Most effort/work spent on a railway project that ultimately never happened?

[randyrippley]

Talking of airports.......how much has been wasted over the years for the repeated Foulness/Maplin Sands/Boris Island "new London airport" plans?

 

[Bald Rick]

Very much "joined-up transport". How times change...

Joined up business perhaps.

If it was joined up transport, a lot of lines wouldn’t have been built.

 

[ABB125]

Talking of airports.......how much has been wasted over the years for the repeated Foulness/Maplin Sands/Boris Island "new London airport" plans?

Lots. But it did result in some interesting plans, such as the Southend southern bypass...

Joined up business perhaps.

If it was joined up transport, a lot of lines wouldn’t have been built.

Fair point.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Though you'd have to isolate the specific additional cost attributable to the extra capability. Which in most cases is negligible.

One cost was the narrower profile of the Mark 4 rolling stock, to enable it to remain in gauge when tilting. This made the Mark 4s less spacious than the mark 3s.(It is also a factor in why Voyagers seem cramped, there is less width at elbow height.

 

[najaB]

Very much "joined-up transport". How times change...

But joined up for the profit of the shareholder, rather than for any benefit to the consumer/passenger!

One cost was the narrower profile of the Mark 4 rolling stock, to enable it to remain in gauge when tilting. This made the Mark 4s less spacious than the mark 3s.(It is also a factor in why Voyagers seem cramped, there is less width at elbow height.

While that's a consequence, what is the actual *cost*?

 

[Rail Blues]

I've got 2;

Picc-Vic - Most that was built was an escalator well under the Arndale, however did later get split into the Metrolink and indefinitely up in the air Castlefield upgrade.

Northern Connect - over 100 new trains ordered and all 2 car 158s refurbished to the standard, only for nothing to be heard about it since the 158 refurb.

How much more was done to the 158s and the new stock spec that wouldn't have been done anyway? New stock was needed and the winning bid included a complete refurb of the existing stock anyway. As ever with Northern it was done for peanuts so I can't see where corners could have been cut.

 

[ABB125]

But joined up for the profit of the shareholder, rather than for any benefit to the consumer/passenger!

Though surely that has to be better than "not joined up at all"?

 

[najaB]

Though surely that has to be better than "not joined up at all"?

Not of people end up paying well over the odds because competition gets squeezed out.

 

[ABB125]

Not of people end up paying well over the odds because competition gets squeezed out.

Best make sure there's some competition then!

 

[najaB]

Best make sure there's some competition then!

In the Big Four era there wasn't - that's how they got so big!

 

[ABB125]

In the Big Four era there wasn't - that's how they got so big!

"But trains were cheaper and more comfortable a hundred years ago"

Surely there must have been some competition between the railway companies' non-rail businesses and other "local" companies (shipping, for example)?

 

[najaB]

Surely there must have been some competition between the railway companies' non-rail businesses and other "local" companies (shipping, for example)?

Naturally there would be. But when Joe Bloggs Imports and Exports and [Big 4 Railway] both had goods coming off a ship and being put onto a train, whose do you think was more likely to be transferred in time to make the express to London?

 

[ABB125]

Fair point!

 

[swt_passenger]

During the Grouping era the main railway companies were some of the largest commercial companies, by financial turnover, number of employees, value of assets, etc, in the country. In addition to rail services they had very substantial docks and shipping interests for overseas trade, so a 1930s-scale airport would be small beer to them.

Very much so. Imagine the railway from Southampton to Redbridge running along the high water mark, as it was before the railway built the docks - almost all on reclaimed land. As you say a 1930s airport would be fairly trivial in comparison.

 

[Taunton]

In the Big Four era there wasn't - that's how they got so big!

There certainly was competition - that's how all the branch/local lines lost it to buses and lorries in the 1920s-30s, though it took Beeching for the upper management to recognise this. The railways did buy significantly into most of the major bus companies that ended up in the National Bus Company, and made profits from them at the time.

 

[najaB]

There certainly was competition - that's how all the branch/local lines lost it to buses and lorries in the 1920s-30s, though it took Beeching for the upper management to recognise this. The railways did buy significantly into most of the major bus companies that ended up in the National Bus Company, and made profits from them at the time.

As you said, that's because the railways didn't see buses and trucks as a threat. That's the nature of modal shift, it's quite often not appreciated at the outset how big of a change it represents. Had they done so then they would have moved into road transport in a major way.

 

[LOL The Irony]

How much more was done to the 158s and the new stock spec that wouldn't have been done anyway?

New seats, reservation displays and advertising screens (although at least some trains are getting the advertising screens with the digital train mods).

 

[Wapps]

Obviously the Class 91/Mk4 never will, but there's still a chance that the ETCS rollout will get far enough for at least some 140mph running before the 390s and 80x are life-expired.

Based on what people have posted on these forums previously, ETCS is insufficient for 140mph. We also need level crossings removed, OLE upgrades, track upgrades, power supply upgrades and station upgrades to allow trains to pass at that speed. Based on what others have said on here, none of this is going to happen as it’s apparently not worth it for the extra 15mph. So 140mph will not happen in the UK on conventional lines - the IEP spec for 140mph was pointless.

 

[najaB]

So 140mph will not happen in the UK on conventional lines - the IEP spec for 140mph was pointless.

It won't be widespread, but there are already places where 140mph would be allowed if there was in-cab signalling.

 

[zwk500]

Based on what people have posted on these forums previously, ETCS is insufficient for 140mph. We also need level crossings removed, OLE upgrades, track upgrades, power supply upgrades and station upgrades to allow trains to pass at that speed. Based on what others have said on here, none of this is going to happen as it’s apparently not worth it for the extra 15mph. So 140mph will not happen in the UK on conventional lines - the IEP spec for 140mph was pointless.

I believe ETCS Level 3 includes (or can include) cab signalling, so would be satisfy UK regulations for 140mph. Agree with all the other bits you've covered as to why it won't really be worth it.

 

[Wapps]

I believe ETCS Level 3 includes (or can include) cab signalling, so would be satisfy UK regulations for 140mph. Agree with all the other bits you've covered as to why it won't really be worth it.

To be clear, I meant “ETCS by itself is insufficient”. We also need all the other stuff.

It won't be widespread, but there are already places where 140mph would be allowed if there was in-cab signalling.

Where is that?

 

[najaB]

Where is that?

I don't know all of them, but as an example the IEP project document states that the Selby Bypass would support 160mph running. (I can't find a link to it at the moment but I'll have a hunt for it as I've definitely seen posted it in another thread).

 

[Bald Rick]

It won't be widespread, but there are already places where 140mph would be allowed if there was in-cab signalling.

There isn’t.

I don't know all of them, but as an example the IEP project document states that the Selby Bypass would support 160mph running. (I can't find a link to it at the moment but I'll have a hunt for it as I've definitely seen posted it in another thread).

The Selby diversion is, apparently, laid out in track geometry for 160, although I’ve never seen documentary evidence of that. (I was told by a guy who helped design it though, so it is certainly possible).

However track geometry is just one factor. There’s dozens more to think about. Leaving aside the signalling, the OLE certainly isn’t ready for regular use above 125mph, the power supply would neeed strengthening, all the staff safety arrangements would have to change (and thus with a knock on to maintenance arrangements), the switches and crossings at Hambleton would have to be replaced with swing nose versions (see the Ledburn debacle on WCRM), as would those at Colton and Temple Hirst if the higher speed was to go that far. Someone would also have to reassess every under track structure (seeing as they are now 40 years old) for strength and resonance effects, then all the overbridges for aerodynamic effects, and on that subject track separation and the track componentry would need checking too. That’s just a few of the issues!

It would save 30 sec at 140, a minute at 160. Assuming you could make the timetable work.

 

[Wapps]

There isn’t.




The Selby diversion is, apparently, laid out in track geometry for 160, although I’ve never seen documentary evidence of that. (I was told by a guy who helped design it though, so it is certainly possible).

However track geometry is just one factor. There’s dozens more to think about. Leaving aside the signalling, the OLE certainly isn’t ready for regular use above 125mph, the power supply would neeed strengthening, all the staff safety arrangements would have to change (and thus with a knock on to maintenance arrangements), the switches and crossings at Hambleton would have to be replaced with swing nose versions (see the Ledburn debacle on WCRM), as would those at Colton and Temple Hirst if the higher speed was to go that far. Someone would also have to reassess every under track structure (seeing as they are now 40 years old) for strength and resonance effects, then all the overbridges for aerodynamic effects, and on that subject track separation and the track componentry would need checking too. That’s just a few of the issues!

It would save 30 sec at 140, a minute at 160. Assuming you could make the timetable work.

So 140mph spec on IEP was pointless.

 

[Bald Rick]

So 140mph spec on IEP was pointless.

Well that depends on your point of view. Given that the IEP is a close relative of the Class 395, which already was a 140mph spec, it may well have been easier (or cheaper) just to have a 140mph spec train. I can’t imagine that the difference in spec is that great.

And, interestingly, because the GWML OLE was specified for 140mph, it would be easier to get that to 140 than the ECML.

I also wouldn’t rule out 140 running on the ECML north of York as part of the Northern Powerhouse Rail proposals.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not sure I would count things such as the Selby Diversion being built for 160 mph as being relevant to this thread as it is currently in use today.

 

[Ianno87]

I'm not sure I would count things such as the Selby Diversion being built for 160 mph as being relevant to this thread as it is currently in use today.

And, given it was an entirely new alignment, the marginal cost of alignment-proofing for 160mph is almost certainly pretty much zero.

 

[najaB]

However track geometry is just one factor.

Correct, sorry, I was just considering the track layout. The OHLE upgrade was taken as given since the ECML was done on the cheap and barely supports 125mph running as is. I mean, they're already replacing headspans in places! I had forgotten about the S&C upgrades that would be needed.

The point I was making is that there's a non-zero chance of greater than 125mph operation within the lifetime of the Class 80x and possibly the 390s as well.

 

[Bald Rick]

The OHLE upgrade was taken as given since the ECML was done on the cheap and barely supports 125mph running as is.

On the cheap with 20:20 hindsight vision, but properly specified for all expected requirements at the time. And the Selby diversion doesn’t have any head spans; the upgrade there would be tensioning and any specific issues that causes.

 

[najaB]

On the cheap with 20:20 hindsight vision, but properly specified for all expected requirements at the time.

Let's split the difference and say that there was "target-driven value engineering" going on. AIUI, BR was effectively given a figure and told that was all that there was and they had to design the electrification down to that total.