Ideas for future High Speed Railway lines

[Clip]

For someone who uses a rail forum and has a username of a train I find it amazing that you still are more keen to push building road empires than rail ones.

 

[HSTEd]

That doesn't mean it has been a failure as you claim. It seems to be working just fine about now and there is plenty of room for both the tunnel and the ferries to work in harmony no matter what you think.

I'm pretty sure that "driving builder into bankruptcy protection" would be normally described as a failure.

Its a bit like saying the railways have failed because there are still trucks on the road

If a fixed link can't drive ferries out of a parallel market, it is not really a very good fixed link is it?
There is a reason noone else in the world has seriously proposed anything at all like the Channel Tunnel - it's been shown to be economically nonviable.

For someone who uses a rail forum and has a username of a train I find it amazing that you still are more keen to push building road empires than rail ones.

I just want to build connections people will actually want to use.
Trying to force people to put their cars on the train will not attract people to use the crossing, and billions of pounds will have been expended for no value.

In addition, long bored tunnels have safety concerns that mandate absurdities like specialised fire resistant rolling stock and the idea that rail actually lost traffic on the chunnel opening because hazardous materials were not allowed into it.

 

[Clip]

I'm pretty sure that "driving builder into bankruptcy protection" would be normally described as a failure.

Thats its builder or one of - thats not thet project as a whole though which is what you first claimed.

If a fixed link can't drive ferries out of a parallel market, it is not really a very good fixed link is it?
There is a reason noone else in the world has seriously proposed anything at all like the Channel Tunnel - it's been shown to be economically nonviable.

Was it ever meant to drive out the ferries from plying their trade? I dont remember that being the case at all so maybe you have made that up?

What about the Seikan Tunnel in japan which does exactly the same thing but without having lorries on wagons then?

I just want to build connections people will actually want to use.
Trying to force people to put their cars on the train will not attract people to use the crossing, and billions of pounds will have been expended for no value.

People do want to use the chunnel though as the figures seem to show https://www.getlinkgroup.com/uk/eurotunnel-group/operations/traffic-figures/ as well as the profits https://www.ft.com/content/73cd7477-f51b-381e-a540-c43bc6e8b054

Groupe Eurotunnel, owner of the Channel Tunnel, bucked falls in Eurostar passenger traffic to record a doubling in its net consolidated profits in 2016, in what the company’s executive chairman called the best year in the project’s history. The improvements were driven by an 11 per cent increase in the number of vehicles carried on the company’s truck shuttle services. There was also a 2 per cent increase in the number of cars carried, while coach traffic volume fell 8 per cent. Net consolidated profits hit €200m in the year.
The results mark a continued normalisation of the Eurotunnel business, which grappled since its opening in 1994 with over-optimistic traffic and financial assumptions that forced a complex restructuring completed in 2007.
Since then the company has had to cope with lacklustre traffic during the economic downturn and traffic disruption from migrants’ efforts to board cross-Channel trains to the UK. Jacques Gounon, executive chairman, said all the company’s three core businesses – operation of the tunnel and shuttle services, the ElecLink cross-Channel electricity connector now under construction and the Europorte rail freight business – had outperformed their sectors. Improved security around the group’s Coquelles terminal in France since late 2015 had eliminated disruption because of migrant incursions, the group said. “2016 was the best year in our history,” he said.

“Our outlook is very good and we are announcing new improved objectives for 2017 and 2018.” The increases in truck and car shuttle traffic pushed revenue from shuttles up 10 per cent to €603m compared with 2015’s figures restated at constant exchange rates, Eurotunnel’s preferred measure. Traffic from through rail traffic – Eurostar passenger services and freight trains – fell 3 per cent by the same measure to €290m. Eurostar passenger numbers fell 4 per cent to 10m, largely because of the aftermath of the November 2015 terror attacks in Paris and the March 2016 attacks in Brussels. Rail freight tonnage through the tunnel fell 27 per cent to 1.04m tonnes, a fall that Eurotunnel attributed partly to operators’ rerouting some services because of previous migrant disruption at facilities near the tunnel. Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation from the core tunnel operations rose 6 per cent to €515m on a constant currency basis, on revenue up 5 per cent to €907m on the same basis.

Eurotunnel in August last year took full ownership of the ElecLink project, which is currently under construction and expected to start operations in 2020. The company’s Europorte rail freight business broke even for the year, on €116m revenue. The company plans to pay a dividend of 26 euro cents for 2016, up from 22 cents the previous year. Eurotunnel’s large numbers of French small shareholders prize the company’s dividend payments. Mr Gounon said the company was planning continued increases in dividends and was targetting a 35 cent dividend for 2018

In addition, long bored tunnels have safety concerns that mandate absurdities like specialised fire resistant rolling stock and the idea that rail actually lost traffic on the chunnel opening because hazardous materials were not allowed into it.

I think you may find that a lot of modern day tunnels have to be built with specialised fire retardent materials to prevent damage to them and i really am struggling to understand why you would eve think this is a bad thing yet seem to think having a tunnel so long for vehicles which you wont really know whats in them is a good thing - seems you want to have your cake and eat it with that one.

And now, many years after it opened they allow certain materials through https://www.eurotunnelfreight.com/uk/safety-and-security/dangerous-goods/

So all in all your claims are quite absurd and bordering on the preposterous in all honesty

 

[herb21]

Given Brexit and the options for a continuation of no physical boarder between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, such a rail link may need passengers to have a passport check. That's not too say it won't happen, but it does put the costs for it (both in terms of construction costs, in the need for separate secured platforms, and for operational costs).

One thing I don't think is being considered is passport checks, Ireland is outside Shengen and in a CTA with Britain, the problems are customs, phyto-sanitary and standards/regulation (this would impact freight not people)

 

[Halifaxlad]

I have updated my map recently with a few new ideas, particularly between Leeds & York.

How about a brand new line leaving Leeds, past St James's potentially a station that woudl also serve Harehills, before going under Harehills in a very long tunnel before proceeding to York via Wetherby?

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?...ll=53.72260072314779,-1.8704140561010263&z=10

 

[thaitransit]

You are lucky to have any high speed railways. In Australia its a distant dream that never gets off the ground. 100mph is as fast as it gets in Australia for railways .

 

[tasky]

I've got the crayons out...

Exact alignments aren't supposed to be too accurate, just indicative routes

The Ireland one in particular is a flight of fancy that will never happen (not least because of Beaufort's Dyke), though I notice someone else in the thread suggested something similar too

Some notes that might not be clear from the map:

- The North East England one goes via Middlesbrough and Sunderland
- The orange one joins HS2 at Doncaster and goes via Stansted Airport
- Lots of room for classic compatible routes branching off these, including HS1 style commuter services

 

[Gareth]

I think the 'Y' is a fudge that's trying to do too much with one pair of tracks. That's even with 18tph, which many experts in the industry argue is impractical. For example, they're struggling to find paths for Stoke and it means routine splitting and joining of other services. Greengauge21 are arguing that services from London to York and the North East should still go via the ECML to save paths.

Really, we need two North-South lines: one for the West Coast and one for the Midland & East Coast. They should build HS2 Phase 2a and defer 2b. Concentrate on ensuring key WCML destinations can be served properly, such as electrifying to Chester (ideally to Holyhead also) and lengthening platforms at places like Carlisle and Lancaster. Blackpool should have an hourly service to London also. Birmingham Curzon Street should have classic platforms added and the complex integrated with Moor Street so that it's considered one station.

Start HS3 from London, with the first phase going up to a point just south of Market Harborough, taking all the MML intercity traffic from Leicester/Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield. Second phase would be to Clay Cross via the proposed HS2 alignment and Toton station. Sheffield services would then use this instead of via Derby (Derby would get its own services). Third phase would be to Doncaster and ECML destinations would join/depart here. A possible fourth phase would be to a junction south of Wakefield for Leeds services. Another phase to Birmingham, pretty much the existing HS2 Phase 2b route from Toton to the West Midlands could also be built, although this would probably be after the aformentioned phases.

The two separate lines would allow the two Network Rail routes (and their franchisees) to remain largely separate with HS2 phases 1 & 2a being part of London North Western and HS3 plus the link from Toton to the West Midlands being part of London North Eastern & Midland.

Any potential captive routes into Manchester, Leeds and other cities in the North should should be considered and designed along with the NPR proposals, dovetailing NPR with HS2/3, rather than having NPR have to fit around HS2.

 

[matacaster]

I was just wondering about the Leeds to Huddersfield section of transpennine route.

At the present time the train takes the shortest route via Dewsbury, encountering the tight curve and Morley tunnel with little 4-tracking or even straightening opportunity except at prodigious cost. The maximum line speed is around 75 mph (but may be 90 in places - I'm not sure). There is also the issue of stops at Cottingley, Batley, Morley and Dewsbury for the stoppers which complicates pathing.

Whilst I realise that the route via Normanton is much longer, it would surely be much easier to raise the speed limit to 125 mph relatively easily. There are no tunnels, there would be no need to stop at any of the stations before Huddersfield. The line is much less intensively used despite the freight terminal at Stourton. There is opportunity to 4 track in various places if necessary. Another advantage would be that there is much greater ease of access. The only awkward bits are the sharp curve which would need to be eased at Methley junction and the sharp curve past Heaton Lodge Junction where the line diverges from LYR route and goes to Huddersfield. There would also be an opportunity to realign the tracks so that they are together and skirt Healey Mills yard freeing up the vast disused yard for sale for housing. This latter curve needs fixing whatever route is chosen as its a pretty tight radius. What would the relative costs and timings be, particularly as we'd get increased capacity and diversionary routing?

 

[trainmania100]

I think it would be nice to have a Brighton => north east. Perhaps a long high speed underground tunnel. The future of rail travel could be underground

 

[InterCity:125]

Here’s my plan; London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Douglas (IOM), Belfast (NI).
And also run Eurostar services along the new route.

 

[Gareth]

Love it.

Not going to happen.

 

[InterCity:125]

Love it.

Not going to happen.

The route from the us to China will probably happen sooner, and that involves Americans building in China. Somehow I don’t think they’ll hand land over like panama...

 

[DPWH]

I agree that it should be Leicester not Cambridge that gets any second North-South line into London. For its proximity to London, and its size, Leicester has one pretty slow line, which cannot easily be made quicker. By contrast Cambridge is about half the size of Leicester, and has two fastish main lines to London. With new high speed line south of Leicester, the MML south of Leicester can be dedicated to semi-fast services into St Pancras.

 

[tasky]

I agree that it should be Leicester not Cambridge that gets any second North-South line into London. For its proximity to London, and its size, Leicester has one pretty slow line, which cannot easily be made quicker. By contrast Cambridge is about half the size of Leicester, and has two fastish main lines to London. With new high speed line south of Leicester, the MML south of Leicester can be dedicated to semi-fast services into St Pancras.

I think that does make sense to an extent, though if you go via Cambridge you do get Peterborough, Lincoln, and potentially Doncaster as well

 

[Gareth]

But if the line via the East Midlands linked up with the ECML at Doncaster taking all the intercity services north of there off the line, it would free up a lot of capacity on the southern section. You could, perhaps, have 4tph to London from Newark, as an example. Or you could have more services from Cambridge via Hitchin.