal and bankruptcy of their county council? So a new council may have a new view on it anyway.

 

[DJ_K666]

Isn't Northampton council being forcibly merged with others because of the football stadium scandal and bankruptcy of their county council? So a new council may have a new view on it anyway.

Wouldn't surprise me tbh. I know when I reach the Warks/Northants border as the road surface suddenly threatens to shake my fillings out lol.. Oddly enough one of my bus routes takes me right past the site of Daventry station

 

[mr_jrt]

FWIW, I don't see HS2 being canned. But, assuming it was, I think the following would wring out a bit more performance from the WCML:

Several new flyovers between the fast and slow lines to reduce the need to run on the fasts, OR, conversion south of Roade to paired by direction with grade separation at Roade for the Northampton loop. Pretty much every station has platforms on both the fasts and the slows already, so the majority of the work would be upgrading one of the slow lines to the same as the current fast lines and putting in crossovers.

Put in loops on the slow lines at stations. As mentioned above at Tring, Watford et al., but to that list I'd add Harrow (old Stanmore platform), Wembley (knock through old parcels platform) and a rebuilt station at Willesden. Maybe shuffle Bushey station's slow line platforms south - old diagrams show the existing southbound slow platform as a small island with goods lines on the other side. All of those interventions would give 3 slow line platforms at every station south of Tring, meaning there would be a bi-di though line at every stop something faster could in theory be timetabled through.

...aaand that's about it. The WCML is full at peak times. Unless you either squeeze more passengers onto the trains, change our cultural travel times, build new lines to offload the demand, then that's about it. God help the poor souls once all those high-density buildings are built at Watford on the old railway lands. The trains are already full and already 12-car (mostly) - if HS2 doesn't free up capacity on the fast lines for the outer surburban services to in turn free up capacity on the slow lines for more suburban services it's going to be horrific.

 

[HSTEd]

Ban freight from the WCML and order a new fleet of Pendolino-type trains (with high density interiors) for secondary and local services so that every train on the line has identical performance.

Some freight could be routed over the Chiltern which would have it's low capacity passenger trains reduced to free capacity.

 

[Bill EWS]

Dare I say it! You could reopen as much of old GCR London Extension route as possible for freight and possibly some passenger workings to ree up the WCML and other man routes. If they spent the billions on this route instead of one HS2 line to Birmingham it would just be 'change' compared to those Billions.

 

[Esker-pades]

Ban freight from the WCML and order a new fleet of Pendolino-type trains (with high density interiors) for secondary and local services so that every train on the line has identical performance.

Some freight could be routed over the Chiltern which would have it's low capacity passenger trains reduced to free capacity.

Given that passengers regularly complain of overcrowding on Chiltern Railways, I'm not too sure how you're going to get them to reduce their service.