If you were DfT - the future of Voyagers

[RAGNARØKR]

they already have elsewhere, I can't find where at the moment though.

In the land of the cuckoo clock, where else.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem is that the UK network is made up of a lot of lines and services which see up to 4 coach long trains (which I seem to recall you have said in the past is too short for loco hauling), of the rest quite a lot of services need to run with the maximum number of coaches or are South East EMU services. That only leaves relatively few services where loco hauled trains would be useful and even those are often better run as DMU's (with running speeds of up to 100 mph) as they can split and run as short formations to a couple of destinations (again 4 or less coaches).

Small lightweight locos about the power of a class 20 would deal with the problem you are talking about. But if you look at the Southern up to the early 1990s there was a small fleet of loco-hauled stock for use in the peaks, and DEMUs to run the base-load service. But that still leaves plenty of scope for standardisation. The Southern DMUs had trailer vehicles identical to those on their EMUs which in turn were basically the same as the vehicles designed for steam haulage. Which meant that, for instance, some of the DEMUs eventually ran with EMU trailers in the formation.

Also the track access charges for the cheapest loco is nearly 3 times that of the most expensive DMU coach and most DMU's (including the class 158's and 159's) are cheaper than a mark 3 coach, meaning that the lease costs of the Loco and coaches would have to be quite a lot lower than a DMU for loco hauling to be a viable option.

You regularly raise the issue of track costs but how significant are they in the overall scheme of things? The capital cost of rolling stock is one of the really big ones.

If everything was equal that would make sense, however there are a few flaws in that suggestion:

- Firstly HS2 isn't currently planned to run to Scotland, so that is extra money that would need to be spent

- Secondly the numbers of passengers between Tyneside and the Midlands is probably a fraction of that of the numbers of passengers between London and all the places services by HS2. As basicly HS2 works because it is running into London, all the people that will be able to travel between the other stations are an added bonus. Which means although you would be receiving an income earlier it may not cover the costs of running the trains, let alone off setting some of the interest costs.

- Thirdly, even if the passenger numbers were enough to pay for running the trains and covering some of the interest costs that is likely to be at the expense of most of the existing services, potentially resulting in a reduction of services for many towns along the line. Conversely, even though the Birmingham - London section of HS2 may take a few more years more to be built than your suggestion, once it is running it could bring much more relief to the existing lines enabling more services to places between the two.

In which case a high speed line is probably not the right way to deal with the capacity problem at all. Anywhere in the UK. High speed rail works when there are large conurbations with a lot of empty space in between. The UK south of about Manchester consists of dozens of settlements with populations of between 1000,000 and 250,000, with a lot of the spaces in between built up as well. That pattern calls for a network with plenty of connections, not a main stem to concentrate the traffic flow. Arguably, HS2 is exactly the wrong solution to the transport needs of people in the southern half of the UK, where most people live and work.

 

[The Ham]

What really concerns me is not CP5, or indeed anything in the next two decades, it's whether I'll still be able to get to Aberdeen with one change in 2050; whether the train I'll be travelling on will be as good as or better than an IC225; and whether the journey time will be faster or slower.

Depends on passenger numbers by the time we get to 2050. If growth goes up by 1% year on year between now and then that will be 43% more people (i.e. 143 people for every 100 who travel now). Up that to 2% year on year and its 104% more (i.e. 204 people for every 100 who travel now).

That means that with even very low growth figures, even two towns with a medium number of people (say 50 people a day) travelling between them could well justify a fairly good connecting service unless the network gets so overloaded with people because no new lines are built that only the very major towns and cities retain any sort of service.

 

[Rhydgaled]

privatisation stepped in and every company went its own way. Naturally, they concentrated their best stock on their best routes, hence the bulk ordering of semi-fast/regional express DMUs

Surely the only regional express DMUs ordered since privatisation are the class 175s, I'd hardly call that bulk ordering. There was bulk ordering of class 170s, but they aren't regional express units in my book, they are flawed design coupling the slow acceleration of an Intercity train with the door layout of a train for busy short distance and/or all-stops suburban services.

Now I've looked for it, I can't find the source... Although it's more than likely I got numbers mixed up with the number and working out of orders Southern are making... Figures I've now found today point to around £1.1m-£1.4m, depending on the scale of order. Still, it's far less than the amount RAGNARØKR has quoted for a new DMU carriage.

Assuming the £1.1m-£1.4m you are quoting is for electrostar EMU vehicles then of course it would be bit less than a new DMU carriage, electrics are supposed to be cheaper to build than diesels aren't they?

Arguably, HS2 is exactly the wrong solution to the transport needs of people in the southern half of the UK, where most people live and work.

There are a few major flaws with the design of HS2 in my opinion. The first is that Birmingham is proposed to be a terminous, with seperate trains to Manchester. In my opinion it would make more sense if the line went to Manchester via Birmingham, and then have the link to Scotland come after Manchester which should also be a through station. More importantly though it does nothing to help capacity on the GWML and the 3rd rail network south of London, which are even busier than the WCML. Instead of the Heathrow spur of HS2 I would have the line from Manchester and Birmingham tunnel under London and continue to Heathrow after the central London station. At a later date the line could be extended from Heathrow to Reading. East of Heathrow, in the tunnel, a line could branch off in the Southampton/Portsmouth direction to take some of the presure of Waterloo. A triangle north of Euston/Kings Cross would link the line to the London HS2 station (and beyond that Heathrow/Reading and Portsmouth/Southampton), the line to Manchester via Birmingham and HS1 to mainland Europe.

 

[LE Greys]

Surely the only regional express DMUs ordered since privatisation are the class 175s, I'd hardly call that bulk ordering. There was bulk ordering of class 170s, but they aren't regional express units in my book, they are flawed design coupling the slow acceleration of an Intercity train with the door layout of a train for busy short distance and/or all-stops suburban services.

170s, of course, had to be made light enough to use SP differentials. My main experience of them is in Scotland, where they are the backbone of the regional express services (what that says about Scotrail's backbone I'll leave for you to design). That's also what Central Trains ordered them for, and what Cross Country ended up using them for. I'd say they were ordered for regional expresses, whether they are suited to them or not.

There are a few major flaws with the design of HS2 in my opinion. The first is that Birmingham is proposed to be a terminous, with seperate trains to Manchester. In my opinion it would make more sense if the line went to Manchester via Birmingham, and then have the link to Scotland come after Manchester which should also be a through station. More importantly though it does nothing to help capacity on the GWML and the 3rd rail network south of London, which are even busier than the WCML. Instead of the Heathrow spur of HS2 I would have the line from Manchester and Birmingham tunnel under London and continue to Heathrow after the central London station. At a later date the line could be extended from Heathrow to Reading. East of Heathrow, in the tunnel, a line could branch off in the Southampton/Portsmouth direction to take some of the presure of Waterloo. A triangle north of Euston/Kings Cross would link the line to the London HS2 station (and beyond that Heathrow/Reading and Portsmouth/Southampton), the line to Manchester via Birmingham and HS1 to mainland Europe.

I certainly agree with all that, although my version of the solution involved a four-track 'cavern' somewhere under Queen's Park where HS1 and HS2 combine with a pair of crossovers (similar to but not the same as Camden Town). Two HS2 lines then follow the same route through Old Oak that they are planned to, the other two surface west of the station and initially connect directly to the GWML fast lines, absorbing Heathrow Express. Later on, they go under the GWML, access Heathrow from the eastern end, then sweep north to join the GWML at Langley. This spur eventually forms HS-GW, a line to Swansea and Plymouth via Bristol. It would have access points to the existing stations at Reading and Swindon, allowing a Javelin-style service to Bristol, Cheltenham and Hereford, taking in Bath, Chippenham, Gloucester, Oxford and so on. Platform space might be a bit stretched at Euston by then, so there would be two options, send trains to Paddington or run them through to Kent (or Paris/Brussels).

The Waterloo route can't really be relieved that way, there are just too many stations. IMO, the best option there would be to W10 as much of the line as possible and start double-decking the trains. However, I've never given as much thought to that, and my concern with diverting trains away from their traditional route is that it might affect Woking, Surbiton and Wimbledon.

 

[HSTEd]

W10 is 40cm too short for double decker trains....

 

[LE Greys]

W10 is 40cm too short for double decker trains....

That's awkward. :? There was I thinking 'Basingstoke-Southampton is already gauge-enhanced, how convenient'.

 

[The Ham]

The Waterloo route can't really be relieved that way, there are just too many stations. IMO, the best option there would be to W10 as much of the line as possible and start double-decking the trains. However, I've never given as much thought to that, and my concern with diverting trains away from their traditional route is that it might affect Woking, Surbiton and Wimbledon.

The Waterloo route (SWML) needs Crossrail 2 to be a regional metro so that the metro services can be taken of the surface lines freeing up more paths into Waterloo for the longer distance routes.

Then build a grade separated junction at Woking to remove the crossing paths which limit the number of services there and look at other pinch points on the line to allow extra trains to be run. It would also enable the possibility of increasing line speeds and removing a lot of the complicated junctions making it a lot easier to put up overhead cable all the way along.

Given how busy the trains through Basingstoke, Farnborough and Woking are running extra services would soon fill up, especially at it would allow a more frequent service to be run. If you were to path 2 trains which ran Salisbury, Andover, Basingstoke, Farnborough, Woking and London Waterloo they would enable a lot more peak hour passengers to travel. Which would mean that they would probably be fairly full, with the service that they relived also being almost as busy as at present, within a few years.

 

[AndyLandy]

Crossrail 2? We don't even have Crossrail 1 yet. Where's Crossrail 2 going to run between?

 

[The Ham]

Crossrail 2? We don't even have Crossrail 1 yet. Where's Crossrail 2 going to run between?

here are some links which give the basics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail_2

http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/local_transport_today/news/?id=28776
(subscription to read all the article, but shows the two maps, one being basicly a tube line and one being the regional metro)

 

[tbtc]

Crossrail 2? We don't even have Crossrail 1 yet. Where's Crossrail 2 going to run between?

It depends on which way the wind is blowing, but the general idea is a combination of the Wimbledon branch of the District Line, paralleling the busiest bit of the Victoria Line between Victoria and Kings Cross then out to Epping to replace bits of the Central Line.

Since Thameslink is the "North South" line through London and Crossrail 1 will be the "East West" line through London, this is "North East - South West" line.

There have been suggestions for it to be tube and for it to be for "full sized" trains, suggestions for it to serve other destinations (Clapham Junction, the "West Anglia" branches to Hertford East etc)0.

 

[jimm]

Surely the only regional express DMUs ordered since privatisation are the class 175s, I'd hardly call that bulk ordering. There was bulk ordering of class 170s, but they aren't regional express units in my book, they are flawed design coupling the slow acceleration of an Intercity train with the door layout of a train for busy short distance and/or all-stops suburban services.

Assuming the £1.1m-£1.4m you are quoting is for electrostar EMU vehicles then of course it would be bit less than a new DMU carriage, electrics are supposed to be cheaper to build than diesels aren't they?

There are a few major flaws with the design of HS2 in my opinion. The first is that Birmingham is proposed to be a terminous, with seperate trains to Manchester. In my opinion it would make more sense if the line went to Manchester via Birmingham, and then have the link to Scotland come after Manchester which should also be a through station. More importantly though it does nothing to help capacity on the GWML and the 3rd rail network south of London, which are even busier than the WCML. Instead of the Heathrow spur of HS2 I would have the line from Manchester and Birmingham tunnel under London and continue to Heathrow after the central London station. At a later date the line could be extended from Heathrow to Reading. East of Heathrow, in the tunnel, a line could branch off in the Southampton/Portsmouth direction to take some of the presure of Waterloo. A triangle north of Euston/Kings Cross would link the line to the London HS2 station (and beyond that Heathrow/Reading and Portsmouth/Southampton), the line to Manchester via Birmingham and HS1 to mainland Europe.

How exactly do you propose to put a high-speed railway line through the West Midlands conurbation in order that it could run via Birmingham to Manchester?

The M40 still ends in the countryside south of Birmingham because the Thatcher government was too afraid of the political consequences of trying to drive it through the leafier bits of suburbia into the city.

You want to do that with a high-speed railway and then try to take it north through the heavily built-up West Midlands conurbation? Good luck with that.

If HS2 trains between Manchester and London are full anyway, what would be the point of sending them via Birmingham? All HS2 does is replicate the existing situation, with Birmingham served by a branch off the West Coast Main Line. Whatever happens, you will need a new station in Birmingham, given that there is nothing much you can do with New Street but tinker at the edges, given the constraints of the site.

 

[Chris125]

It depends on which way the wind is blowing, but the general idea is a combination of the Wimbledon branch of the District Line, paralleling the busiest bit of the Victoria Line between Victoria and Kings Cross then out to Epping to replace bits of the Central Line.

That was the idea but this map shows the current thinking, and though more expensive is probably the most likely to happen given the capacity issues emerging on national rail lines into London, especially the SWML.

Chris

 

[AndyLandy]

Do either of the CrossRail proposals cover through-Intercity journeys? Cross-London transfers are the bane of many an Intercity traveller, and I'd really like to see something done to fix that.

Even so, the prospect of through journeys from Waterloo to Euston fills me with much joy!

 

[Class172]

Even so, the prospect of through journeys from Waterloo to Euston fills me with much joy!

How about a through service from Birmingham to Exeter (via Euston and Waterloo).

 

[AndyLandy]

How about a through service from Birmingham to Exeter (via Euston and Waterloo).

Make that Crewe and Southampton (via Euston and Waterloo) and you'll have yourself a deal!

Actually, I'd be happy with SOU-BSK-BHM-HTF, so Birmingham to Exeter is fine with me, too!

 

[HSTEd]

How about linking the GWML fast lines to the GEML fast lines....

Norwich to South Wales trains.
Station under Hyde Park (cut and cover).

Will enable Paddington to close and the land to be sold off.
And probably allow most of Liverpool Street to undergo a similar procedure.

 

[AndyLandy]

How about linking the GWML fast lines to the GEML fast lines....

Norwich to South Wales trains.
Station under Hyde Park (cut and cover).

Will enable Paddington to close and the land to be sold off.
And probably allow most of Liverpool Street to undergo a similar procedure.

What about the large volume of trains that start/terminate in those two London terminals? Are you going to squeeze every GE and GW train into the tunnels? Crossrail would probably need to be a quad-track railway between the current PD and LS terminals, with a large cut-and-cover station under Hyde Park.

 

[HSTEd]

What about the large volume of trains that start/terminate in those two London terminals? Are you going to squeeze every GE and GW train into the tunnels? Crossrail would probably need to be a quad-track railway between the current PD and LS terminals, with a large cut-and-cover station under Hyde Park.

The only things that will be left in Paddington post Crossrail will consist of some thames valley commuter trains and the IEP/Far West services and maybe the Heathrow Express.

Those can all easily be carried on two tracks through London (as they will all be carried on two tracks east of Reading anyway).

 

[tbtc]

That was the idea but this map shows the current thinking, and though more expensive is probably the most likely to happen given the capacity issues emerging on national rail lines into London, especially the SWML.

Chris

Cheers Chris - that's quite a "complicated" map of lines, compared to the emphasis on keeping Crossrail 1 to just two branches at each end (so as not to complicate things), hence not running Crossrail up the WCML to replace the stoppers or further into Kent/ Essex.

Would free up a few platforms at Waterloo though - and make South London much easier to reach from KX!

 

[60163]

My contribution to this thread is less informed, but emotive:

Not up and down the country.

At Truro last July. First thing I saw: Voyager. Already looked full, had a large crowd waiting to get on it, and was going to Manchester Piccadilly! I get a sore behind riding them from Birmingham to Tamworth....!

 

[AndyLandy]

The only things that will be left in Paddington post Crossrail will consist of some thames valley commuter trains and the IEP/Far West services and maybe the Heathrow Express.

Those can all easily be carried on two tracks through London (as they will all be carried on two tracks east of Reading anyway).

Where are all the IEPs going to start/terminate?

 

[Goatboy]

My contribution to this thread is less informed, but emotive:

Not up and down the country.

At Truro last July. First thing I saw: Voyager. Already looked full, had a large crowd waiting to get on it, and was going to Manchester Piccadilly! I get a sore behind riding them from Birmingham to Tamworth....!

Last week at Taunton the platform was so full there was almost nowhere to stand, everyone having come up by bus due to the closure.

The Taunton to Edinburgh turns up... As a 4 car Voyager. 4 coaches. Almost had to leave people behind.

About to catch another now. Just tried a 10 minute reservation - no seat availability as per usual. So it'll be another wedged one I would imagine.

 

[HSTEd]

Where are all the IEPs going to start/terminate?

Norwich, Ipswich, Clacton and possibly Cambridge if the WAML can be hooked in as well.

(I want another two tracks across London to achieve this, with one station at Hyde Park and possibly another station near the current location of Liverpool Street)

 

[Goatboy]

About to catch another now. Just tried a 10 minute reservation - no seat availability as per usual. So it'll be another wedged one I would imagine.

It seems the system is just useless, there are plenty of seats and they all say 'Available - may be reserved later'. The entire coach. Which is handy, hopefully I won't be turfed out of my seat by somebody who had more luck with the TMR service than I did.

 

[AndyLandy]

Norwich, Ipswich, Clacton and possibly Cambridge if the WAML can be hooked in as well.

(I want another two tracks across London to achieve this, with one station at Hyde Park and possibly another station near the current location of Liverpool Street)

Is that going to be enough? I guess if you effectively combined the GWML and GEML via the centre of London, you'd do away with the vast majority of terminating services, so long as you can fit them all through the tunnel and out the other side. Quad-track would be a bare minimum, I'd have thought.

Still, if you're not running long-distance trains through the tunnels, what's the point? London already has loads of commuter services running through tunnels beneath it. It's time Intercity had the same privilege!

 

[tbtc]

Norwich, Ipswich, Clacton and possibly Cambridge if the WAML can be hooked in as well.

(I want another two tracks across London to achieve this, with one station at Hyde Park and possibly another station near the current location of Liverpool Street)

So you want to run services to places like Swansea and Norwich in a two track tunnel through the middle of London?

Bearing in mind the dwell times for Intercity services, and the door configurations on Intercity services, how on earth is that going to work?

Crossrail is going to have trains with wide doors, only a few seats, designed for standees (and no toilets)

IEP is going to have fewer doors (given the length of the coaches), and would be a nightmare to schedule for short dwell times.

Don't see how this would work for one moment.

 

[HSTEd]

So you want to run services to places like Swansea and Norwich in a two track tunnel through the middle of London?

Bearing in mind the dwell times for Intercity services, and the door configurations on Intercity services, how on earth is that going to work?

Crossrail is going to have trains with wide doors, only a few seats, designed for standees (and no toilets)

IEP is going to have fewer doors (given the length of the coaches), and would be a nightmare to schedule for short dwell times.

Don't see how this would work for one moment.

Why are dwell times really relevent?

Say 12 trains per hour through the core section, which easily accounts for all long distance and probably outer commuter trains on both lines.
You have a four platform station in a cut and cover 'box' underneath Hyde Park.

10 minute platform cycle time should easily be sufficient.
If its not there is almost certainly room to add a third platform in each direction, taking us to 15 minutes.

And when we are planning 3 minute headways on high speed lines I am not entirely sure how 5 minute headways at rather lower speeds is out of the question.

If you were to provide a second station in East London it would also need a similar number of platforms.

There would be no enormously expensive intermediate stations.

You get to demolish about 4ha of station in Paddington on what is likely sought after land (with excellent London Underground Links) and probably a similar amount in the approach since there would be no need for the current mass of trackwork.

Plus anything you can do at Liverpool Street.

 

[AndyLandy]

You get to demolish about 4ha of station in Paddington

Actually, I suspect English Heritage might have something to say on that matter...

 

[LE Greys]

Why are dwell times really relevent?

Say 12 trains per hour through the core section, which easily accounts for all long distance and probably outer commuter trains on both lines.
You have a four platform station in a cut and cover 'box' underneath Hyde Park.

10 minute platform cycle time should easily be sufficient.
If its not there is almost certainly room to add a third platform in each direction, taking us to 15 minutes.

And when we are planning 3 minute headways on high speed lines I am not entirely sure how 5 minute headways at rather lower speeds is out of the question.

If you were to provide a second station in East London it would also need a similar number of platforms.

There would be no enormously expensive intermediate stations.

You get to demolish about 4ha of station in Paddington on what is likely sought after land (with excellent London Underground Links) and probably a similar amount in the approach since there would be no need for the current mass of trackwork.

Plus anything you can do at Liverpool Street.

When building a new station, it should be possible to make it wide enough to have platforms on both sides of each line (the so-called 'Spanish solution') which ought to speed up dwell times considerably. However, I'm not so sure about having the former Intercity services running right through London, since I reckon quite a lot of them would be going to London anyway. Suburban services are another matter. Where we draw the line is a very good question (I'm the one who thinks an Oxford-Dover service is possible after all) but I suspect it's unlikely we'll see a Penzance-Norwich service any time soon. Still, it's always possible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Actually, I suspect English Heritage might have something to say on that matter...

And, yes, that as well. If it ever is abandoned, then it's more likely to turn into a shopping centre with a giant, covered car park and direct access from the Westway. Something like what happened to Glasgow St Enoch.

 

[The Ham]

When building a new station, it should be possible to make it wide enough to have platforms on both sides of each line (the so-called 'Spanish solution') which ought to speed up dwell times considerably. However, I'm not so sure about having the former Intercity services running right through London, since I reckon quite a lot of them would be going to London anyway. Suburban services are another matter. Where we draw the line is a very good question (I'm the one who thinks an Oxford-Dover service is possible after all) but I suspect it's unlikely we'll see a Penzance-Norwich service any time soon. Still, it's always possible.

It might be possible to run longer distance IC services through London, but there would be a lot of challenges to overcome.

If the IC services ran on the outside of the slow lines (Fast, slow, slow, fast) that would enable the minor stations to be bypassed by the IC services whilst making the station compact. It would also mean that at stations where they did call passengers could change from the IC service to the stopping service by walking across the platform, whilst enabling the option to leave the station from the outer platform (assuming double sided platforms are being used).

There would have to be limited number of station calls through London so to limit the number of people who wished to use the IC services over the slower services. It would also be advisable to provide some semi fast services along the lines to further limit the demand for the IC services, I would suggest as close in front of the IC services as possible (maybe even slowing the IC services down so the journey times are the same).