HS2

[The Stationmaster]

38 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I can absolutely get this in respect of Edinburgh and Leeds. Not only does it free up ECML capacity (avoiding the need to deal with the Welwyn bottleneck, local MP, G. Shapps) but the passengers will see a worthwhile journey time reduction. Newcastle does not have that advantage.

 

Leeds, with its own HS2 station can use "captive" trains, double-deck. Edinburgh can't do that but the Edinburgh trains could combine at Crewe (or Wigan) with another 10-car single-deck set to make reasonably good use of track capacity on the HS2 core (about 30% less than a 20-car double-deck set).

 

Newcastle does not get a good enough time saving to justify the potential wasted capacity. With most Leeds and Edinburgh services removed from ECML, plenty of space there for improved Newcastle services.

Why would there only be a 10 car train running from Edinburgh?   Edinburgh, and the ECML south thereof, could handle 14 vehicle trains  a bit over 300 metres long with no trouble apart from some careful platforming in one or two places so it doesn't sound a major problem to me to at least run trains that long through off the northern end of the ECML serving York, Durham, Newcastle and Edinburgh (plus occasional stops at the likes of Berwick).  And it might well be the case that longer trains could be handled at that end of the ECML without the need for significant expenditure on signalling changes.

 

I doubt 800 metre trains would be feasible but that might not be the end of the world.  and if course trains which are shorter than the HS2 captive trains can offer certain advantages when it comes to headways at similar speeds (because for those who don't know a headway planning graph consists of two parallel lines - one for the front of the train and one for the back).

[Joseph_Pestell]

8 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Why would there only be a 10 car train running from Edinburgh?   Edinburgh, and the ECML south thereof, could handle 14 vehicle trains  a bit over 300 metres long with no trouble apart from some careful platforming in one or two places so it doesn't sound a major problem to me to at least run trains that long through off the northern end of the ECML serving York, Durham, Newcastle and Edinburgh (plus occasional stops at the likes of Berwick).  And it might well be the case that longer trains could be handled at that end of the ECML without the need for significant expenditure on signalling changes.

 

I doubt 800 metre trains would be feasible but that might not be the end of the world.  and if course trains which are shorter than the HS2 captive trains can offer certain advantages when it comes to headways at similar speeds (because for those who don't know a headway planning graph consists of two parallel lines - one for the front of the train and one for the back).

 

If we work from the European norm of 20 coach trains for high speed lines, it seems reasonable to have 10-car half units as the alternative. A 14-car unit would seem like a complication to me ( a bit like 8-car Thameslink trains) .

Edited February 17, 2020 by Joseph_Pestell

[Fat Controller]

6 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

If we work from the European norm of 20 coach trains for high speed lines, it seems reasonable to have 10-car half units as the alternative. A 14-car unit would seem like a complication to me ( a bit like 8-car Thameslink trains) .

Surely most 20-coach high-speed trains on mainland Europe are in fact 2 x 10 car sets coupled? Certainly, all the ones I've seen in France have been, likewise those  in Italy.

[Zomboid]

I realise I keep banging on about Japan, but since they do have a lot of experience of high speed rail it's not a bad example...

The portion worked trains I referred to typically consist of a 10 car "captive" E5 unit and a 7 car "classic compatible" E3 or E6 unit. When the time comes that capacity on the HS2 line is at a premium, there is no reason why portion worked trains have to be two equal size portions. A 250m long "classic compatible" train could easily couple to a 150m long "captive" double deck train if they're specified to do so. Or any other combination of lengths that you care to imagine.

 

(In round numbers, an E5 is 250m long and an E6 is 150m long)

[Fat Controller]

SNCF have used 'portion working' since the early days of the TGV; trains from Lille Europe to Lyon and beyond, for example, might have one set for Montpellier, and another for Marseille. Until you look at the departure time in the timetable, it's easy to miss, as the two portions often have different train numbers allocated to them

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, Fat Controller said:

SNCF have used 'portion working' since the early days of the TGV; trains from Lille Europe to Lyon and beyond, for example, might have one set for Montpellier, and another for Marseille. Until you look at the departure time in the timetable, it's easy to miss, as the two portions often have different train numbers allocated to them

Yes we nearly got caught out by that going to Disneyland Paris a decade ago.  We joined a train sat at Lille but fortunately noticed that we were in the Marseilles portion BEFORE it departed...!

[mdvle]

10 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

I think a big part of the problem is the Internet, there are so many sources of free information and blogs that many traditional sources of information have slashed costs to try and compete.

 

Certainly an issue, but many have said the biggest issue isn't the free things (though they will certainly use that as an excuse to say pressure a government to get rid of any publicly funded alternatives) but rather Google and Facebook.

 

Google isn't a search engine company, it is an advertising company.  Similar with Facebook.

 

The problem is that Google and Facebook have/are taking all they ad money and handing out a relative pittance of that collected amount to the content creators.

 

So while Google/Facebook provide healthy profits each year, newspapers / magazines / etc. are all starved of revenue.

 

5 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

It cuts the other way as well; competent scientists and engineers who can communicate to a lay audience are pretty thin on the ground.

 

Usually a case there is more money to be made elsewhere, that the salaries for those who communicate are a fraction of the other options they have.

[rue_d_etropal]

Good article in The Spectator abiut reopening old GCR route as alternative to HS2 , thought I was only one thinking of it,

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/there-is-a-far-better-option-than-hs2-and-it-already-exists/?fbclid=IwAR0odzKudej03_eJlvSzqn3hvHGfzJVYGYBwh9XbFFQMBbNG9EfIn2hMKzc

 

[62613]

7 minutes ago, rue_d_etropal said:

Good article in The Spectator abiut reopening old GCR route as alternative to HS2 , thought I was only one thinking of it,

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/there-is-a-far-better-option-than-hs2-and-it-already-exists/?fbclid=IwAR0odzKudej03_eJlvSzqn3hvHGfzJVYGYBwh9XbFFQMBbNG9EfIn2hMKzc

 

All the way from Verney to Sheffield? With so much of the trackbed built upon, bridges demolished, used as footpaths, 2 preservation groups, he's talking through his backside! The author also makes the usual mistake of thinking that it's all about saving time. I thought the maximum speed was never that high. anyway

 

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by 62613

[jamie92208]

I seem to remember that the use of the ex GC route was one of the options rejected by the design team for very good reasons.

 

Jamie

[Northmoor]

8 minutes ago, rue_d_etropal said:

Good article in The Spectator abiut reopening old GCR route as alternative to HS2 , thought I was only one thinking of it,

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/there-is-a-far-better-option-than-hs2-and-it-already-exists/?fbclid=IwAR0odzKudej03_eJlvSzqn3hvHGfzJVYGYBwh9XbFFQMBbNG9EfIn2hMKzc

 

Funnily enough I was in the local reference library (aka the newsagent) today and there is an excellent article in RAIL debunking this and similar articles.

 

Once upon a time, reopening the GCR "as was", was a practical option, but that ship has sailed.

[pete_mcfarlane]

14 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Funnily enough I was in the local reference library (aka the newsagent) today and there is an excellent article in RAIL debunking this and similar articles.

 

Once upon a time, reopening the GCR "as was", was a practical option, but that ship has sailed.

Reopening the GC 'as was' sounds like an excellent idea. Are they planning a new build of 'Directors' to pull the trains?

 

The Spectator article is utterly bonkers. "A few agricultural buildings have been built across it, but otherwise its line remains clear " -  presumably I must have hallucinated the gigantic shopping centre that fills the site of Nottingham Victoria. 

 

 

[Edwin_m]

The largest part of the GCR remaining above ground in the Nottingham built-up area is the short length of viaduct carrying the tram just north of Midland station.  There's a longer section of tramline south of the Trent (embankments and cuttings removed), and the big hole at the north end of Victoria station, but for the rest it's barely possible to tell it was there. Also the minor problem that of the cities HS2 is primarily targeting, the GC never went to Birmingham or Leeds and only had a very indirect route to Manchester.  

 

HS2 does in fact use the GCR formation where it's sensible to do so, from north of Aylesbury to south of Brackley.  Before the route was changed it was planned to use a bit around Staveley as well.  

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, rue_d_etropal said:

Good article in The Spectator abiut reopening old GCR route as alternative to HS2 , thought I was only one thinking of it,

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/there-is-a-far-better-option-than-hs2-and-it-already-exists/?fbclid=IwAR0odzKudej03_eJlvSzqn3hvHGfzJVYGYBwh9XbFFQMBbNG9EfIn2hMKzc

 

That idiot should be made to retract that article and print the truth.

It's just a pack of lies, the state of existence of the GCR, especially around Nottingham, is that mostly that it doesn't.

It has been well and truly obliterated around there & Northwards and most bridges and viaducts have gone along with embankments & cutting.

Even the NET crosses the Trent on a different alignment as the GCR bridge was removed many years ago.

 

I'd wager that re-opening the GCR on it's original alignment for high capacity fast trains would cost more then the current HS2 plans.

Edited February 17, 2020 by melmerby

[rue_d_etropal]

thought I might get that reaction.

[melmerby]

51 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

 

The Spectator article is utterly bonkers. "A few agricultural buildings have been built across it, but otherwise its line remains clear " -  presumably I must have hallucinated the gigantic shopping centre that fills the site of Nottingham Victoria. 

 

And the deep cutting around New Basford which was completely filled in and levelled and now has housing all over it (& a football pitch)

The bridge over the WCML & Trent are long gone as is the bridge over the MML (although the preservation group are to replace that!)

 

3 minutes ago, rue_d_etropal said:

thought I might get that reaction.

What did you expect?

Overwhelming praise for a nonsensical idea?

 

Just look at Google Earth and follow the GCR and see how much really exists, especially the further north you go.

Even the WCML from Rugby to Birmingham is at capacity and needs relief, which that article doesn't even consider.

[Dava]

Quote

e as is the bridge over the MML (although the preservation group are to replace that!)

 

 

The GCR bridge over the MML in Loughborough was replaced in 2017, 30 months ago. The remainder of the missing section is being planned in detail. The route of the GCR through Leicester is mainly lost forever .

 

HS2 is a new railway for good reasons. It also needs to be flood proofed, unlike existing lines in the Midlands.

 

Dava

[melmerby]

11 minutes ago, Dava said:

 

The GCR bridge over the MML in Loughborough was replaced in 2017, 30 months ago.

 

Dava

Thanks for that

I hadn't looked at Google for some time but here it is:

https://goo.gl/maps/a17ZQwppnff87CgM8

[runs as required]

16 hours ago, melmerby said:

And ends up on Wikipedia...........

Oh dear! Please don't be a modern Dr Dionysus Lardner doom-monger.

Wiki is a wonderful institution if used intelligently - a whole university library accessible even in bed by an invalid.

Medics tell me that Wiki is essential for them to keep up -  by accessing for example the latest practice heart and brain surgery via videos - even laypersons can access the same tutorial material to reassure themselves after receiving bad news in a consultation.

The essential trick (learnt at school by my grandchildren) is not to use just one source but to triangulate* - especially about HS2 and choices about the environmental future.

dh

edit

* But hang on ...

Sorry, i now see you are doing exactly that in the preceding post

Edited February 18, 2020 by runs as required

[Zomboid]

Rebuilding the GCR would probably be more expensive than HS2, require more properties to be demolished, not serve Birmingham, not free up any capacity at the London end of any route and not offer any improvements to journey times.

 

But other than that it's a great idea.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Zomboid

[Joseph_Pestell]

17 hours ago, Zomboid said:

I realise I keep banging on about Japan, but since they do have a lot of experience of high speed rail it's not a bad example...

The portion worked trains I referred to typically consist of a 10 car "captive" E5 unit and a 7 car "classic compatible" E3 or E6 unit. When the time comes that capacity on the HS2 line is at a premium, there is no reason why portion worked trains have to be two equal size portions. A 250m long "classic compatible" train could easily couple to a 150m long "captive" double deck train if they're specified to do so. Or any other combination of lengths that you care to imagine.

 

(In round numbers, an E5 is 250m long and an E6 is 150m long)

 

Yes, of course, any combination of numbers that adds up to 20 is possible. But as soon as you have extra variants in the fleet, you introduce a potential for greater operating problems.

 

That said, I don't believe in completely homogeneous fleets either. It seems to me very odd that GWR uses essentially the same train for both 90 minute and six-hour journeys.

[Joseph_Pestell]

9 hours ago, rue_d_etropal said:

Good article in The Spectator abiut reopening old GCR route as alternative to HS2 , thought I was only one thinking of it,

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/there-is-a-far-better-option-than-hs2-and-it-already-exists/?fbclid=IwAR0odzKudej03_eJlvSzqn3hvHGfzJVYGYBwh9XbFFQMBbNG9EfIn2hMKzc

 

 

No excuse for this sort of nonsense when 5 minutes research on Google Maps shows clearly where old lines have been obliterated by development.

 

How does something like this get past the Editor? Perhaps the editors at The Spectator are not very good. Who was the Editor until quite recently?

Edited February 18, 2020 by Joseph_Pestell

[Joseph_Pestell]

8 hours ago, melmerby said:

 

Even the WCML from Rugby to Birmingham is at capacity and needs relief, which that article doesn't even consider.

 

Rugby - Birmingham was at capacity in the 1930s and the LMS had plans to quadruple it then. Plus ca change....

[Zomboid]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Yes, of course, any combination of numbers that adds up to 20 is possible. But as soon as you have extra variants in the fleet, you introduce a potential for greater operating problems.

 

That said, I don't believe in completely homogeneous fleets either. It seems to me very odd that GWR uses essentially the same train for both 90 minute and six-hour journeys.

There's pros and cons to having uneven length portions of course, but nothing which hasn't been dealt with elsewhere in the world.

 

As soon as the captive trains are introduced the train fleet will be non-homogeneous, so that issue is going to have to be dealt with either way.

[melmerby]

One of the problems with such a poorly researched article is that it's oxygen for the Stop HS2 groups who will no doubt cite it as evidence that HS2 isn't needed.

Is the Spectator an anti HS2 paper, or has it just let a sloppy, inaccurate article get published?