My idea for a WCML and MML Reliever line

[London Trains]

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1FlwJCxxEAq_4k_PxmInTINvRBck&usp=sharing

It is a four track relief line with stations at Luton & Dunstable Parkway and Newport Pagnell. Brent Cross is for EMT and Thameslink only.

What do you all think?

 

[Lrd]

I think the M1 might get in the way at some point...

 

[swt_passenger]

I suspect there’s quite a few higher priority two track railways that need four tracks...

 

[furnessvale]

I suspect there’s quite a few higher priority two track railways that need four tracks...

There are also lines that used to have more tracks than there are at present so the formation is ready for reuse.

 

[30907]

I rather think the M1 corridor was considered for HS2, and rejected early on for practical reasons.

 

[backontrack]

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1FlwJCxxEAq_4k_PxmInTINvRBck&usp=sharing

It is a four track relief line with stations at Luton & Dunstable Parkway and Newport Pagnell. Brent Cross is for EMT and Thameslink only.

What do you all think?

It's not a bad idea and quite well thought-out, but you could probably have a couple more stations, such as St Albans & Hemel Hempstead Parkway, Redbourn West, and Brixworth. And, heck, I wonder about Bulkington too, for the NWR services...

 

[swt_passenger]

I rather think the M1 corridor was considered for HS2, and rejected early on for practical reasons.

Definitely was assessed and one of many potential HS2 routes declared to be unbuildable because of impact on existing built up areas.

 

[backontrack]

Definitely was assessed and one of many potential HS2 routes declared to be unbuildable because of impact on existing built up areas.

Hmm. Surely it's a bit too-far east to have been an HS2 Birmingham route? I imagine they were probably set on an alignment through the Chilterns anyway.

 

[Llanigraham]

Simple question.....

Why?

 

[InOban]

Definitely was assessed and one of many potential HS2 routes declared to be unbuildable because of impact on existing built up areas.

I think it was also rejected as a result of the decision (for which I have never seen any justification) to design HST2 for 400kph instead of 300.

 

[Dr Hoo]

On the basis that the construction of HS2 (on a different alignment) is already getting under way is the OP assuming that yet another four-track route from London to the West Midlands will be necessary in the foreseeable future?

 

[edwin_m]

I think it was also rejected as a result of the decision (for which I have never seen any justification) to design HST2 for 400kph instead of 300.

I don't think 400km/h will be permitted on HS2 anywhere in Greater London, and there are plenty of places further north where the speed will be lower because curves sufficiently gentle for 400km/h would have made the alignment much more difficult. Once this principle is applied the extra capital cost of 400km/h over 300km/h is very small and it strikes me as a sensible bit of future-proofing.

 

[InOban]

On the contrary, so little of the final route will be operated at 400kph that it should have been designed throughout for 300, which is the European standard. This would also have permitted a more sensible route following the existing transport corridors, with much fewer objections. It would be half built by now.

 

[London Trains]

On the basis that the construction of HS2 (on a different alignment) is already getting under way is the OP assuming that yet another four-track route from London to the West Midlands will be necessary in the foreseeable future?

This and other improvements was meant to replace HS2, which I frankly think is a waste of money and they will charge fares triple the already expensive VT prices.

 

[The Ham]

This and other improvements was meant to replace HS2, which I frankly think is a waste of money and they will charge fares triple the already expensive VT prices.

As an alternative to HS2 it's unlikely to be that good.

Unless there's need for four tracks (i.e. freight, local trains and long distance trains) then chances are it would only need to be built as two tracks. As otherwise you'll be building twice as much track for no good reason. Even then, unless there's survivability traffic volume a central third, bidirectional, line would bring most of the benefits.

If you are going for for track, then you'd want to design for a high frequency metro service choose in (likely be Luton), a reasonably good frequency medium distance service to places a bit further out that skip several of the metro stations (probably to Northampton) and then some longer distance services.

There's a fairly obvious kink just south of Northampton which would likely limit the speed of trains meaning that long distance services (i.e. 125mph plus) are unlikely to beat their existing journey times, especially given that and so wouldn't be a viable route. As such why bother with a very limited calling pattern given you have four tracks to work with?

Given that the line would pass through several urban areas, assuming a surface railway, then it's going to be very costly (politically, financially and in terms of the numbers of people opposed to the route) to even get the line to a point where it gets government approval.

In theory, such a line (possibly only two tracks and loops at some of the minor stations serving many places along the route) would be good. However the alignment would only really suite severing places along the route as it requires a diversion away from its alignment to get to any of the major cities in the UK.

Given that HS2 is being built, then such a line would now need to compliment it. Although it does serve local stations which HS2 doesn't, the problem is that these places are likely to see an improvement in services through the removal of long distance services being replaced by local services.

As such unless there's a larger than expected untapped market then such an existing line would be fighting for much of the same passengers and so wouldn't be viable for the time being.

 

[edwin_m]

On the contrary, so little of the final route will be operated at 400kph that it should have been designed throughout for 300, which is the European standard. This would also have permitted a more sensible route following the existing transport corridors, with much fewer objections. It would be half built by now.

There's nothing to stop it being operated at 300km/h if that is what is decided nearer to opening date. If you have examples of where a lower speed would have saved costs on the alignment then please tell - I've already pointed out that the speed has been reduced where it was decided a full-speed alignment wasn't reasonable. The full-speed areas are generally straight or almost so, and introducing more curves would make the end-to-end route longer, therefore more costly.

The early studies looked at HS2 following existing transport corridors but as these tend to be through built-up areas it doesn't work on much of the route. The point has already been made about the extra cost and number of people affected if this happens. HS2 does follow existing corridors where appropriate, for example the GW/GC Joint out of London (though later decided to be more cost-effective to go underground), the Great Central between Aylesbury and Brackley, and much of the eastern leg is close to the M42/M1/M18.

Edit: It's not generally possible for a high speed line to be immediately alongside a motorway or existing railway, because the higher speed (whether 400km/h, 300km/h or even less) needs gentler curves which either bring the new away from the existing or mean the existing has to be re-aligned to fit. If they have to cross then a very highly skewed bridge is normally needed, which is much more expensive than crossing at a larger angle. And for the motorway option there would need to be an expensive dive-under or a slightly cheaper but more obtrusive flyover at each intersection. So a HS line "in" a transport corridor is generally at least 100m from the existing transport link, though it may be closer on long straights and in certain places on curves.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

but we already do have a WCML/MMLrelief. The GC..

ah..... Hang on a min....


correction, DID have.....

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

This and other improvements was meant to replace HS2, which I frankly think is a waste of money and they will charge fares triple the already expensive VT prices.

And your evidence for this claim is...

All that government has said is that they expect fares to be in line with current pricing structures on the national rail network. So walk-up fares at peak times will be expensive whereas as advance fares will be very much cheaper. Indeed the very length of the trains will mean so much capacity is available that it may well be possible to keep fares somewhat lower than you might expect.

 

[hooverboy]

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1FlwJCxxEAq_4k_PxmInTINvRBck&usp=sharing

It is a four track relief line with stations at Luton & Dunstable Parkway and Newport Pagnell. Brent Cross is for EMT and Thameslink only.

What do you all think?

the london orbital railway would be better.
luton not a bad start point.
lets say(clockwise)
luton- luton airport-stevenage-bishops stortford-stansted airport-chelmsford-basildon-medway(thurrock)-maidstone-tunbridge wells-gatwick airport-guildford-woking-heathrow airport-high wycombe-aylesbury-luton.

..or double up the last bit with east west rail thru mkc first...no problem with footfall/profitability as there is three airports en route!, and a rather large shopping centre

 

[gallafent]

[…]300, which is the European standard.

No, it isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe#Country-specific provides a neat summary rebuttal of that

Many recent-ish (finished during the last decade, say, often started in the 1990s!) and planned lines are 350km/h. I'm not sure when the first 320km/h line opened, but it must be decades ago now, surely (consults wikipedia) yes, the second section of LGV Rhône-Alpes, opened in 1994, for example, is a 320km/h line. Some others are 250km/h. Some others have other maximum speeds. Italy plans to run Frecciarossa at 360km/h (or has this upgrade actually happened by now?), for example. Further afield, China and Russia generally aim at 400km/h. To aim below current state of the art for a line which is not to open until 2026, some parts well into the 2030s, would be rather an odd thing to do, when the marginal costs of speed upgrades (within reasonable bounds) are surely small compared to overall project cost for a green-field new line.