Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

But I think one point being made is that even for express limited-stop services between northern cities the benefit of increased line speeds above 125 mph is limited because of the relatively short distances. Newcastle to Birmingham is a decent distance but is unlikely to be non-stop. The benefit will be from a dedicate "express" route rather than extra high speed both for the faster trains and for local commuters when the fast trains are out of the way on their lines. So just widening stretches to four tracks is unlikely to achieve much. New routes are needed, but that is fraught in a fairly densely populated area.

Jonathan

The Trans Pennine Standedge route was four track, when they reduced much of it to two they eased out the sharp curves so trains could go faster.  Simply four tracking would not allow a high speed line alongside the commuter line.  The New Leeds line and the Micklehurst route are not suitable either, a new line will deliver employment, smoother services and truly release capacity for commuters and freight.

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

I fully understand high speed railways and the need for them but the terrain in the north is going to cause many problems that are going to lengthen build time.Whilst the years pass passengers will and the strain on normal lines will grow .Instead of making statements on tv the leaders of the northern cities should be increasing the number of actual trains now that we are in BRmk2 they surely have clout to push this forward.Surely if this is done people in the north will get value for money plus more seats.At this moment NR is working to electrify the railway across the north surely this will give better value than HS now and more trains will help the people now .Pie in the sky and poloticians wanting vanity projects are not what the people want their taxes spent on. HS2 will provide a fast access to and from the north but cross pennine no way.I await the comments with interest but remember many many people want decent fares a seat and to arrive on time and be able to access their region from their local station.Thats the real world  and money could be scarce for new projects now rail is back under state control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
26 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

The distances between the Liverpool/ Manchester/ Leeds are such that there wouldn't be much opportunity to exceed about 110-125 for meaningful distances. Being able to sustain those kinds of speeds between the major centres would be much more beneficial than going for very high speeds. The geography of the Pennines looks likely to mean that a 125mph alignment could be noticeably cheaper than going for 180-200.

 

Leeds to Newcastle is far enough to make use of higher speeds, but probably won't get them unless the existing ECML is upgraded.

That is precisely the point I was making earlier.  There are politicians expecting a very high speed Trans-Pennine route just because The South is getting one, when the South is getting a capacity relief route which just happens to be high speed (because there is little to be gained and a lot to be lost from being otherwise).   

Trans-Pennine needs a capacity relief route but there will be little to be gained from insisting it it built for 180 as opposed to 125.  I have always said these things need a holistic approach - there is no point spending a few extra billion to achieve a higher Conveniently Round Number to save two minutes, if the passenger has to negotiate several congested local road junctions to get to the station to catch a high speed service.  This is a point environmental groups find very difficult to accept; sometimes the best solution - and by far the most cost effective - involves road improvements.

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

More trains is a nice idea but there are already capacity constraints that can be eased a little but to create a modal shift you're going to need a new line,

 

Manchester Piccadilly is hampered by the Oxford Road corridor, Manchester Victoria is hampered by it's platform numbers - electric trains to Stalybridge is to reduce trains loitering in Victoria as well as improve commuter services into the city.

 

The lines across the Pennines to Leeds are already receiving attention to improve capacity as is the route to Sheffield, but all are sticking plasters whilst HS3 is designed and signed off.  If we really want people to be able to travel ecologically in a world where car ownership will continue to decline we need a transport system that can cope with all those extra people.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Northmoor said:

That is precisely the point I was making earlier.  There are politicians expecting a very high speed Trans-Pennine route just because The South is getting one, when the South is getting a capacity relief route which just happens to be high speed (because there is little to be gained and a lot to be lost from being otherwise).   

Trans-Pennine needs a capacity relief route but there will be little to be gained from insisting it it built for 180 as opposed to 125.  I have always said these things need a holistic approach - there is no point spending a few extra billion to achieve a higher Conveniently Round Number to save two minutes, if the passenger has to negotiate several congested local road junctions to get to the station to catch a high speed service.  This is a point environmental groups find very difficult to accept; sometimes the best solution - and by far the most cost effective - involves road improvements.

To me acceleration to 125 and sustained running at that speed is key, as you and others have mentioned, the distances aren't so great and the extra engineering for a few minutes off a journey just don't cut it.

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

To me acceleration to 125 and sustained running at that speed is key, as you and others have mentioned, the distances aren't so great and the extra engineering for a few minutes off a journey just don't cut it.

 

Given the Javlins on HS1 are limited to 140mph and there are aspirations to go with 140mph once ECTS has been fitted to our conventional mainlines then I would suggest that 125mph is a bit limiting, even in a Transpennie context.

 

However on the flip side 186mph, 200mph let alone 250mph is overkill

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Zomboid said:

The distances between the Liverpool/ Manchester/ Leeds are such that there wouldn't be much opportunity to exceed about 110-125 for meaningful distances. Being able to sustain those kinds of speeds between the major centres would be much more beneficial than going for very high speeds. The geography of the Pennines looks likely to mean that a 125mph alignment could be noticeably cheaper than going for 180-200.

 

Leeds to Newcastle is far enough to make use of higher speeds, but probably won't get them unless the existing ECML is upgraded.

Sustained gradients have a significant effect on attainable speed, even on high speed lines.  So a line over the Pennines could allow running in the descending direction considerably faster than might be suggested just by looking at the station spacing, which would compensate for slower speeds on the climb.  Manchester to Bradford, likely to be a non-stop run on NPR, is also further than Manchester to Crewe where there is one intermediate stop.  

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

  • RMweb Premium

Two further comments.

First, much could be done to increase capacity through Manchester by running longer trains. Unless things have changed radically since I was last there, most trains through the through platforms could be doubled in length. Then how about joining trains for this stretch as the Southern used to do a lot? Of course longer trains means more rolling stock and with the current apparent fetish for every operator to have its own breed of rolling stock, transfers are often not possible, and even if they are the different classes will not speak to each other.

Secondly, many of the journeys on any proposed higher speed route will start or finish off that route. Therefore good interchanges between the existing network and any new lines will be crucial. So any new facilities in Manchester need to be under Piccadilly or Victoria, and similarly at other congested sites. But this is expensive - though I suspect no more expensive that the many miles of tunnels on HS2. But if you have to make awkward connections on foot at each end of the new route you will probably go by road instead even if you could start at your local station.

And a question to which I do not know the answer so it is not meant as a criticism. It was mentioned above that Manchester to Bradford is farther than Manchester to Crewe. How far is it, and how much difference in journey time would an increase of line speed from 100 mph to say 140 mph make?

Jonathan

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Zomboid said:

The same is true in the south ;)

 

Major roads and railways are very London-centric around the south, possibly more so than further away from London.

 

Whilst I'd agree that with the exceptions of the North Downs Line and the Coastway, the majority of railways radiate out of London, it hasn't always been to the extent it is now.

 

Prior to Beeching, there were significantly more 'bypass' routes - Three Bridges to Tunbridge Wells,  the Didcot Newbury & Southampton, the MSWJR and the Somerset and Dorset all spring to mind - in most cases lost because there wasn't sufficient demand for non-London services to keep them open.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

For the HS3 proposal, while it could be a waste of money to build an alignment for anything faster than 125mph or 140mph; would it instead be beneficial to build it to the same loading gauge as HS2? 'Captive' HS2 trains could use it even if they can't get up to their maximum speed which would reduce fleet variations, and the larger loading gauge would make double deck trains an option to further provide more seats.

 

As a comparison, I've travelled through the hills and tunnels from Bern to Zurich (not sure on distances, but I think it's further than Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle) on a double deck train non-stop at 125mph, it does not feel slow. I think some of the line it takes is a relative new build designed to speed up express services away from the busy stopping commuter lines (sound familiar?) and it works well. The layout, comfort, and facilities on the train make some of the difference too; dining by a large window overlooking the view is considerably more pleasant a travelling experience than an airline style seat aligned with a window pillar! 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Whilst I'd agree that with the exceptions of the North Downs Line and the Coastway, the majority of railways radiate out of London, it hasn't always been to the extent it is now.

 

Prior to Beeching, there were significantly more 'bypass' routes - Three Bridges to Tunbridge Wells,  the Didcot Newbury & Southampton, the MSWJR and the Somerset and Dorset all spring to mind - in most cases lost because there wasn't sufficient demand for non-London services to keep them open.

 

Thankfully we do have some London-avoiding lines left, as well as those mentioned the North London line (which, amazingly now, was actually proposed for closure in the 70s), and Oxford/Cambridge is, slowly, being re-instated. Although I would argue that the DN&S function has always been supplied much more effectively by the Oxford/Reading/Basingstoke route, which is one reason the DN&S closed. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Whilst I'd agree that with the exceptions of the North Downs Line and the Coastway, the majority of railways radiate out of London, it hasn't always been to the extent it is now.

 

Prior to Beeching, there were significantly more 'bypass' routes - Three Bridges to Tunbridge Wells,  the Didcot Newbury & Southampton, the MSWJR and the Somerset and Dorset all spring to mind - in most cases lost because there wasn't sufficient demand for non-London services to keep them open.

 

Of that list, the stand-out mistake is the DN&S. How many more containers could be on trains out of Southampton if they could avoid Basingstoke and Reading.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Of that list, the stand-out mistake is the DN&S. How many more containers could be on trains out of Southampton if they could avoid Basingstoke and Reading.

That would depend on the wider infrastructure. The DNS was single for at least a large part of its length, and container trains crossing the B&H and GWML on the flat would be unhelpful for capacity on the main lines. If those junctions were grade separated (the GWML at Didcot in particular) and the route was doubled then it would be helpful, but from where we are now, grade separation at Basingstoke would probably be more beneficial, along with routing more trains via Andover.

 

Passenger-wise, the route follows (and it's buried under in a lot of places) the A34, which is a busy road, and if it were still there it would probably have (pre-plague) quite a lot of traffic.

 

But that's nothing whatsoever to do with HS-anything...

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
15 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Of that list, the stand-out mistake is the DN&S. How many more containers could be on trains out of Southampton if they could avoid Basingstoke and Reading.

 

Not that many more

 

Please remember that to get to the DNSR trains would still have to use the busy line through the centre of Southampton to Shawford,  join the GWR main line to pass through Newbury (including crossing it on the flat) then doing the same at Didcot (again weaving across the fast lines on the flat)

 

Yes you could get rid of some of these constraints - but quite frankly its better off doing so o the Basingstoke - reading axis as at least that way passenger services can benefit too

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It’s environmentally costly to accelerate and maintain high speeds with heavy ‘high performance’ trains and its pointless when the cities they are serving along the trans Pennine corridor are so close together.... besides most commuters would, I’m sure,  prefer somewhere comfortable to sit rather than saving 5 minutes getting across the middle of England at great cost. 
 

Griff

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, woodenhead said:

The Trans Pennine Standedge route was four track, when they reduced much of it to two they eased out the sharp curves so trains could go faster.  Simply four tracking would not allow a high speed line alongside the commuter line.  The New Leeds line and the Micklehurst route are not suitable either, a new line will deliver employment, smoother services and truly release capacity for commuters and freight.

To be fair, the only bendy four track bit was that down the Colne Valley, from Standedge Tunnel to Heaton Lodge Junction; taking the slow lines out, and resignalling, allowed the line speed to 85m.p.h; the line speed up the Tame Valley was only increased to 75mph comparatively recently. It's difficult to see where any further increases would come from.

Edited by 62613
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is true that HS2 Phase 2B is being reconsidered / re-designed to suit amalgamation with HS3 in certain parts (around Leeds and Manchester - Liverpool, to some extent), then compatibility with HS2 trains is almost a given.

 

As is the potential for HS running.  The average journey time (by limited stop Trans-Pennine Express services) is around 1hr 12 mins. That is an average speed of about 45 mph. The journey time quoted by Google maps for the same journey by road is around 1 hr 5mins. (although I have never done it in less than 1.5 hours or more in my trusty old FIAT Doblo....).

 

So, in order to be competitive with (i.e. much faster than) road, you would have to increase average journey speed by at least 50%, to say around 75 mph. With the present constraints on the existing line, that is impossible. So you need a new line, which will have to skirt around (or under) the major conurbations and the topography. This might increase the distance from around 45 miles to about 60 miles (??). (It is only 36.6 miles by Crow.)

 

That means you need an average speed somewhere around 90 mph, which means a top speed of around 140 mph, to allow for acceleration and deceleration, if using the classic lines to gain access, or less if using dedicated lines throughout, say 125 mph. The same would apply to an extent on to Liverpool, and maybe further East / North East if the money is ever found. I believe that is where the thinking of TfN lies.

 

Now back to HS2 - Grant Shapp's proposal that Phase 2B could be built much faster than currently predicted, suggests either that they have abandoned this approach, or that it has been agreed and the route for HS3 has already been selected. I would have thought we would have heard more about this by now, unless he was just talking out of his...... hat?

Edited by Mike Storey
  • Like 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
22 minutes ago, griffgriff said:

Has anyone bothered to ask what the consumer wants?
 

....it might be a good place to start.

 

Griff

At the start of the process I would think.

 

We know the general requirement voiced by trhe public is getting a seat, frequent trains, reliable, lower fares.

HS2 should address the first three, which the WCML currently (pre-covid) couldn't, the fourth is a political decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, griffgriff said:

Has anyone bothered to ask what the consumer wants?
 

....it might be a good place to start.

 

Griff

If you actually want your nation to develop economically (or societally, TBH), you would never ask the general public what they wanted.  If we'd done that in 1830, the public would have asked for faster horses.

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

  • RMweb Premium
46 minutes ago, melmerby said:

At the start of the process I would think.

 

We know the general requirement voiced by trhe public is getting a comfortable seat, frequent trains, reliable, lower fares.

HS2 should address the first three, which the WCML currently (pre-covid) couldn't, the fourth is a political decision.

Fixed......;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

If you actually want your nation to develop economically (or societally, TBH), you would never ask the general public what they wanted.  If we'd done that in 1830, the public would have asked for faster horses.

Fast horses are still extremely popular I understand.....

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 hour ago, griffgriff said:

Has anyone bothered to ask what the consumer wants?
 

....it might be a good place to start.

 

Griff

 

Imagine how long it would take to get a consensus for a project like this on RMweb alone. In fact, think how much effort could be save on loads of projects if they couldn't start until EVERYONE agreed! Now multiply that by several thousand. Can I hear people in the corner screaming "monorail"? And some others shouting "maglev" all being drowned out by "motorway, but not near my house."

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
  • Funny 2
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...