My idea for an alternative to High Speed Two

[HSTEd]

Well really a Breitspurbahn isn't that unrealistic - it would provide inexhaustible capacity from a two track line.
Wouldn't bet that much more expensive than a conventional high speed route considering TBM drive prices scale quite well.

 

[edwin_m]

Well really a Breitspurbahn isn't that unrealistic - it would provide inexhaustible capacity from a two track line.
Wouldn't bet that much more expensive than a conventional high speed route considering TBM drive prices scale quite well.

Why would a wider track gauge increase capacity over a new line to standard gauge? If the train can be made wider it could be made longer instead, and the frequency of trains doesn't depend on the track gauge.

It also has the huge disadvantage that trains can't run through onto the existing network except by some sort of Talgo-type arrangement.

 

[DasLunatic]

Why would a wider track gauge increase capacity over a new line to standard gauge? If the train can be made wider it could be made longer instead, and the frequency of trains doesn't depend on the track gauge.

It also has the huge disadvantage that trains can't run through onto the existing network except by some sort of Talgo-type arrangement.

And even then, you'd need immense loading gauges. W12 won't cut it.

 

[HSTEd]

Why would a wider track gauge increase capacity over a new line to standard gauge? If the train can be made wider it could be made longer instead, and the frequency of trains doesn't depend on the track gauge.

Because the train would be at least 6 metres wide and 7 high.
Its the size of a typical wide body airliner fuselage. You would certainly have double deck and might even be able to cram three decks in - especially since those dimensions are from the 40s and you could probably push the height another metre or so without stability issues.

Freight trains could easily carry double stacked containers two rows wide, and might even be able to manage triple stack depending on the vertical envelope you are going for.

It also has the huge disadvantage that trains can't run through onto the existing network except by some sort of Talgo-type arrangement.

If you really must have through services - you can just have the train ride piggyback on the back of the Breitspurbahn train since it is so much smaller than it.

You could fit two GC gauge trains side by side on a single carrier rake.
Train rolls to the end of the line - trains disembark like its a train ferry. There is even enough headroom that the carrier train could provide a conductor rail so they can move off immediately under their own power once the linkspan is in position.

EDIT:

Clarify I am not actually seriously floating this - but I am struggling to see any showstoppers with it - you could provide travel between cities over long distances quickly and with tiny marginal costs due to the enormous economies of scale.

 

[The Ham]

The main things I can think of is that it doesn't sound like it is going to be particularly quick (either acceleration or top speed) also loading/unloading would likely take some time.

.

 

[HSTEd]

The main things I can think of is that it doesn't sound like it is going to be particularly quick (either acceleration or top speed) also loading/unloading would likely take some time.

With enough horsepower and driven axles the train can accelerate as fast as any other train. Hence we would likely need 50kV overheads.

And unloading becomes less of an issue because you can almost make the side of the train out of doors - and you can ahve wider aisles as required. You can easily use the Spanish solution of opening both sides at once since you are building the system from scratch.
The real madness starts when people start proposing double deck platforms.

 

[The Ham]

HS2's usefulness depends on if it is a one off (much like HS1 was seen as being for a long time) or whether it is the start of a wider network to replace the key mainlines with new dedicated simple lines.

If the former then it has limited benefits over and above a traditional line, and so I can see why some are sceptical of the need for it.

If the latter then it could be the first step to the removal of most intercity trains from the existing network. With lines running out of London along the WCML, ECML, GWML and connecting across the Pennines (HS3) serving all the mainland UK's major cities. As such it is quite a different concept.

 

[HSTEd]

No reason you couldn't have a network of insane gauge trains......
Never need more than double track though I imagine.

 

[pwl2706]

wow, I seem to have opened a hornets nest of qualified, experienced railway engineers and other people who know what they're talking about...

That's what I love about forums like this, ask a question, and get a debate going about feasibility with knowledgeable people talking about tolerances and so on...

Thank you all so much for getting involved...

I certainly appreciate now that it would not be a simple, quick, cheap, or even cost effective alternative to a brand new line designed and surveyed for modern trains...

I was however wondering why such a project had never been considered even before HS2... now I know...

Also, to clarify, I was indeed thinking of the kind of broad guage railways they have in Russia (is that like Brunel's original large guage tracks on the railway down to his new station at Bristol?) ... to enable much larger carriages...

 

[DerekC]

It would be interesting to see if anyone has any other ideas that are slightly more realistic than this and could be done. I'm not necessarily talking about upgrading existing lines, I do think that a brand new mainline is what we need, but I don't think that the new mainline in question should be HS2.

Well, if we had been serious about greening the UK the 2005 (or thereabouts) Central Railway proposal for a freight route from the Channel Tunnel to the Midlands should have been snapped up by Government - but it ran straight into a combination of DfT "not invented here" and Treasury lack of vision.

 

[Haydn1971]

HS2's usefulness depends on if it is a one off (much like HS1 was seen as being for a long time) or whether it is the start of a wider network to replace the key mainlines with new dedicated simple lines.

Given the huge step change in passenger carrying capability that HS2 provides, I'm struggling to see the need for any other line to be developed to the same level beyond an extension to the Central Belt and a separate line to Bristol. Stuff like HS3 isn't really "high speed" in the same context as HS2, it's just been caught up in the hype. I do see a need for new bespoke lines, offering services in the 110-125mph range for new routes for TransPennine and a Cross Midlands route, but I see the rest simply being line speed and gauge improvements to existing lines, in particular for CrossCountry and other routes feeding into HS2 and any other new lines.

 

[nidave]

I think the OP meant building lines on top of current main lines.

Oh, I didn't spot that plus: WHAT?????

 

[sprinterguy]

Also, to clarify, I was indeed thinking of the kind of broad guage railways they have in Russia (is that like Brunel's original large guage tracks on the railway down to his new station at Bristol?)

No, the standard track gauge in Russia is five foot; not a great deal more than the British standard 4' 8.5'', and considerably less than Brunel's seven foot gauge.

Note as well as the points raised above, that the radii of curves on existing main lines will often be too sharp to permit true high speed running, if a new line was to trace the course of the old. And personally, I'd rather a new High Speed line connects as many cities as possible in its' course (as HS2 does a reasonable job of doing), rather than following historical routes. HS2 for instance should have a big impact on journeys between the West Midlands, South Yorkshire and North East England, as well as reducing pressure on London-centric travel demand.

 

[The Ham]

Given the huge step change in passenger carrying capability that HS2 provides, I'm struggling to see the need for any other line to be developed to the same level beyond an extension to the Central Belt and a separate line to Bristol. Stuff like HS3 isn't really "high speed" in the same context as HS2, it's just been caught up in the hype. I do see a need for new bespoke lines, offering services in the 110-125mph range for new routes for TransPennine and a Cross Midlands route, but I see the rest simply being line speed and gauge improvements to existing lines, in particular for CrossCountry and other routes feeding into HS2 and any other new lines.

However, once we have HS2, how useful would it be to have any (major) new rail improvements (such as HS3) to be capable of change to allow through running of HS2 like trains so that the UK could over time (thinking probably still only a few lines even in my grandchildren's life time and my eldest is 3!) be able to change to being able to run more European sized trains over more of its network? In the same way that the 16x's are fairly limited to just former Brunell lines.

There are always going to be sections of lines which would be difficult to do (due to running from lots of different types of services) and the number of overbridges and the like. However as I understand it (other than height) it is mostly due to platform shape, as such it may require a few through lines at more minor stations and some platforms not being usable by existing "British" trains at the more major stations. Therefore the work to a lot of lines would be fairly minimal to have passive provision to allow for future conversion to allow the use of European sized trains in terms of track side equipment locations and providing the extra height when over structures need replacing.

 

[najaB]

I think that this:

Therefore the work to a lot of lines would be fairly minimal to have passive provision to allow for future conversion to allow the use of European sized trains in terms of track side equipment locations and providing the extra height when over structures need replacing.

Is covered by this:

...but I see the rest simply being line speed and gauge improvements to existing lines, in particular for CrossCountry and other routes feeding into HS2 and any other new lines.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

However, once we have HS2, how useful would it be to have any (major) new rail improvements (such as HS3) to be capable of change to allow through running of HS2 like trains so that the UK could over time (thinking probably still only a few lines even in my grandchildren's life time and my eldest is 3!) be able to change to being able to run more European sized trains over more of its network?

If HS3 is built, it will be gauged to match HS2, and will effectively join the two sides of the planned Y formation, the Manchester side and the Leeds side, maybe extending Liverpool to York but probably not. It might even allow a semi circular service - London to Manchester, Manchester to Leeds, Leeds to London service with the same rolling stock.

Gauge clearing all but the most rural of lines for the same stock will be prohibitive - there's just too much stuff built on top of them. New lines will almost certainly be the easy and cheaper option here.

 

[The Ham]

Gauge clearing all but the most rural of lines for the same stock will be prohibitive - there's just too much stuff built on top of them. New lines will almost certainly be the easy and cheaper option here.

I wasn't thinking of gauge clearing lines into London (clearly future metro/underground/crossrail/etc lines are the way forward) or as a replacement for existing urban lines. I was thinking more with regards to being able to extend services beyond HS2 (and/or other future new lines) to places which would otherwise need classic compatible stock. Which although would involve some urban lines could have the link between the new urban line and (say) HS2 provided by an existing (upgraded) line.

 

[Camden]

Given that it has been said that there are 40% fewer passengers travelling between Manchester and Leeds than they would expect for "cities of this size" (and this is despite a whopping six transpennine trains an hour taking a not at all unreasonable 40 odd minutes), a high speed railway line between the two of them alone is obviously not worth it.

 

[HSTEd]

40 minutes is probably too long.
Its enough to discourage casual travel between the two.

 

[po8crg]

If I'm being ambitious (or thinking very long-term, ie by 2100 or so), I could see some lines being widened to allow captive trains to through-run.

In particular: North Wales Coast, Highland Main Line, Perth-Dundee-Aberdeen, Cornish Main Line, Selby-Hull, all of which could see GC gauge trains, but none of which are ever likely to justify full HS construction.

 

[The Ham]

If I'm being ambitious (or thinking very long-term, ie by 2100 or so), I could see some lines being widened to allow captive trains to through-run.

In particular: North Wales Coast, Highland Main Line, Perth-Dundee-Aberdeen, Cornish Main Line, Selby-Hull, all of which could see GC gauge trains, but none of which are ever likely to justify full HS construction.

Those were the sorts of lines that I was thinking of up thread (probably some time away though). Lines with relatively few other services and those that do run it wouldn't generally be a problem to convert to run with GC gauge trains as they would just connect with a full HS construction line before heading into an urban area.

 

[Camden]

40 minutes is probably too long.
Its enough to discourage casual travel between the two.

What rot. It's roughly the same time to travel between Liverpool and Manchester, who have fewer good trains but who also have twice the number of passengers going between them.

There are plenty of people who do 40 minute plus journeys all over the country.

The arguments weakly propping up a Leeds to Manchester HS3 are absurd.

 

[HSTEd]

People don't pop from Liverpool to Manchester to do a bit of shopping on a whim though.
It turns into a day trip.
With ~20 minute journey times the cities would merge into one.

 

[najaB]

If I'm being ambitious (or thinking very long-term, ie by 2100 or so), I could see some lines being widened to allow captive trains to through-run.

In particular: North Wales Coast, Highland Main Line, Perth-Dundee-Aberdeen, Cornish Main Line, Selby-Hull, all of which could see GC gauge trains, but none of which are ever likely to justify full HS construction.

HML could be interesting given some of the structures (e.g. the Killecrankie Viaduct and tunnel). Not sure what the lateral clearance is on the Tay Bridge while thinking about it.

 

[edwin_m]

To increase clearances for UIC gauge would almost certainly involve increasing the track spacing, which will entail rebuilding:
- at least half of the track, signals, OLE, earthworks
- almost all the structures including tunnels
- every platform (unless bypassed by loops - UK gauge trains can't call at UIC gauge platforms and UIC gauge trains can't even pass UK gauge platforms)

All of which is likely to be more expensive than building a new line and certainly far more disruptive.

 

[HSTEd]

UK gauge trains can't call at UIC gauge platforms

Well standard ones can't anyway.

Although really there is no reason that an expanded loading gauge would have to be UIC really.

If you take GC gauge and make it something less than a metre taller you could have the British platform envelope and still have double deck trains, and you could even have below floor traction equipment! (The lower deck floor would be level/above with the platform edge).
Looking at ~5.4-5.5m overall height.

Such a gauge would still be stable if the freight experience and superliners in the US are anything to go by.

 

[Altfish]

Given that it has been said that there are 40% fewer passengers travelling between Manchester and Leeds than they would expect for "cities of this size" (and this is despite a whopping six transpennine trains an hour taking a not at all unreasonable 40 odd minutes), a high speed railway line between the two of them alone is obviously not worth it.

Where can I catch these trains that take 40-minutes?

 

[absolutelymilk]

Where can I catch these trains that take 40-minutes?

http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/timesandfares/Manchester/LDS/120116/1515/dep#outwardJump

Yes, the quickest ones are 49 minutes

 

[exile]

People don't pop from Liverpool to Manchester to do a bit of shopping on a whim though.
It turns into a day trip.
With ~20 minute journey times the cities would merge into one.

That's due to cost rather than time.

 

[HSTEd]

That's due to cost rather than time.

The efficiencies of a higher speed, higher capacity solution would almost certainly lead to lower fares, at least in real terms, in time.