HS2

[APOLLO]

9 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

I seem to remember that a criticism of the Golborne spur was that the junction was to be with the slow lines. Or am I imagining?

Jonathan

 

It was to be a flying junction to the fast lines according to the original plans.

 

Brit15

[jpendle]

@APOLLO Howfener here 😀

 

Everyone else, don’t ask.

 

Pick up the old GC alignment north of Glazebrook Jc, get on the Whelley loop at Amberswood all the way to Standish Jc.

Put the freight on that and the rest on the WCML through Wigan NW, or stick the HS2 traffic on it instead.

 

Of course tunnelling is out of the question in that neck of the woods.

 

John P

 

[APOLLO]

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Has all the land been given away i wonder.  Even in 1914, and still in 1990 (albeit with some minor changes approaching  Wigan) all the ex LNWR WCML was either quadruple, or even sextuple, all of the 21.75 miles  from Golborne Jcn to Preston except for the 7.5 miles between Wigan North jcn and Balshaw Jcn

 

Quadrupling the stretch north of Wigan station might well present problems in places, especially in Wigan itself buta lot of that section still lies in open country.  Yes it would cost money but carried oiut with effectib  ve project management it is only going to be in the millions and way short of billions.

 

Creating. a totally new HS2 route between Crewe and Preston would be a massively expensive project passing through a lot of built up areas (even more so than going to Golborne Jcn) and I doubt it would stand up as a project compared with other ways of increasing route capacity north of Golborne Jcn where even if the track no longer exists the basic earthworks (and some underbridges) do.

 

Are the original bridges south of Preston (for sextuple track) still all there?

 

Just north of Wigan NW is the bridge over the Wallgate lines, not an easy spot for 4 tracking, hemmed in by industrial units on the other side of the photo.

 

 

The Wigan to Standish section was planned for 4 track by either LNWR or LMS and indeed a rebuilt bridge abutments were built for 4 tracks at Walkden Ave. Most is on a 2 track embankment with new (ish) and old housing alongside. Perhaps do-able but there will be objectionable Wiganers !!!!!!!

 

 

The rails in the road are a whole different story !!

 

Frog Lane Bridge, just north of Wigan NW, built on a curve and incline by the Wigan and Preston railway in the1830's would be difficult, a brand new school on one side and extensive housing on the other. Such a shame if this magnificent skew arch stone & brick structure had to go. A wonderful bridge indeed.

 

 

 

Next up after Walkden Ave is Spencer Rd bridge. Built just before electrification, 4 tracks seem possible here.

 

 

Past my house would be OK (ish). Neighbours won't be happy, I would !!!!

 

Next is a footpath bridge to the Cemetary that would need rebuilding, The impressive stone arch 2 track Boars Head Bridge would have to go.

 

 

Right alongside this is my local, The Boars Head pub. You can see the bridge right alongside.

The pub dates back to 1450 AD, so there will be objections etc. No room here for 4 tracks, Pub one side and new housing on the other. 

 

 

Then after that no great problems !! (apart from money !!)

 

Brit15

[APOLLO]

4 minutes ago, jpendle said:

@APOLLO Howfener here 😀

 

Everyone else, don’t ask.

 

Pick up the old GC alignment north of Glazebrook Jc, get on the Whelley loop at Amberswood all the way to Standish Jc.

Put the freight on that and the rest on the WCML through Wigan NW, or stick the HS2 traffic on it instead.

 

Of course tunnelling is out of the question in that neck of the woods.

 

John P

 

 

Yes, very good idea and knowing the area VERY do-able. But the viaduct over the River Douglas has gone, and expensive housing alongside. (Not London expensive, Wigan expensive - they have glass in the windows and inside toilets !!!!).

 

 

Brit15

[APOLLO]

I forgot to add, Weaver Junction to Golborne through Warrington has two twin track bottlenecks also.

 

A few miles Weaver Jcn to Walton Jcn, mostly rural but the M56 motorway to go under. Then it's 4 track over the Mersey & Manchester Ship Canal and on through Warrington to Winwick Jcn. 

 

Winwick Jcn to Golborne Jcn (The existing one, a connection to the Liverpool & Manchester line) is around 2 miles of twin track through a longish rock cutting with once again new housing etc alongside. There's a severe curve at Golborne Jcn (south of the proposed Golborne link flying Jcn) that even forces Pendolinos to slow a bit. A difficult area to rebuild hence ££££££. Then it's straight, fast 4 track from here to Wigan NW.

 

I doubt any of the above happening. Andy Burnham is only interested in London Manchester / Trans Pennine services, not the Scottish expresses through Warrington & Wigan etc. Poor old Liverpool gets nowt !!

 

Also I understand the new trains will be non tilting. Good luck with those north of Preston !!

 

 

Brit15

[melmerby]

52 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Also I understand the new trains will be non tilting. Good luck with those north of Preston !!

Correct and will run at slower speeds than the Pendos on twisty bits, with less passenger capacity.☹️

[phil-b259]

22 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Correct and will run at slower speeds than the Pendos on twisty bits, with less passenger capacity.☹️

 

Which wasn't a problem because using HS2 they would be able to run considerably faster than they do now as they get closer to London, plus HS2 would potentially allow more trains to be provided.

 

Of course the more HS2 gets cut back the grater the chance that journey times will remain static or even increase and no increase in service provision will be possible.

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Which wasn't a problem because using HS2 they would be able to run considerably faster than they do now as they get closer to London, plus HS2 would potentially allow more trains to be provided.

 

Well that's a rather Wencentric view and no comfort to anyone travelling between, say, Preston and Glasgow.

[phil-b259]

26 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Well that's a rather Wencentric view and no comfort to anyone travelling between, say, Preston and Glasgow.

 

True, but there is no technical reason to stop someone developing a next generation tilting train to run between Liverpool / Manchester and Glasgow providing shorter journey times on those services and thus compensating for longer journey times on services which run to / from London

 

What is more relevant when it comes to tilting trains is that because railways the world over have actually been taking the sensible step of building new high speed railways there is basically no demand for tilting trains anymore* so the costs of designing one, particularly for the restrictive British loading gauge don't make it worthwhile.

 

That in turn means the British Government would need to step in and organise a bespoke design programme (like it did with the IET) and agree to very high leasing costs to make it happen - and quite frankly if you look at the passenger volumes making NW-Scotland trips the numbers who would be put off from using trains by a non tilting trains slightly extended journey time are small, which makes for a very poor business case.

 

 

* In fact to be pedantic even the Pendalno fleet was backward thinking - by the 1990s everyone in Europe knew that building new high speed lines was the way forward in terms of improving rail services  - the only reason the WCML got tiliting trains was because the Tories realised they had to do something with the WCML as part of privatisation and tilting trains was the easiest political solution.

Edited January 27 by phil-b259

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

That in turn means the British Government would need to step in and organise a bespoke design programme (like it did with the IET) and agree to very high leasing costs to make it happen

 

Chickens - or is it pigeons?* - coming home to roost.

 

*Or whatever birds it was that spooked the ancient Greeks.

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

to be pedantic even the Pendalno fleet was backward thinking - by the 1990s everyone in Europe knew that building new high speed lines was the way forward in terms of improving rail services  - the only reason the WCML got tiliting trains was because the Tories realised they had to do something with the WCML as part of privatisation and tilting trains was the easiest political solution.

It depends

Japan, builder of many High Speed lines (approximately 1800 miles so far) actually introduced a new active tilting trainset last year, obviously not for Shinkansen.

Edited January 27 by melmerby

[John Tomlinson]

19 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

[Embedded link to Wikipedia Commons.]

 

I've always understood the point about the Whelley Loop is that it effectively made the WCML through Wigan four track. Much of the freight went via Whelley, certainly when there was conflict with passenger services, and in fact then often turned northeast to go via Haigh Jn., Adlington (White Bear), Chorley and Blackburn to the S&C. The Adlington to Blackburn line ceased around 1970, not least because the viaduct just north of Chorley over the Leeds- Liverpoool canal was demolished to make way for the M61.

 

It begs the question of whether the Whelley Loop could be re-instated to go round Wigan to Standish, rejoining the present WCML there, and so adding to capacity. North of Standish the trackbed for four lines remains, and in fact for some sections the overhead wiring gantries span all four lines.

 

The attached picture is close to Standish, click on pics for details,

 

 

This picture taken just south of Balshaw Lane station (Euxton)  also illustrates,  

 

 

John.

Edited January 27 by John Tomlinson
typo

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Erm - given that the original point of HS2 was to increase capacity then it’s logical to assume that any trains it dumped onto the WCML at Golbourne would be additional to what already was running over the WCML in that area (the former express pathways to / from Crewe having been re-used to boost other service groups)
 

This was cited as a problem by several people familiar with the area because the current infrastructure was already being fully utilised and there simply wasn’t room for any additional services.

 

They also pointed out that one of the critical areas through Wigan has only ever been double track since it was first built and this would still be a bottleneck even if additional tracks were reinstated in other areas which saw rationalisation undertaken in the 1970s.

Er no - the trains it dumps at Golborne would be trains which would previously have run on the WCML and which HS 2 would have taken off it to relieve the sections of that route which are suffering capacity problems.  The worst capacity [roblem is south of Rugby and motre particularly south of Hanslope Jcn but there are problems on the Trent Valley hence the more recent additional quadrupling but that still leaves the double section which is a headache due to speed differentials.

 

Not so bad north of Stafford.  Hence the essential need to carry pout Phase 2A which, along with new capacity at Euston, is the big answer ro solvng WCML's worst capacity problems.  Apart from speed differentials - which can be solved in some respects by dynamic loops - the only potential problem at the northern end is where local assenger trains at re using the route in addition to long distance fast trains.   Very different from the situation further south where traffic is not only much denser but speed differentials are a headache for timetable planners.

 

The other problem at the south end is the sheer density of traffic which makes engineering work difficult while at the same time creating the need for more of it.  The speed profile and stopping pattern mix of the different types of train using the route makes a 2 track engineering work timetable near impossible.  The result being that as track renewal work becomes necessary more trains will be subject to booked cancellation and delays.  

 

The answer to that is to remove one of the speed bands and that is exact;ly what the original proposal was as it is far less disruptive, and much cheaper, than adding an additional pair of running lines.  Only probem is that some idiot decided to call the relief route 'High Speed 2' and not only over egg the maximum speed but use that as the PR selling point to justify building the railway.  Alas the country, but particularly the WCML and the trains which have to use it, will be paying the price of that naive piece of PR stupidity for decades to come.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Er no - the trains it dumps at Golborne would be trains which would previously have run on the WCML and which HS 2 would have taken off it to relieve the sections of that route which are suffering capacity problems.  The worst capacity [roblem is south of Rugby and motre particularly south of Hanslope Jcn but there are problems on the Trent Valley hence the more recent additional quadrupling but that still leaves the double section which is a headache due to speed differentials.

 

Not so bad north of Stafford.  Hence the essential need to carry pout Phase 2A which, along with new capacity at Euston, is the big answer ro solvng WCML's worst capacity problems.  Apart from speed differentials - which can be solved in some respects by dynamic loops - the only potential problem at the northern end is where local assenger trains at re using the route in addition to long distance fast trains.   Very different from the situation further south where traffic is not only much denser but speed differentials are a headache for timetable planners.

 

The other problem at the south end is the sheer density of traffic which makes engineering work difficult while at the same time creating the need for more of it.  The speed profile and stopping pattern mix of the different types of train using the route makes a 2 track engineering work timetable near impossible.  The result being that as track renewal work becomes necessary more trains will be subject to booked cancellation and delays.  

 

The answer to that is to remove one of the speed bands and that is exact;ly what the original proposal was as it is far less disruptive, and much cheaper, than adding an additional pair of running lines.  Only probem is that some idiot decided to call the relief route 'High Speed 2' and not only over egg the maximum speed but use that as the PR selling point to justify building the railway.  Alas the country, but particularly the WCML and the trains which have to use it, will be paying the price of that naive piece of PR stupidity for decades to come.

 

But I wasn't referring about HS2 south of Crewe (and what you have said is also precisely what I have also been telling people about HS2 from the start)

 

In theory, the point of adding adding the Golborne spur to the HS2 plans was it would create extra capacity via on the WCML via Warrington for freight or extra semi-fast passenger services (just as with all other bits of the WCML bypassed by HS2), but because it joined the WCML just before the Wigan area where the WCML went down to double track those extra paths via Warrington the Golborne spur created weren't usable!

 

In other words all the Golbourne spur would actually have done is be a very expensive way of speeding up Scottish trains slightly while also potentially depriving Warington of express train calls meaning it couldn't be said to help with capacity / connectivity and could only about speed (which as you have observed is NOT what high speed rail needs to focus on in the UK) 

 

Hence with respect to the Golborne spur, either:

 

(1) You don't build the spur at all and get trains bound for Scotland Blackpool or Preston to use the existing WCML. Nothing wrong with that option - Warrington & Wigan have the ability to have calls inserted by express services as required and it won't make a meaningful difference in journey times for Anglo - Sotish services.

 

or

 

(2) You effectively extend the tracks of the spur up to Preston in some manor, which I hasten to add could include ANY of the following! Widening the current WCML through Wigan and beyond to 4 tracks, rebuilding the Whelly loop for freight, plumbing HS2 into a rebuilt Whelly loop somehow rejoining the WCML at Standish or a completely new line (which wouldn't have to be rated for 250mph - one at 125mph would do the job) to the outskirts of Preston. The upshot of all of these is you have extra capacity created throughout the Crewe - Warington - Wigan - Preston corridor, something the Golborne spur on its own could never achieve and thus can claim very real capacity enhancements for the project not simply a slight decrease in journey times!

Edited January 27 by phil-b259

[APOLLO]

Lovley day and just back from a walk with the Mrs to Haigh Hall, a local country park. We walked over the Whelley line twice on two separate bridges. The route here  is now an overgrown badly (zero) maintained footpath, but intact and not built on. Many other bridges and the (I think) Douglas viaduct are gone, but they were probably unsuitable anyway.

 

I've just "flown over" the Whelley Loop (and GC  line to Lowton) on Google Maps and it's still mostly there, but a lot of housing built over the years is alongside. I notice that a significant portion is now labelled (on Google) "National Cycle Route 55". Problem ? I don't know. I can't see any significant build on the whole route. It is not very curvy and would not cause any significant problems for non tilting high speed trains. North of Preston though is, as discussed, another matter.

 

This is the ONLY practical route around Wigan - to the east. The curvy and very hilly west route is allready taken by the M6 motorway, lots of new build etc around Orrell & Standish. Going southeast to get to Lowton (or the WCML) would be difficult also. (bottom RH side of map)

 

 

The map below shows the railways to the south of Wigan. The original Golborne Link came in bottom centre over the GC line around Culcheth / Lowton then swung left to join the WCML at Bamfurlong. To use the Whelley loop it would continue up the GC and join the Whelley loop at Hindley & Platt Bridge (a connection once existed here), and continue north via Amberswood & Whelley. Route still exists.

 

 

East and North via the old Whelley line. Can't see many problems (other than houses alongside) at Standish Jcn either. The photos in the previous post above show the original 4 track that was apparently electrified. Easy to reinstate to 4 tracks from Standish Jcn, the overhead spans are allready in !!

 

 

 

That's the route sorted. All we need now is a few quid !!!!!!!!

 

Brit15

[phil-b259]

14 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Lovley day and just back from a walk with the Mrs to Haigh Hall, a local country park. We walked over the Whelley line twice on two separate bridges. The route here  is now an overgrown badly (zero) maintained footpath, but intact and not built on. Many other bridges and the (I think) Douglas viaduct are gone, but they were probably unsuitable anyway.

 

I've just "flown over" the Whelley Loop (and GC  line to Lowton) on Google Maps and it's still mostly there, but a lot of housing built over the years is alongside. I notice that a significant portion is now labelled (on Google) "National Cycle Route 55". Problem ? I don't know. I can't see any significant build on the whole route. It is not very curvy and would not cause any significant problems for non tilting high speed trains. North of Preston though is, as discussed, another matter.

 

This is the ONLY practical route around Wigan - to the east. The curvy and very hilly west route is allready taken by the M6 motorway, lots of new build etc around Orrell & Standish. Going southeast to get to Lowton (or the WCML) would be difficult also. (bottom RH side of map)

 

 

Hilly terrain is not an issue with electrically powered railways!

 

Although you are obviously much more qualified to comment, I would have thought a route which hugged the M6 (noting that you wouldn't need it to be a 250mph railway at this point so could have some fairly tightish curves) south and west of Wigan shadowing the motorway to just north of Euxton would have been possible.

 

Also although pure tunnelling as such may not be possible due to the legacy of coal mining maybe options exist to put some bits (or indeed a reopened Whelly loop) in a cut & cover tunnel which would help with places where housing is in close proximity to the railway.

Edited January 27 by phil-b259

[APOLLO]

The problem is not really the M6, it's getting to it from around Lowton to Orrell and getting back to the WCML at Standish. Very hilly and many new houses. The Whelley line is a no brainer, route exists, not many problems etc. No tunnels are required. (And it's not in my backyard either !!!!!!).

 

Brit15

Edited January 27 by APOLLO

[APOLLO]

Interesting videos. You learn something every day, the Douglas viaduct exists (there were two of them and one crossed the other  !!

 

 

 

 

 

Brit15

 

[Northmoor]

Ignoring the scheduling problems resulting from speed differentials - which @The Stationmasterrightly points out is the biggest issue at the WCML's South End - North of Preston, is the presence of level crossings a bigger restriction on line speed?  I thought there were maximum speeds allowed through level crossings; if the WCML line speed is to be increased (to provide some journey time improvement beyond HS2) those crossings have to be closed.  Not cheap if roads need to be diverted via new bridges, but probably considerably more cost-effective than stretches of new railway (and there are the obvious safety benefits of closing any level crossing). 

[melmerby]

46 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

I thought there were maximum speeds allowed through level crossings

The crossings on the ECML north of Peterborough are on a 125mph railway.

The WCML is 110 mph for non tilting trains on much of it.

[Northmoor]

5 minutes ago, melmerby said:

The crossings on the ECML north of Peterborough are on a 125mph railway.

The WCML is 110 mph for non tilting trains on much of it.

My point being that these crossings have "grandfather rights"; a new route, even with the fastest trains at the lower of the two figures, would not be allowed level crossings.  Increase the maximum running speeds on either WCML or ECML and the crossings would need to be closed - I think?  

 

As a hypothetical example, if the Grimsby - Louth - Boston route was re-opened - with something like thirty crossings on the closed section - what would be the maximum line speed permitted?  I would guess at something like 50mph.

[DenysW]

15 minutes ago, melmerby said:

The crossings on the ECML north of Peterborough are on a 125mph railway.

Are there implication on paths if not speed? I thought that full-barriers were interlocked so that trains would stop in time if the barriers failed. This surely is a hit on frequency if not on speed.

[Northmoor]

7 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Are there implication on paths if not speed? I thought that full-barriers were interlocked so that trains would stop in time if the barriers failed. This surely is a hit on frequency if not on speed.

I think the Group Standard used to require any train to be able to decelerate to no more than 50mph when it got to the crossing.  I don't recall if that was based on the preceding signal changing to red in front of the driver or from the point where they were able to see the crossing was obstructed.

[figworthy]

21 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

 

 

I think I'm starting to understand why some folk in the North Wet are unhappy with the local rail services.

 

Adrian

[phil-b259]

9 hours ago, DenysW said:

Are there implication on paths if not speed? I thought that full-barriers were interlocked so that trains would stop in time if the barriers failed. This surely is a hit on frequency if not on speed.

 

Seeing as (1) signals cannot be cleared unless the barriers are lowered and the crossing confirmed to be clear AND (2) if the barriers lose down detection, the boom proving circuit is broken or the lights fail then any previously cleared signals will revert to red then train speeds are irrelevant.

 

However because of the grater 'down time' in which a crossing is closed to road traffic you can get to a stage where train frequencies have to be limited so as to provide a reasonable amount of 'up time' - this is why numerous attempts to link Heathrow to the ex LSWR routes via Staines / Chertsey have failed because the amount of time level crossings are closed to road traffic is already beyond what is desirable given the busyness of the roads in question.