Ringby or Thorn re-surfaces...

[swt_passenger]

Does anyone remember a few years ago there was a chap who posted regularly in various forums and the uk.railway usenet group about a proposed high speed ring network, and he also sometimes referred to it as a 'thorn shaped' network. Michael Bell I think it was?

Seems he's still going on about it and has bought a half page 'advertorial' in the latest Modern Railways (page 92). Headlined "HS1 should leave London on a viaduct over the M1"

All I can really say is what is the point, now that the first construction contracts have been let for the Phase 1 route laid down in an Act of Parliament?

 

[ABB125]

Personally, I think this would be a sensible idea, if the route went that way. However, as HS2 is going via Old Oak Common, it wouldn't work.

Using the same idea of running above a motorway, would it be easier to build the HS2 Birmingham branch on top of the M6, and then A38M? And then in Manchester, going from the Airport to the city centre on top of the M56, then A34 then A6? Or maybe even just build a viaduct on top of the existing Airport line, only coming down to station level shortly after Ardwick?

 

[swt_passenger]

Personally, I think this would be a sensible idea, if the route went that way. However, as HS2 is going via Old Oak Common, it wouldn't work.

Using the same idea of running above a motorway, would it be easier to build the HS2 Birmingham branch on top of the M6, and then A38M? And then in Manchester, going from the Airport to the city centre on top of the M56, then A34 then A6? Or maybe even just build a viaduct on top of the existing Airport line, only coming down to station level shortly after Ardwick?

Parallel lines to existing motorway corridors such as the M1 were mostly ruled out early on, because they do not meet gradient or curvature requirements, and in the case of the M1 particularly, go though or far too near existing towns.

 

[scarf ace]

Parallel lines to existing motorway corridors such as the M1 were mostly ruled out early on, because they do not meet gradient or curvature requirements, and in the case of the M1 particularly, go though or far too near existing towns.

And there was me thinking the whole point of a new railway was to get to existing towns.

 

[NotATrainspott]

And there was me thinking the whole point of a new railway was to get to existing towns.

The existing railway already gets to existing towns. The new one is for the people who would rather not be inconvenienced by that fact.

 

[Class 170101]

Personally, I think this would be a sensible idea, if the route went that way. However, as HS2 is going via Old Oak Common, it wouldn't work.

Using the same idea of running above a motorway, would it be easier to build the HS2 Birmingham branch on top of the M6, and then A38M? And then in Manchester, going from the Airport to the city centre on top of the M56, then A34 then A6? Or maybe even just build a viaduct on top of the existing Airport line, only coming down to station level shortly after Ardwick?

But how would you actually construct such an undertaking?

Close the M1, M6, M56 for periods of time? I don't think so. The Road lobby would be up in arms.

 

[edwin_m]

But how would you actually construct such an undertaking?

Close the M1, M6, M56 for periods of time? I don't think so. The Road lobby would be up in arms.

Being caught up in the disruption from the multi-fatality accident at Newport Pagnell yesterday brought home that you can't actually close a motorway other than in emergency or in the small hours of the morning, because the diverted traffic immediately overwhelms the surrounding road network. Not just the road lobby, it would make life impossible for anyone needing to use any of those roads.

So the heavy civil engineering, which forms a big slice of the construction, would be limited to short overnight periods just as it is when upgrading an existing railway line, but worse as even the occasional blockade would be out of the question. Costs and build times shoot up when construction is subject to that sort of constraint.

 

[AndrewE]

170101: We have lived with this (partial closures of motorways) for what seems like decades now as they are "upgraded" to smart running, or whatever the latest name is.
It would not be much worse to lose the hard shoulders again while they put in foundations for concrete pillars, then put in a load of concrete girders spanning the road during night-time closures for the railway above - except that it would be about 5 times the width needed for a railway line! Maybe that's how we minimise the curvature for the railway line, moving from side to side to cut corners and get the straightest route!

 

[AndrewE]

The existing railway already gets to existing towns. The new one is for the people who would rather not be inconvenienced by that fact.

I think that is the point of a (any) railway! Why bulldoze corridors through the country just for the benefit of those from only moderately-remote corners who want to be in London (& vv) more quickly? I know we want/need more capacity, but I am coming round to the idea that extra lines (i.e capacity) could be added to the network by incremental upgrades far more cheaply, e,g by tunnelling extra fast lines near existing alignments. Hyper fast is fantasy and would only benefit Liverpool/Manchester/Leeds/(Glasgow and Edinburgh?) to London users at the expense and to the detriment of everyone and everywhere else in the country

 

[NotATrainspott]

I think that is the point of a (any) railway! Why bulldoze corridors through the country just for the benefit of those from only moderately-remote corners who want to be in London (& vv) more quickly? I know we want/need more capacity, but I am coming round to the idea that extra lines (i.e capacity) could be added to the network by incremental upgrades far more cheaply, e,g by tunnelling extra fast lines near existing alignments. Hyper fast is fantasy and would only benefit Liverpool/Manchester/Leeds/(Glasgow and Edinburgh?) to London users at the expense and to the detriment of everyone and everywhere else in the country

You can't add another pair of tracks along the WCML. There are too many places where the cheaper and better option is to diverge completely from the existing line, and for construction cost and disruption minimisation your new tracks would be physically separate from the existing line even if they could be adjacent. Your new tracks would ultimately end up acting as a bypass line all the way from Euston to Rugby, plus another pair of tracks plus another set of platforms in Birmingham city centre. You end up paying proportionately more in costs than you get benefits versus HS2.

HS2 doesn't really cause detriment to the rest of the country. The funding is separate and special and would otherwise be spent on something else, not given to the railway. The only people really adversely affected are those who will be blighted by construction or the existence of the line, but that's a very small proportion of the UK population. Everyone else benefits in some way, either directly or indirectly.

 

[Sceptre]

Additionally, the often mooted "well what about reopening the GCML?" argument for an alternative to HS2's alignment through the Chilterns misses the point that, with allowances, that's exactly what HS2 is going to do.

 

[AndrewE]

You can't add another pair of tracks along the WCML. There are too many places where the cheaper and better option is to diverge completely from the existing line, and for construction cost and disruption minimisation your new tracks would be physically separate from the existing line even if they could be adjacent. Your new tracks would ultimately end up acting as a bypass line all the way from Euston to Rugby, plus another pair of tracks plus another set of platforms in Birmingham city centre. You end up paying proportionately more in costs than you get benefits versus HS2.

You clearly didn't read the word "tunnel" in my post then.

 

[edwin_m]

You clearly didn't read the word "tunnel" in my post then.

Tunnels are expensive, and much more so if they include stations. If you take a look when riding along the WCML you would find quite a lot of places that are built up right to the railway boundary so extra tracks would need either tunnelling or property demolition. This would end up being a lot more tunnel than HS2.

 

[edwin_m]

170101: We have lived with this (partial closures of motorways) for what seems like decades now as they are "upgraded" to smart running, or whatever the latest name is.
It would not be much worse to lose the hard shoulders again while they put in foundations for concrete pillars, then put in a load of concrete girders spanning the road during night-time closures for the railway above - except that it would be about 5 times the width needed for a railway line! Maybe that's how we minimise the curvature for the railway line, moving from side to side to cut corners and get the straightest route!

That's how you'd do it but the girders would still be a constraint. It would also be much more expensive than the simple earthworks needed for most of HS2, though perhaps cheaper than a tunnel.

Also nobody seems to have noticed that there are other roads and railways bridging over the M1 quite frequently. Either these would all have to be raised above HS2, or HS2 would have to run at "double height", which would be for most of its length once the distance needed to ramp up and down was taken into account.

 

[HSTEd]

It wouldn't be that far even with 8-10m extra clearance, at the 2.5% that HS2 is allowed to run at in the spec, the run up would be only 320-400m.

And some HSLs in Germany are rated for 4%, reducing the length to 200-250m

 

[edwin_m]

It wouldn't be that far even with 8-10m extra clearance, at the 2.5% that HS2 is allowed to run at in the spec, the run up would be only 320-400m.

You've ignored the vertical curves, which are quite a big constraint at these sorts of speed.

 

[AndrewE]

Tunnels are expensive, and much more so if they include stations. If you take a look when riding along the WCML you would find quite a lot of places that are built up right to the railway boundary so extra tracks would need either tunnelling or property demolition. This would end up being a lot more tunnel than HS2.

In that case it's surprising how much extra tunnelling can be justified on HS2 just to pacify the NIMBYs , and a huge tunnel all the length of the Thames in inner London to mop up a few peak sewage overflows. There really is a mental block (or Treasury veto) on any consideration of a significant upgrade to capacity in the existing network.

I do admit that recent projects have damaged rail's credibility, but I would put that down to the loss of expertise since privatisation, and the consequent involvement of a myriad of consultancies learning on the job (aka f***king it up) then not being reappointed!

 

[The Planner]

Is there really a loss of experience though? If its retirement, then yes the corporate knowledge goes but in a lot of cases people leave to go to other companies (normally consultants) and you end up working with them again but paying for the privilege.

 

[NotATrainspott]

In that case it's surprising how much extra tunnelling can be justified on HS2 just to pacify the NIMBYs , and a huge tunnel all the length of the Thames in inner London to mop up a few peak sewage overflows. There really is a mental block (or Treasury veto) on any consideration of a significant upgrade to capacity in the existing network.

I do admit that recent projects have damaged rail's credibility, but I would put that down to the loss of expertise since privatisation, and the consequent involvement of a myriad of consultancies learning on the job (aka f***king it up) then not being reappointed!

You have to think about what you're asking for, here. If you want to just add another pair of tracks to the WCML, then you have to think about when and where they would link to the existing ones, and what services would cross over. Realistically speaking there is no reason for any trains to cross between them until Rugby at least, so there's no good reason to have a track connection between them either. Once you don't have any track connections, there's no reason why they need to follow the same route at all. You may as well carve a new path through the countryside on the most optimal route for long distance trains. That means you're building HS2, essentially.

 

[AndrewE]

You have to think about what you're asking for, here. If you want to just add another pair of tracks to the WCML, then you have to think about when and where they would link to the existing ones, and what services would cross over. Realistically speaking there is no reason for any trains to cross between them until Rugby at least, so there's no good reason to have a track connection between them either. Once you don't have any track connections, there's no reason why they need to follow the same route at all. You may as well carve a new path through the countryside on the most optimal route for long distance trains. That means you're building HS2, essentially.

Unfortunately a lot of the WCML is not through countryside, which is why I said stick it in a tunnel where it is easier. If a new line, complete with stations, can be built to add capacity right across London why not through each width-constrained strip on the WCML? I agree Rugby (or MK) is a suitable first stop, but tunnelling isn't such a big deal nowadays, especially when you avoid the costs associated with high viaducts, noise abatement measures etc etc..

An expanded Euston need not be the terminus, and super-high speed need not wreck the economics if it were considered as an enhancement of the existing WCML, rather than an airline-on-wheels.

 

[AndrewE]

Is there really a loss of experience though? If its retirement, then yes the corporate knowledge goes but in a lot of cases people leave to go to other companies (normally consultants) and you end up working with them again but paying for the privilege.

So who promoted (and went along with) the Virgin XC doubling of frequency through New St (with no capacity increase) when the Trans-pennine change was such a disaster then?

 

[The Planner]

Im not sure im with you here, are you on about a specific thing or railway in general when you are talking about expertise? Experts can say no or advise against but they still dont have to be listened to.

 

[edwin_m]

An expanded Euston need not be the terminus, and super-high speed need not wreck the economics if it were considered as an enhancement of the existing WCML, rather than an airline-on-wheels.

More trains mean more terminal platforms, but if you're proposing to add extra tracks to the WCML where else can they terminate but Euston?

 

[edwin_m]

Unfortunately a lot of the WCML is not through countryside, which is why I said stick it in a tunnel where it is easier. If a new line, complete with stations, can be built to add capacity right across London why not through each width-constrained strip on the WCML? I agree Rugby (or MK) is a suitable first stop, but tunnelling isn't such a big deal nowadays, especially when you avoid the costs associated with high viaducts, noise abatement measures etc etc..

But if you aren't stopping until MK or Rugby, why spend the extra money to pass through and tunnel under a lot of places the train isn't stopping. You get the same benefit at less cost and disruption by avoiding those places instead.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Unfortunately a lot of the WCML is not through countryside, which is why I said stick it in a tunnel where it is easier. If a new line, complete with stations, can be built to add capacity right across London why not through each width-constrained strip on the WCML? I agree Rugby (or MK) is a suitable first stop, but tunnelling isn't such a big deal nowadays, especially when you avoid the costs associated with high viaducts, noise abatement measures etc etc..

An expanded Euston need not be the terminus, and super-high speed need not wreck the economics if it were considered as an enhancement of the existing WCML, rather than an airline-on-wheels.

You seem to have a mental block about greenfield construction like HS2 counting as a general railway upgrade. While the Victorians did many great things, their decisions do not have to and should not limit the imagination of engineers in the 21st century. If a railway line doesn't have any technical reason to follow an existing one, then there is precisely zero reason why it has to. Your idea means more money being spent to get something worse in the end.

 

[Class 170101]

AndrewE I should point out that when HS1 was constructed over the M25 exit tunnels no closures were permitted even overnight as I recall. The bridge was pushed over the M25 Dartford tunnel and under the Dartford Bridge..

 

[quantinghome]

...tunnelling isn't such a big deal nowadays, especially when you avoid the costs associated with high viaducts, noise abatement measures etc etc..

I've heard this idea a few times from different people, almost as if tunnelling is a cheaper option than plain line through fields. Whilst tunnelling technology has improved considerably, it's still a magnificently expensive business. Costs generally increase in the following order:

1. Plain line
2. Plain line with noise abatement measures
3. Viaducts
4. Tunnels

 

[MarkyT]

I've heard this idea a few times from different people, almost as if tunnelling is a cheaper option than plain line through fields. Whilst tunnelling technology has improved considerably, it's still a magnificently expensive business. Costs generally increase in the following order:

1. Plain line
2. Plain line with noise abatement measures
3. Viaducts
4. Tunnels

Tunnelling really comes into its own where there are particular surface features that are expensive or otherwise undesirable to destroy or disfigure, such as dense urban development or a sensitive environment. In urban areas in particular tunnels can be considerably cheaper and politically more acceptable than mass demolition.

 

[Domeyhead]

I thought Michael Bell makes a good case for his idea - good enough to deserve a detailed rebuttal from HS2 Ltd (if they are able to produce one). I thought his argument against the Old Oak Common deviation was worth investigation. I'd also like to see a proponent of the existing route give an analytical view of its advantages. I am guessing that there are only two arguments that really matter in the end though - firstly the work already done on the planned route and the delay that any re-evaluation would cause at this stage. And secondly the capital cost - any other arguments on time to market, cost v benefit, ROI etc are all worthy but count for nothing to the Treasury.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought Michael Bell makes a good case for his idea - good enough to deserve a detailed rebuttal from HS2 Ltd .

He's just about 7 or 8 years too late though. There'll be no point in a rebuttal, they have an Act of Parliament to build an agreed route, after many years of proposals and counter proposals.