The next UK HSR (High Speed Rail) project?

[Bald Rick]

Doesn't that mean the ferry had an average speed of 11mph? Surely that could be sped up? At 22mph it 'only' takes half an hour. Find a short enough crossing, and it starts to look feasible.

ferries need a bit of time to get up to speed, and slow down, and negotiate their berths, etc.

 

[Ken H]

ferries need a bit of time to get up to speed, and slow down, and negotiate their berths, etc.

and they are prone to severe delays when it blows a bit.

 

[zwk500]

I was thinking about it in general. Like with high speed rail to Ireland. Maybe with a 'shorter' distance, say between Scotland and Belfast, you could get a high enough average speed with a ferry for it not to take much longer than a plane?

A ferry in the middle adds 2 rounds of faffing. Also a plan is faster than any land vehicle. You are always going to be on for an uphill struggle if a boat is involved. It's only going to effectively compete where the transfer from Airport to City is painfully slow but the city itself is good to drive in, at both ends.

 

[cle]

A GWML>Basingstoke connection seems to be the only one which really mops up two routes - needed for the scale of investing. Arguably a Victoria to Birkbeck/Norwood-ish tunnel might cover off two routes too, but would need to split in the midst of SE London suburbia. Both the two track section from Basingstoke to Southampton and Orpington to Tonbridge are problems - the former could be addressed at least.

Taking on say 6tph via Basingstoke and then 8tph GWML would be good. But it skirts south for the Didcot route, so some thought required there unless the HS line continues west. Would need to various discussed works at Woking, Guildford and CJ (straight p7-8!) done too, to support a more intensive inner/regional Waterloo operation.

 

[MattRat]

A ferry in the middle adds 2 rounds of faffing. Also a plan is faster than any land vehicle. You are always going to be on for an uphill struggle if a boat is involved. It's only going to effectively compete where the transfer from Airport to City is painfully slow but the city itself is good to drive in, at both ends.

Actually with Belfast once you are off at that end the journey is effectively finished as it's right in the town.

 

[SynthD]

Actually with Belfast once you are off at that end the journey is effectively finished as it's right in the town.

Assuming high speed rail reached Carlisle, you would then need another ~90 miles to Cairnryan. I can’t speak to the terrain but it’s Scotland so I’ll expect it’s hilly.

 

[zwk500]

Actually with Belfast once you are off at that end the journey is effectively finished as it's right in the town.

Great, but Cairnryan is sodding miles from anywhere anybody might want to go, and neither the road or railway are quick to either Glasgow or Carlisle. Flying is quick, simple, and flexible.
Ferries are for where you can't afford a bridge. They're fundamentally not going to be part of a high-speed solution on core transport flows.

 

[HSTEd]

Cannon St / Charing Cross: Ewer St / Borough Market Junctions - London Bridge, Lewisham, Orpington - Tonbridge. (But Charing Cross platforms / Cannon St throat are the same limit)

So, could the Cannon Street/Charing Cross /Thameslink South East service almost be considered a single "terminus", just one spread over multiple sites?
Given that a major constraint would appear to be wherever the service happens to join the Charing Cross-London bridge alignment?

I suppose if we are going to knock some traffic off Thameslink, some off Victoria and quite a bit off of Waterloo then we could juggle trains around for any number of combinations.

I suppose in theory you could move the South East trains between their termini, and possibly transfer some platforms to South Eastern at Victoria (with a rebuild obviously) to free up one of the minor termini.

But it looks like "simply" rebuilding Waterloo directly would be the conceptually simplest option - although requiring substantial demolition in the station throat for the platform extensions.

EDIT:

The platform lengths for Waterloo aren't in the Electronic Sectional Appendix, at least not in the regular places, for some reason. But if the surface of Platform 19 runs the whole length of the international trainshed you could potentially get six 400m platforms at Waterloo with no major rebuilding of the station - although the fact that all these termini on viaducts makes getting into a tunnel pretty challenging given the density of roads passing underneath.
Even at 4% gradients you are looking at needing at least 500-600m to dive off the viaduct and get deep enough for roads to go over the top.
Six might be pushing it for a high speed line but if its mostly shorter journeys than Euston it might be doable!

 

[MattRat]

Great, but Cairnryan is sodding miles from anywhere anybody might want to go, and neither the road or railway are quick to either Glasgow or Carlisle. Flying is quick, simple, and flexible.
Ferries are for where you can't afford a bridge. They're fundamentally not going to be part of a high-speed solution on core transport flows.

Well the Government have clearly stated they can't, although this is the speculation forum....

In which case I'd probably still go with the cheapest option of the Kintyre route for a bridge or tunnel, since it would be shorter than the Chunnel. Although you might need more bridges and tunnels to get to that crossing (if connecting to say Glasgow).

 

[Bald Rick]

Even at 4% gradients you are looking at needing at least 500-600m to dive off the viaduct and get deep enough for roads to go over the top.

3.5% is the maximum allowed, plus transition length, and you need minimum 10 m cover above the crown of a bored tunnel. You’re looking at upwards of 800m I’d suggest.

I suppose if we are going to knock some traffic off Thameslink, some off Victoria and quite a bit off of Waterloo then we could juggle trains around for any number of combinations.

Trouble is, that traffic removed isn’t removed till the new (fantasy) line is open and running. Which is why HS2 is building new stations at London, Birmingham, Manchester etc.

 

[HSTEd]

3.5% is the maximum allowed, plus transition length, and you need minimum 10 m cover above the crown of a bored tunnel. You’re looking at upwards of 800m I’d suggest.

Didn't the Germans get away with 4% on one of their lines, I believe it was Cologne-Frankfurt?

Trouble is, that traffic removed isn’t removed till the new (fantasy) line is open and running. Which is why HS2 is building new stations at London, Birmingham, Manchester etc.

Is HS2 building a new station at Euston, I thought it was only a small part of it that was new and the rest was a rebuild of part of the classic station?

Although the plan has changed about three times since the last time I looked in detail so I could be wrong.
I do recall that the report that selected Euston for HS2 suggested there were precious few sites in London that could be used.

So a rebuilt station is likely the only option available.

 

[MattRat]

Trouble is, that traffic removed isn’t removed till the new (fantasy) line is open and running. Which is why HS2 is building new stations at London, Birmingham, Manchester etc.

And work never did start at Sheffield and Leeds. I suppose that should have been foreshadowing.....

 

[BrianW]

Great, but Cairnryan is sodding miles from anywhere anybody might want to go, and neither the road or railway are quick to either Glasgow or Carlisle. Flying is quick, simple, and flexible.
Ferries are for where you can't afford a bridge. They're fundamentally not going to be part of a high-speed solution on core transport flows.

I love the speculation as to 'Union Connectivity'! What Union?? The current PM is doing his best to bring about an independent Scotland run by lightweights and a united Ireland. Perhaps Wales will still be connected by rail to England. Air provides flexibility, and competition between airports and airlines without expensive and speculative investment infrastructure.

MY bet- Plan B- on the level- Barrow- Blackpool- Blackburn- Burnley- Bradford- Bolton- Birkenhead- Bangor. Lots of high-paid jobs for upskilled enterprise zoners.

 

[HSTEd]

Air provides flexibility, and competition between airports and airlines without expensive and speculative investment infrastructure.

And depends on a resource, kerosene, that will vanish from common use relatively soon and will be extremely expensive to obtain for aviation use after that time.

The infrastructure to provide aviation kerosene will cost vast amounts of money.

Best guess would be in the hundreds of billions of pounds of capital cost. It would be something like 13 Sizewell Cs before you even start on the actual production infrastructure.

 

[MattRat]

I love the speculation as to 'Union Connectivity'! What Union?? The current PM is doing his best to bring about an independent Scotland run by lightweights and a united Ireland. Perhaps Wales will still be connected by rail to England. Air provides flexibility, and competition between airports and airlines without expensive and speculative investment infrastructure.

Why can't it be about connecting Celtic partners? Build it more for Scotland and Ireland than England.

 

[Gareth]

What about Rangers partners?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Realistically, High Speed Rail (100-125mph running) already connects all the major traffic flows in a rather dense fashion on most London and Birmingham centred networks.
Liverpool to Newcastle, London to Brighton or Southampton, are probably the busiest non-high speed long distance lines that would have the passenger numbers to justify investment.

 

[Irascible]

Why can't it be about connecting Celtic partners? Build it more for Scotland and Ireland than England.

Scotland to Cornwall/Devon via Man, Ireland & Wales? I'm in for a few quid. Chunnel 2 to Brittany via channel islands as stage 2.

Incat's ferries go up to 58kts ( not all obviously ) but they're a bit more of a faff to load than the heyday of Dover-Calais, albeit some of that is because the channel ferries got disastrously fast to turn around..

Realistically, High Speed Rail (100-125mph running) already connects all the major traffic flows in a rather dense fashion on most London and Birmingham centred networks.
Liverpool to Newcastle, London to Brighton or Southampton, are probably the busiest non-high speed long distance lines that would have the passenger numbers to justify investment.

South-West region to W. Midlands had more journeys in the year I checked ( 2019 into early 2020 I think ) than Wales to London. One of those has recent electrification...

 

[MattRat]

Scotland to Cornwall/Devon via Man, Ireland & Wales? I'm in for a few quid. Chunnel 2 to Brittany via channel islands as stage 2.

I forgot about the other Celts, lol. And part of my family is Cornish, so double fail. What defines just Scotland and Ireland? (Although Devon, Cornwall and Wales all could do with better connections to them from the rest of the country, and even inside them).

 

[Bald Rick]

Didn't the Germans get away with 4% on one of their lines, I believe it was Cologne-Frankfurt?

they did, but that’s not permitted by standards now - here or in the EU TSIs (which we still follow).

Is HS2 building a new station at Euston, I thought it was only a small part of it that was new and the rest was a rebuild of part of the classic station?

Yes. All new, right next door.

And work never did start at Sheffield and Leeds. I suppose that should have been foreshadowing.....

that’s because it had not been authorised by act of Parliament. Fir that matter, neither has Piccadilly (yet).

 

[The Ham]

Waterloo (fast lines toward Woking) from the buffer stops to country side of New Malden (hence CR2)

Victoria (Fast lines to Brighton): Windmill Bridge / Croydon (Hence Windmill bridge / Croydon proposal)

Cannon St / Charing Cross: Ewer St / Borough Market Junctions - London Bridge, Lewisham, Orpington - Tonbridge. (But Charing Cross platforms / Cannon St throat are the same limit)

Plus Power supply and station Passenger capacity for all of them.

Which was why (at least in part) I suggested something which avoided the need to directly serve Central London. However by providing 3 hub points (Old Oak Common, Strafford and one other) it would mean that most places within London weren't too disadvantaged by having fairly quick journey times to at least one of those hubs.

Looking at Southampton (circa 80 miles) takes 1:20, so it's only slightly faster than 60mph (average). That's on a line which is typically 90-100mph. If we were to have an average speed of ~95mph (which should be achievable for a 140mph railway, with fewer stops) that would enable London to Southampton via Brighton in 1:15. If the average reaches 125mph (which is only really HS1 speeds) then London Southampton could be sub 1 hour.

Again once you get to those sort of journey times there's the possibility of looking at different station locations (as long as you can connect to the current station easily). For instance in Southampton you could look to use the former Toys R Us site, even though it's the wrong side of a major road to the existing station.

In reality whilst the line might go that way you may opt for an outer Brighton station for the through trains, with the main Brighton station being a terminus. Therefore for every service from London to Brighton you could then run up to one from Brighton along the coast. (Much as Birmingham services do with HS2).

 

[MattRat]

Which was why (at least in part) I suggested something which avoided the need to directly serve Central London. However by providing 3 hub points (Old Oak Common, Strafford and one other) it would mean that most places within London weren't too disadvantaged by having fairly quick journey times to at least one of those hubs.

Looking at Southampton (circa 80 miles) takes 1:20, so it's only slightly faster than 60mph (average). That's on a line which is typically 90-100mph. If we were to have an average speed of ~95mph (which should be achievable for a 140mph railway, with fewer stops) that would enable London to Southampton via Brighton in 1:15. If the average reaches 125mph (which is only really HS1 speeds) then London Southampton could be sub 1 hour.

Again once you get to those sort of journey times there's the possibility of looking at different station locations (as long as you can connect to the current station easily). For instance in Southampton you could look to use the former Toys R Us site, even though it's the wrong side of a major road to the existing station.

In reality whilst the line might go that way you may opt for an outer Brighton station for the through trains, with the main Brighton station being a terminus. Therefore for every service from London to Brighton you could then run up to one from Brighton along the coast. (Much as Birmingham services do with HS2).

Isn't the main problem with the current tracks is that it runs too many services? Which therefore means you want through operations only to service all the destinations 'at once'.

 

[The Ham]

Isn't the main problem with the current tracks is that it runs too many services? Which therefore means you want through operations only to service all the destinations 'at once'.

What I'm suggesting is that the Brighton services are a shuttle, whilst the other destinations are served by the other services. Although there's no reason for them to only serve one location.

For example:
London Brighton (then in its shadow a Brighton towards the West service, say Brighton Portsmouth)
London, Southampton, Bournemouth
London, Brighton (Brighton, Southampton, Bournemouth, Poole).
London Portsmouth
London, Southampton, Bournemouth, splits to become the slow/semi fast services to Weymouth
London Brighton (Brighton, Southampton, Salisbury)
London, Portsmouth
(Repeat for the other half hour of the hour).

That's 6tph to Brighton, 4tph to Portsmouth and 4tph to Southampton from London.

The existing services which currently serve Southampton could become stopping services between Southampton and Basingstoke (the biggest inconvenience would be to those going to/from Winchester or Southampton Airport Parkway, although the impact to those from Winchester would be 1 extra stop, so hardly very big).

 

[ABB125]

they did, but that’s not permitted by standards now - here or in the EU TSIs (which we still follow)

Are derogations not permitted (or is 3.5% a derogation in itself)?
What was the reason for the change? I'm guessing something to do with track forces at gradient changes?

 

[MattRat]

What I'm suggesting is that the Brighton services are a shuttle, whilst the other destinations are served by the other services. Although there's no reason for them to only serve one location.

For example:
London Brighton (then in its shadow a Brighton towards the West service, say Brighton Portsmouth)
London, Southampton, Bournemouth
London, Brighton (Brighton, Southampton, Bournemouth, Poole).
London Portsmouth
London, Southampton, Bournemouth, splits to become the slow/semi fast services to Weymouth
London Brighton (Brighton, Southampton, Salisbury)
London, Portsmouth
(Repeat for the other half hour of the hour).

That's 6tph to Brighton, 4tph to Portsmouth and 4tph to Southampton from London.

The existing services which currently serve Southampton could become stopping services between Southampton and Basingstoke (the biggest inconvenience would be to those going to/from Winchester or Southampton Airport Parkway, although the impact to those from Winchester would be 1 extra stop, so hardly very big).

Would this still work with Exeter and Plymouth services though? I think to get the best value, you'd also want to extend it to at least Exeter to get the most 'value for money', with Plymouth being able to be served via hopefully Okehampton when the extension is completed, like Sheffield will be for HS2.

 

[Bald Rick]

Are derogations not permitted (or is 3.5% a derogation in itself)?
What was the reason for the change? I'm guessing something to do with track forces at gradient changes?

The 3.5%is itself a derogation from the normal maximum gradient of 2.5%

 

[The Ham]

Would this still work with Exeter and Plymouth services though? I think to get the best value, you'd also want to extend it to at least Exeter to get the most 'value for money', with Plymouth being able to be served via hopefully Okehampton when the extension is completed, like Sheffield will be for HS2.

It would still work, as you'd probably just run them as extensions of the services listed. Although having said that, at 14tph out of London there would still be scope for a couple of extra services (based on HS2's capacity limit of 17tph) if there was a need for that.

Although how much extra track your build beyond Southampton is open for debate, given that even using existing track from their you could get to Salisbury (using current train times, including the associated stops) and still be 30 minutes faster than the existing services. With an average of 100mph running to Yeovil and then 50mph running West of there (or any combination of average specs which reached the same net result) you could achieve a journey time of 2:30 from London to Exeter.

Whilst you're need quite a bit more to get to the point that journey times to Exeter were faster (in pure travel time terms) than via the existing Paddington services, the ability to run them more frequently and with higher capacity would mean that the existing services could see some people opt for the HS services.

Not least, due to even though the journey may be longer the arrival and departure times may suit the individual better. For example a train which leaves at (say) 18:20 and arrives at 21:20 maybe better than one which leaves at either 18:00 or 19:00 which then arrive at 20:30 or 21:30 (as the first may leave too early and the latter be too late, or at least too tight for a connection), even though the slower train is 3 hours vs 2.5 hours (I'm not suggesting that such slow journey be provided, just highlighting that even just matching the existing journey time could be more than enough to get people to use the new service, in that there would be some who could use a service even though it were slower).

 

[MattRat]

It would still work, as you'd probably just run them as extensions of the services listed. Although having said that, at 14tph out of London there would still be scope for a couple of extra services (based on HS2's capacity limit of 17tph) if there was a need for that.

Although how much extra track your build beyond Southampton is open for debate, given that even using existing track from their you could get to Salisbury (using current train times, including the associated stops) and still be 30 minutes faster than the existing services. With an average of 100mph running to Yeovil and then 50mph running West of there (or any combination of average specs which reached the same net result) you could achieve a journey time of 2:30 from London to Exeter.

Whilst you're need quite a bit more to get to the point that journey times to Exeter were faster (in pure travel time terms) than via the existing Paddington services, the ability to run them more frequently and with higher capacity would mean that the existing services could see some people opt for the HS services.

Not least, due to even though the journey may be longer the arrival and departure times may suit the individual better. For example a train which leaves at (say) 18:20 and arrives at 21:20 maybe better than one which leaves at either 18:00 or 19:00 which then arrive at 20:30 or 21:30 (as the first may leave too early and the latter be too late, or at least too tight for a connection), even though the slower train is 3 hours vs 2.5 hours (I'm not suggesting that such slow journey be provided, just highlighting that even just matching the existing journey time could be more than enough to get people to use the new service, in that there would be some who could use a service even though it were slower).

Well the reason I said Exeter was to be able to speed up times to Plymouth, which would also serve Exeter. If just serving Exeter, then that would become the new Plymouth, so to speak.

 

[Irascible]

Well the reason I said Exeter was to be able to speed up times to Plymouth, which would also serve Exeter. If just serving Exeter, then that would become the new Plymouth, so to speak.

It's getting that way already.

Exeter-London is already 2:30 on the semi-fasts let alone the quicker trains, so extending south coast HishSR on that basis does not seem a great investment. Exeter-Plymouth is an hour at best - that is a place that needs investment. Exeter-New St is also about 2:30, but anecdotally seems to have some capacity issues...

 

[WideRanger]

One thing to bear in mind is the ferries are achingly slow. Barely anyone travels from Dover to Calais anymore by ferry since the fast ferry went.

Really? They seem relatively busy to me when I use them (several times a year...), even at off-peak times.

While I sometime use the tunnel, I have found that the total time from entering the terminal to departing at the other end normally turns out at around 75 minutes on the tunnel, compared to 120 - 130 minutes on the ferry. So, even if the fares were the same (and the tunnel is normally significantly more than the ferry) I will often choose the ferry because it gives me a proper interval and surrounding to rest.