Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, jonny777 said:

 

 

I'm sure that paths could be found between freight services for an hourly Manchester to Derby passenger service. Just rebuild the stations on the route and re-open Bakewell and those who flock daily to the area can come by train; and continue to provide the isolated rural community with its only source of income other than farming. 

I wonder.

 

Many years ago having seen Monsal Dale from the train I was particularly taken with it so made my mind up that the best way to see the area was to walk up the dale.  That particular day of my holiday ended with an overnight stay at Ravenstor Youth Hostel (it's still there) and the men's dormitory looked out down the dale.  After evening meal time the strange think about the dorm was that all the windows were opened - it wasn't a cold evening - and the remained open all night - because on a still evening you could hear a freight coming out of the tunnel and over the viaduct hitting the 1 in 107, easing to 1 in 125 then steepening to 1 in100 right up past the youth hostel (which was well away from the railway as it happens).  It was in steam days a hefty, and delightfully noisy, climb for freights and one reason for the popularity of that particular youth hostel.

 

Gradients of course don't cause so many problems for modern traction but the long climb up there but 15 or so miles of the steep part of the climb up from Rowsley to the summit at peak Forest isn't going to make for sparkling running with a couple of thousand  tonnes of container train, or any other heavy freight that might be routed that way. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I still believe that there should be an HS2 station at Calvert to connect to the East-West line and serve as the hub for new development there. But it would need a long stretch of 4-track railway for the trains stopping there not to have too much impact on the overall line capacity.

The Oakervee report seems to favour making provision to add one later.  However each stopping train needs a path to approach the station and a later path to leave it, so unless the Calvert stoppers were every 9-12min (so occupying the path vacated by the previous Calvert stopper) each stop would cost a path for a through train on the busiest part of HS2.  The connectional opportunities between HS2 and EWR aren't huge (Oxford or MK to London or Birmingham would still be quicker by existing routes) and even a basic HS station is far from cheap.  So a Calvert station can only be justified if a pretty substantial settlement is planned in the area to justify five or more calls per hour.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, wagonman said:

 

Great idea, except that HS2 will have gobbled up all the money. They can't even afford to finish the GWML and MML works and so lumbered everyone with those stupid bi-modes.

 

HS2 is being paid for by specific borrowing against the value of the asset being built, not by robbing other budgets.

Rightly or wrongly GWML and MML electrifications were stopped because they went over budget, not because their budgets were cut for HS2.

 

4 hours ago, jonny777 said:

 

And the environmental mayhem caused by HS2 is somehow acceptable? 

 


"Environmental Mayhem" - Please....

  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 minutes ago, Glorious NSE said:

 

 

 


"Environmental Mayhem" - Please....

Well we all know that building HS2 will cause a massive increase in volcanic activity, Earth will be hit by an out of orbit unstable moon and Aliens will taken over earthlings brains, otherwise not much impact really:o

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

 

The Oakervee report seems to favour making provision to add one later.  However each stopping train needs a path to approach the station and a later path to leave it, so unless the Calvert stoppers were every 9-12min (so occupying the path vacated by the previous Calvert stopper) each stop would cost a path for a through train on the busiest part of HS2.  The connectional opportunities between HS2 and EWR aren't huge (Oxford or MK to London or Birmingham would still be quicker by existing routes) and even a basic HS station is far from cheap.  So a Calvert station can only be justified if a pretty substantial settlement is planned in the area to justify five or more calls per hour.  

A city eventually the size of Milton Keynes has been one of the concepts considered as part of the housing plans for the Oxford to Cambridge growth arc. Potentially in the Calvert area or a bit to the east. Google city in the vale NIC. But nothing has been confirmed not least that related infrastructure behemoth the Oxford to Cambridge expressway

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
19 hours ago, jonny777 said:

 

 

That's good to know; but sadly my mad suggestions are not yet satisfied. 

 

For somewhat less than the cost of HS2, the line between Ely and Peterborough could be quadrupled and electrified; and the walkers and Peak District preservationists could be bought out and the line from Great Rocks to Matlock be reinstated as a freight line - then extra capacity would be generated. Oh, and why not reinstate the four track MML in the Sharnbrook area?

 

Firstly I believe that the MML over Sharnbrook IS being returned to 4 tracks as part of the Corby electrification programme. Sadly that does all to help with the situation south of Bedford where a high frequency Thameslink service squeezes available capacity let alone the situation at St Pancras where only 4 platforms exists for the MML and there is ZERO ROOM for any expansion without extensive demolition of expensive property in what has become a pretty upmarket area.

 

The East Midlands branch of HS2 offers the opportunity for a significant increase in services to the East Midlands area that is pretty much impossible to provide without 6 tracking the MML south of Bedford (entailing mass demolition in the likes of Luton and around St Pancras to provide additional platforms).

 

Secondly there is no capacity problems on the Ely to Peterborough section and still a reasonable amount of space for additional trains. The only real issue with the Felistowe to Nuneaton route is the single line section at Soham, some issues around Ely  and Leicester where E-W operations conflict with N-S passenger services.

 

By contrast the southern section of the WCML is congested throughout its entire length and needs an additional two tracks. Removing the remaining Felixstowe liner trains from it will do sod all to help - particularly as said freight trains are already restricted to off peak times.

 

As has been repeatedly been explained demolish vast swathes of housing to widen the existing WCML plus disruption to current users means an offline solution is considerably better value for money, particularly as you can also use it to help with the MML issues too.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

But once you are beyond both the Paris termini but still in the wider urban area the land take, what of it there is, has been on former railway land and in relatively low quality areas and the costs of planning etc are considerably lower in France than in Britain.  Plus none of the LGV lines have had to put up with, and suffer the massive cost increases which have led to substantial sections of HS2 being unnecessarily forced into tunnel - even where speeds will be relatively low and on existing railway infrastructure.  It would be interesting to separate out the additional cost elements of the unnecessary tunnelling and the rate at which they have inflated since they were first added to the project - nobody seems to have bothered about that.

 

 

IMHO HS2 management should be far more pro-active in responding to the 'environmental catastrophe' nonsense, by pointing out just how much is being spent to minimise the project's impact (while at the same time partly explaining its huge cost). Why too no-one seems to have cited HS1 as an example of the reality of a double track electrified railway, as opposed to the hysterical myths, is beyond me. To be fair however much of the media and public perception of HS2 is still solely a railway designed to save 20 minutes to Birmingham for rich businessmen, so maybe the message is being sent but not received.

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Are all containers actually bound for Felixstowe?

There are large docks at Southampton, Dagenham, Tilbury & many other places. Surely many trains will be formed of containers for all these destinations then re-marshalled in London?

 

Nope!

 

Marshaling takes time and is inefficient, moreover rail transport of containers is something which can easily be done road haulage (unlike several thousand tonnes of stone from the Mendips).

 

Intermodal / container freight is very TIME SENSITIVE and needs to be transported quickly not wasting time being shunted between trains.

 

If you are a freight forwarder tasked with delivering a Container from a city in China to the M&S UK distribution hub then you will book space on the ships, trains and lorries as necessary. If trains are not available when the ship docks then the containers will be sent by road.

 

As such container trains are run on the same basis as the ships they serve - namely the train runs to a set timetable regardless of demand

 

At peak times (e.g. the run up to Christmas) they will be fully loaded - at other times like now then they may only be half full.

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

IMHO HS2 management should be far more pro-active in responding to the 'environmental catastrophe' nonsense, by pointing out just how much is being spent to minimise the project's impact (while at the same time partly explaining its huge cost).

 

But would anyone take any notice or even print the statements.

 

Remember our 'great' free press are only interested in selling copy and wont let a silly thing like the truth get in the way of telling their readers what they want to read!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, wagonman said:

 

The French LGVs Nord and Sud Est both come out of Paris – also one of the most expensive cities in the world – but they manage to use existing infrastructure for the first stretch without seeming to compromise performance.

 

 

The Mayors of the northern city-Regions are also keen to have new high speed infrastructure. They seem pretty desperate to get a slice of the 'progress' action.

 

 

Can't disagree with that! I think of the early days of satellite broadcasting as a paradigm of the English disease: BSB arguably had superior technology to Sky. They also had a very swank HQ in central London to accommodate lots of overpaid men-in-suits – and b*gger-all content. Sky, on the other hand, was cheap and cheerful, operated out of a shed near Heathrow, and had signed up lots of sports rights and other popular stuff as they realised that content is king.

 

HS2 seems to be beset with legions of 'consultants' all competing to push up the costs...

 

 

 

 

There is a big clue in that French stations are typically far larger (in terms of acreage) than anything in the UK. That allows stations to accommodate 400m long double TGV trains while the current Euston barely copes with a single 11 coach Pendalino.

 

The second big clue is the loading gauge, again the French classic infrastructure could easily cope with double deck trains without rebuilding thanks to their low platforms and wider carriages. The UKs use of high level platforms and a narrow loading gauge (width - not height is the main issue) prevents Double deck trains.

 

Therefore for both the above reasons, having HS2 branch off the WCML at Watford, Wembley or Camden (in the style of French LGVs) is a non starter - to do so would forever prevent it achieving its full potential (Eurostar length double deck trains) and / or cause massive disruption to existing users while the exsisting approaches were widened / upgraded. Similar problems also apply with attempts to reuse the existing approaches to Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds.

 

Thus HS2 has been forced to make sure it’s new lines penetrate right to the heart of the Cities mentioned above (using tunnels as much as possible to keep surface demolition to a minimum), which does significantly increase the cost of the scheme. It is however a necessity rather than a luxury that has as much to do with the UK being the inventor of railways and consequentially adopting a very restrictive loading gauge unlike other countries who had the benefit of learning from our mistakes.

 

 

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

As an opponent of HS2 in its current guise I welcome yesterday's announcement: having Boris as a proponent and with a minister directly overseeing it, what more effective kiss of death for the whole enterprise could there be?!

Well it has royal assent and in the next 2 months signed construction contracts for phase 1. Diggers are on the ground now. Spending is currently £250m a month and will now ramp

up further. phase 1 construction cost is quoted at just over £10bn which in UK plc terms is small change.

 

if you hope to see phase 1 cancelled then I think you will be disappointed, equally phase 2a to Crewe.


as for High Speed North (as phase 2b is now being called) who know though regulatory & design progress in next 5 years with sod cutting just before the next election could generate +ve northern PR.

 

NPR will take 10 years to get to sodcutting: option selection is a year away, then it needs consultation, business case development, more consultation then parliamentary scrutiny & eventually royal assent by which time we will be on our 2nd or 3rd new government and probably PM.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Golborne spur (off the Manchester leg) to the WCML just south of Wigan could be for the chop / modified.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/12/hs2-could-be-slower-north-birmingham-cut-costs-grant-shapps

 

Asked by the BBC whether the service would be different north of Birmingham, Shapps said: “I think not dramatically different, but you are right. There has been some over-specification.”

He cited the so-called Golborne spur – part of the line near Manchester – as an example of an area that could be reworked, saying it added billions to the cost with little benefit.

 

Brit15

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

The Golborne spur (off the Manchester leg) to the WCML just south of Wigan could be for the chop / modified.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/12/hs2-could-be-slower-north-birmingham-cut-costs-grant-shapps

 

Asked by the BBC whether the service would be different north of Birmingham, Shapps said: “I think not dramatically different, but you are right. There has been some over-specification.”

He cited the so-called Golborne spur – part of the line near Manchester – as an example of an area that could be reworked, saying it added billions to the cost with little benefit.

 

Brit15

The new local MP, Andy Carter is certainly against and being vocal (reflecting his constituents views).

 

i suspect the Golborne spur will be adjusted & absorbed into NPR with both HS2 north/south and NPR east/west services using it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

The Golborne spur (off the Manchester leg) to the WCML just south of Wigan could be for the chop / modified.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/12/hs2-could-be-slower-north-birmingham-cut-costs-grant-shapps

 

Asked by the BBC whether the service would be different north of Birmingham, Shapps said: “I think not dramatically different, but you are right. There has been some over-specification.”

He cited the so-called Golborne spur – part of the line near Manchester – as an example of an area that could be reworked, saying it added billions to the cost with little benefit.

 

Brit15

 

Without wishing to sound argumentative over this, I would be interested to hear your alternative. A connection between HS2 and the northern WCML is needed but I feel Crewe is too far south. Would a route that joins the WCML just south of Warrington be better than Golborne or would it be better to join closer to Preston?

 

(Note - that a lower speed for the HS2 connecting spur might allow for a more curvey alignment plus the lower number of trains would facilitate construction of say a Warrington Parkway station).

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

It don't cause so many problems for modern traction but the long climb up there but 15 or so miles of the steep part of the climb up from Rowsley to the summit at peak Forest isn't going to make for sparkling running with a couple of thousand  tonnes of container train, or any other heavy freight that might be routed that way. 

Which is precisely why the Midland was going to electrify it in about 1914. 80 ton Bo Bo's on high voltage AC.

 

Jamie

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, black and decker boy said:

NPR will take 10 years to get to sodcutting: option selection is a year away, then it needs consultation, business case development, more consultation then parliamentary scrutiny & eventually royal assent by which time we will be on our 2nd or 3rd new government and probably PM.

 

I think that it could be a bit quicker to first start given the widespread political support for it. But it won't be quick to build given the amount of tunnelling required.

 

Shapps this morning on BBC was dropping strong hints that, meanwhile, we will see a substantial upgrade, including electrification of the existing routes.

 

He also mentioned some redesign of Piccadilly to make for better connectivity between HS2 and Northern High Speed. That would be much more easily achieved at Exchange/Victoria. Makes a Ringway station difficult but I am not that convinced that a Ringway station is good value.

Edited by Joseph_Pestell
Add
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Without wishing to sound argumentative over this, I would be interested to hear your alternative. A connection between HS2 and the northern WCML is needed but I feel Crewe is too far south. Would a route that joins the WCML just south of Warrington be better than Golborne or would it be better to join closer to Preston?

 

(Note - that a lower speed for the HS2 connecting spur might allow for a more curvey alignment plus the lower number of trains would facilitate construction of say a Warrington Parkway station).

 

Honestly I don't know - there are many alternatives each with plus and minus points. A lot depends on the future timetable of HS trains / Pendolinos (or their replacements) / local services / freight trains etc.

 

WCML north of Crewe to Weaver Junction is mostly 4 track, a 2 track bit exists over a viaduct. Then it's 2 tracks through Moore for a few miles to just south of Warrington (an important station), 4 tracks again to Winwick Jcn, a sharp curve, two tracks for a couple of miles mainly through a cutting to Golborne Jcn with another sharp curve and awkward junction layout from George Stephensons days, Lots of services now use this junction from / to Manchester (at 15mph !!!!!) - main line here is about 60mph. Then its 4 fast tracks to Bamfurlong (where the Golborne spur would join) and just after there are 6 existing  fastish tracks to Wigan North Western where the sharp curves are (60 / 80mph) and then two tracks for several miles up to Euxton Jcn then 4 tracks to Preston.

 

The electrified bit from Winwick Jcn through very sharp bends onto the Liverpool & Manchester at Earlestown, through Newton Le Willows and again a 15mph crawl round the curves to rejoin the WCML at Golborne Junction is of little use to fast trains, let alone HST ones, and the Liverpool - Manchester line is very busy these days.

 

Four track the two track bits ? VERY expensive, at least two motorway bridges etc. - It would probably be better build Golborne spur I reckon, though Warrington misses out.

 

The Golborne spur could be lengthened a few miles and use the old Whelley loop line alignment and by pass Wigan, rejoining the WCML (as it used to do) at Standish Jcn. A four track alignment is already there going north (It was de quadrified many years ago). I very much doubt this will even be looked at when cutting costs is the new HS2 mantra. Four tracking north out of Wigan NW would cost a fortune, sharp curve, high embankment leading to a deep cutting at Boars Head, lots of houses on both sides of the line etc.

 

So you pays your money and takes your pick.

 

It's a busy bit of railway from Crewe to Preston, and gets busier year on year.

 

Edited to add - This useful site shows the track diagram & real time trainsI stated above just slide the cursor at the bottom either way.

 

https://traksy.uk/live/M+22+ECCLES+4/M+48+MSGT+-15/M+27+WIGANWL+-2+487Q

 

Brit15.

Edited by APOLLO
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 You miss the point..well,you don’t have local knowledge do you.The Monsal Trail from Bakewell to Taddington is the major tourist draw in the area.Unlike Haddon Hall and Chatsworth,it’s free to all and tourists contribute in a large way to maintaining local trade of all description.

 

Watch the programme,as suggested.

 

 

 

I  watched it at the weekend, but didn't get the impression everyone who lived there was quite so arrogant and patronising. 

 

Maybe they hid from the camera? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, Zomboid said:

"Rebuilding" the line through the peak district after decades of closure would need to be to modern standards, and whatever the modern requirements are. I'm sure that some 150 year old earthworks would be useable, maybe some of the bridges and tunnels would be, but this would be like the borders railway; a brand new construction on a historic alignment.

 

And yes, getting some freights off the WCML would save a few paths. But we need more than a few 75mph non-stop paths on the slow lines to solve the capacity problems.

Worth remembering that the line through the Peaks was quite speed-restricted in places, such as through Matlock and the curve at Ambergate.  There'll be no avoiding those locations.  You would get 95% of the benefit by routing the trains via the Hope Valley route, but the benefit isn't much.

The point about the controversy of re-building a major rail route through a National Park is more to do with the removal of the footpath/cycle amenity.  For environmental reasons, you'd be removing one of the biggest assets of the area, which allows people to access the Wye Valley without a car.  Take away the amenity (which Peak Rail WON'T do) and those people will either be forced to potentially cycle on the roads, which many will be reluctant to do so will visit by car instead.  Alternatively, they'll stay away altogether.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard an interview with Grant Shapps this afternoon who stated he his opinion it was a mistake not to building it north to south. Well as the northern parts are to be built by a different company why not bring their commencement forward. By building them earlier the costs arising from inflation will be less  and would bring on line the Birmingham-Leeds section which has the biggest time saving of any part,

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, Butler Henderson said:

Heard an interview with Grant Shapps this afternoon who stated he his opinion it was a mistake not to building it north to south. Well as the northern parts are to be built by a different company why not bring their commencement forward. By building them earlier the costs arising from inflation will be less  and would bring on line the Birmingham-Leeds section which has the biggest time saving of any part,

I agree it avoids property inflation costs - although the go-ahead means a lot of purchasing is brought forward anyway - but you assume the manpower exists to deliver both phases in parallel; it probably doesn't.  In which case the contractors will add huge risk pricing to cover the increased cost of skilled construction labour (which could be leaving the UK in droves following Brexit) and you'll still deliver late.  There's a many a reason why long-term, rolling programmes are preferred to big-bang ones!

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I agree it avoids property inflation costs - although the go-ahead means a lot of purchasing is brought forward anyway - but you assume the manpower exists to deliver both phases in parallel; it probably doesn't.  In which case the contractors will add huge risk pricing to cover the increased cost of skilled construction labour (which could be leaving the UK in droves following Brexit) and you'll still deliver late.  There's a many a reason why long-term, rolling programmes are preferred to big-bang ones!

Agreed about the manpower.

Building it in 1 go will place a huge demand on manpower...then a lot of unemployment once the project is completed. Building it in smaller stages allows the skilled workforce to have more of a future. Although I doubt governments will care directly about this, they don't want to be seen as creating unemployment, so moving the workforce to a later phase is preferable.

 

It also spreads the cost over a longer period of time. £10bn a year sounds better than £100bn.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Butler Henderson said:

Heard an interview with Grant Shapps this afternoon who stated he his opinion it was a mistake not to building it north to south. Well as the northern parts are to be built by a different company why not bring their commencement forward. By building them earlier the costs arising from inflation will be less  and would bring on line the Birmingham-Leeds section which has the biggest time saving of any part,

On the other hand, the part of the WCML which is most in need of relief is the Southern end, so that ought to be the priority for delivery.

 

Though there's a decent argument both ways.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I very much doubt that the Euston terminus will be allowed to die. The high cost land has been purchased and mostly cleared. The TBM launch pit is well under way and I suspect that the TBM's themselves are already nearly built and ready for delivery. I think that I've read somewhere that the tunnel lining segment factory has been built as well.  With the central London land acquisition  complete and much of the disruption now done a lot of the vocal opposition will die down.  Once the diggers get going in the Chilterns I suspect that a lot of the opposition will die down.

 

Jamie

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...