A personal idea on HS2/Chilterns

[adamedwards]

"Build 6 tracks" is not so easy along the WCML until you get beyond Tring. That's why HS2 is in tunnel out of London. At which point you might as well go direct to the north west and not via Rugby.

 

[The Planner]

Moving block, cab signalling, grade separation, modified timetables (trains stopping in more regular patterns) new rolling stock, double-heading on freight services etc. It is also possible to build 6 tracks

Moving block doesnt exist on a major railway yet. Cab signalling on the WCML is a marginal gain, it has 3 minute headways now, in cab might get you 2 in places, 2.5 in others and doesnt give you anywhere near the uplift in capacity.

Grade seperation again doesnt release anything, it makes things more robust as there isnt a significant amount of crossing moves and they are at Ledburn
.
The WCML has a standard hour pattern now and has done in its current guise since December 2008, there is a reason it hasnt been re-written, it works.

So presumably no one travels on the weekends for years when you are 6 tracking it as you have to have disruptive posessions, one way of stifling growth I suppose which would take years to come back to the railway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Moving block, cab signalling, grade separation, modified timetables (trains stopping in more regular patterns) new rolling stock, double-heading on freight services etc. It is also possible to build 6 tracks

We’ve been round the houses on this with other posters. As @The Planner says:

Moving block signalling - gives you very little; in effect nothing given the current stopping patterns.

Cab signalling - gives you nothing (without shorter, or moving blocks)

Grade separation - gives you nothing more on the WCML south of Rugby, and nothing on the ECML south of Doncaster (when Warrington is done), and nothing on the MML in terms of paths to London.

Modified timetables for more regular stopping patterns - the WCML timetable is optimised as it is. To modify to get more capacity means either removing stops (thereby reducing some stations’ frequency) or putting some in (thereby increasing journey time). Or both. For, possibly, 2 extra trains an hour. Which is it to be?

New Rolling stock - Will provide a little at the margins, but very little in the peak. Buys you a few years growth. Noting that the ECML will be almost entirely new stock from later this year, and the WCML / MML has new stock on order.

Double heading on freight services - doesn’t help in the peak, when there’s little freight in the peak direction. Might release a path over the north end of the WCML, but then HS2 isn’t being built there, and that could be done anyway.

The suggestion that the WCML should be six tracked is comical. For those who remember the four tracking of 15 miles of the Trent Valley line from Tamworth to not-quite-Rugeley, the line was shut almost every weekend for 3 years, and was shut for a couple of big blockades in that time as well. That was in generally easy terrain in open country. It also took 10 years of planning before work started. It reasonable to assume that for, say, 80 miles of 6 tracking to get from just Euston to Rugby the line would have to be shut somewhere on that stretch every weekend for 15 years. At a push, you could start work in 2030. Even then that does nothing for the Midlands and north. Doesn’t sound attractive to me.

 

[Energy]

Cab signalling - gives you nothing (without shorter, or moving blocks)

Incorrect, it will allow (although some other things will still be required for this) 140mph operation.

 

[Bald Rick]

Incorrect, it will allow (although some other things will still be required for this) 140mph operation.

‘Some other things’ being an upgrade of the OLE, upgrade and recanting of the track, upgrade of many (if not all) underbridges, closure of all platforms to passengers where trains at that speed may pass, a complete change to all maintenance requirements, removal of all level crossings, etc.etc. All for 3 seconds a mile.

However, it still doesn’t do anything for capacity.

 

[The Planner]

Incorrect, it will allow (although some other things will still be required for this) 140mph operation.

Which in turn allows you to catch up the train in front that has stopped that bit quicker.

 

[Energy]

‘Some other things’ being an upgrade of the OLE, upgrade and recanting of the track, upgrade of many (if not all) underbridges, closure of all platforms to passengers where trains at that speed may pass, a complete change to all maintenance requirements, removal of all level crossings, etc.etc. All for 3 seconds a mile.

However, it still doesn’t do anything for capacity.

Railtrack had already done a lot of work on the WCML for this, until they went bust.

 

[Bald Rick]

Railtrack had already done a lot of work on the WCML for this, until they went bust.

No, they didn’t.

(Spoiler, I was involved. There was no physical work, nor any design work, done for 140mph. A few studies, yes, which demonstrated how hard it was.)

 

[tbtc]

Ex-Beeching lines serve places where there is previously no fixed public transport link (a bus running on a public road with a sign for a bus stop is not a real 'fixed and permanent' link). HS2 serves a place that is already served by a 4-track line. Considering that the 4-track line can be optimised, then do that first

If you are talking about places so badly populated that they'd struggle to sustain any long term bus service then I really don't think that heavy rail is going to be very sustainable.

As for buses not being "fixed"... yes, a bus service could be withdrawn... but, so could a train service - it's the fact that the train service *was* withdrawn that is the reason we call them ex-Beeching lines.

HS2 is intended to serve large conurbations, perfect for mass transportation like heavy rail.

The fact that they already have some train service isn't a reason not to build more trains services. Just like the reason that villages between Skipton-Colne (or Tavistock-Okehampton or Penistone-Hadfield or whatever other rural scheme people Beeching closed) don't automatically need a train service - build railway lines around where large numbers of people live - improve the capacity of lines around where large numbers of people live - if that means that some rural villages don't have any heavy rail whilst big cities have several lines then I'm fine with that.

But should this be the case? No. If a £2b project doubles, it gets to £4b. If a £10b project doubles, it's an extra £10b to fork out. Thus the value for money may be different. It's not just proportions.

For some people, they can only see the increasing costs of HS2 - they seem to ignore the massive increase in schemes like Tweedbank or GWML electrification or upgrading other infrastructure.

The suggestion that the WCML should be six tracked is comical. For those who remember the four tracking of 15 miles of the Trent Valley line from Tamworth to not-quite-Rugeley, the line was shut almost every weekend for 3 years, and was shut for a couple of big blockades in that time as well. That was in generally easy terrain in open country. It also took 10 years of planning before work started. It reasonable to assume that for, say, 80 miles of 6 tracking to get from just Euston to Rugby the line would have to be shut somewhere on that stretch every weekend for 15 years. At a push, you could start work in 2030. Even then that does nothing for the Midlands and north. Doesn’t sound attractive to me.

Doesn't sound attractive to me either - I think that so long has passed since the WCML upgrade that people forget just how complicated/expensive it is to eke out marginal gains from existing lines.

Seems there's a generation of enthusiasts who don't remember the days of the five-day railway, for whom the idea of St Pancras - Manchester sounds a fun excursion rather than a painful necessity to give Manchester a token London service when the WCML was closed for long periods.

And the upgrade fifteen/twenty years ago was the "low hanging fruit" - it took three years of costly disruption to deliver the "quick wins" (and even those were scaled back somewhat) - imagine how much harder it'd be now to have the same kind of boost to capacity, given that any obvious/ simple/ cheap upgrades have already been done.

 

[Bald Rick]

And the upgrade fifteen/twenty years ago was the "low hanging fruit" - it took three years of costly disruption to deliver the "quick wins" (and even those were scaled back somewhat) - imagine how much harder it'd be now to have the same kind of boost to capacity, given that any obvious/ simple/ cheap upgrades have already been done.

I don’t like to correct you, but feel the need to set the record straight on the level of disruption.

It took 10 years of costly disruption, not 3. The first disruptive access was in 1998 for the early stages of Euston remodelling, the last was in 2008. (And that doesn’t include some work that was delivered later, such as parts of Watford and Bletchley resignalling, Norton Bridge etc.)

In those 10 years we had major blockades, in no particular order: on the approaches to Birmingham (nearly 3 weeks), the Stoke line (months), Crewe- Cheadle Hulme (months), Euston - Hemel week long blocks (at least a couple in summer), Trent Valley (as mentioned above), Euston (reduced service for 6 months, no DC line into Euston for over a year), Willesden (a week, which overran several days), durations I can’t remember for Tring, Ledburn & MK, Rugby (a week, overran badly, with severe restrictions there for almost a year beforehand). Oh and there were more big blocks for Wolverhampton, Coventry, Birmingham International, Stockport, and on the main line all the way down to Scotland.

But other than that ...

 

[The Planner]

Rugby went down in folklore, some of the stories you hear about that one

 

[si404]

And don't forget they gave up and didn't do the full job. South of Rugby, journeys were sped up and an extra path created mostly by removing stops at Watford or MK rather than completing the proposed works.

 

[JonathanH]

And don't forget they gave up and didn't do the full job. South of Rugby, journeys were sped up and an extra path created mostly by removing stops at Watford or MK rather than completing the proposed works.

What work were they going to do to allow more stops at Watford or Milton Keynes? It would have required a significant rebuild of both stations to add a full set of island platforms on the fast lines.

 

[si404]

What work were they going to do to allow more stops at Watford or Milton Keynes? It would have required a significant rebuild of both stations to add a full set of island platforms on the fast lines.

They weren't going to do work to allow more stops at Watford or MK. They were going to do work elsewhere (and maybe there) that meant that they didn't need to remove stops at those stations to eke out the limited extra capacity and couple of minutes saving that the scheme was meant to deliver.

 

[tbtc]

I don’t like to correct you, but feel the need to set the record straight on the level of disruption.

It took 10 years of costly disruption, not 3. The first disruptive access was in 1998 for the early stages of Euston remodelling, the last was in 2008. (And that doesn’t include some work that was delivered later, such as parts of Watford and Bletchley resignalling, Norton Bridge etc.)

In those 10 years we had major blockades, in no particular order: on the approaches to Birmingham (nearly 3 weeks), the Stoke line (months), Crewe- Cheadle Hulme (months), Euston - Hemel week long blocks (at least a couple in summer), Trent Valley (as mentioned above), Euston (reduced service for 6 months, no DC line into Euston for over a year), Willesden (a week, which overran several days), durations I can’t remember for Tring, Ledburn & MK, Rugby (a week, overran badly, with severe restrictions there for almost a year beforehand). Oh and there were more big blocks for Wolverhampton, Coventry, Birmingham International, Stockport, and on the main line all the way down to Scotland.

But other than that ...

That's a pretty sobering list - one that should be read by anyone who thinks that we could replace HS2 plans by "simply" upgrading existing routes!

I can't imagine today's passengers putting up with that level of disruption - it must have been even worse than I remembered (thanks for clarifying).

 

[Bald Rick]

They weren't going to do work to allow more stops at Watford or MK. They were going to do work elsewhere (and maybe there) that meant that they didn't need to remove stops at those stations to eke out the limited extra capacity and couple of minutes saving that the scheme was meant to deliver.

But what work was it? I don’t remember that.

 

[Bald Rick]

Rugby went down in folklore, some of the stories you hear about that one

Oh it was quite something.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

That's a pretty sobering list - one that should be read by anyone who thinks that we could replace HS2 plans by "simply" upgrading existing routes!

I can't imagine today's passengers putting up with that level of disruption - it must have been even worse than I remembered (thanks for clarifying).

It was actually worse than that (time passes - nightmares are forgotten) , - Ledburn was (I think) 16 weekends + another 16 weekends as they had installed the wrong equipment first time around. Then there was a hefty TSR for a long time over all 4 lines - 60 mph or less.

Not forgetting the Stockport debacle - where the "new" platform one had a difficult birth - taking about 2 years - the laying down of part of a new layout , and then ripping it out. Not forgetting the signalling issues which led to refurbishment and retention of the ex LNWR mechanical signal boxes.

Plain line renewals north of Preston was another "cause celebre" , with massive failures to agree on some horribly disruptive blocks , only some of which were compromised.

I doubt whether there would be much appetite to go through this pain again , especially as overall growth has been very robust since then.

 

[si404]

But what work was it? I don’t remember that.

I can't remember. Maybe it was the plan all along to reduce Home Counties->North service to get small gains in London->North service. Which isn't a good plan at all - at least for the small gains eked out (bigger gains, maybe).

 

[The Planner]

It was actually worse than that (time passes - nightmares are forgotten) , - Ledburn was (I think) 16 weekends + another 16 weekends as they had installed the wrong equipment first time around. Then there was a hefty TSR for a long time over all 4 lines - 60 mph or less.

Didn't Ledburn go in as swing nose crossings, or was it Bourne End?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Didn't Ledburn go in as swing nose crossings, or was it Bourne End?

I think both had them .......(there was an element which was opposed to Bourne End (new) going in , as again , it was disruptive. One idea was to fettle up the Hemel Hempstead layout.

I am reminded again of the "glory" of the new Schwiehag rollers put in at Hanslope. (1996) - Austrian I think. Promised to be the best set of points installed in the world. So we went along with it , it was then North London Railways.

Multiple failures in the first week -with no route to Northampton in the high peak. So the Austrians were flown over and discovered these rollers had been installed in upside down and then hammered into place.

(Apparently) - so we had another disruptive weekend at very short notice to put them right. Someone was there both peaks for a while to ensure "proper" operation. Which to be fair , there were OK after that.

Never a dull moment on WCML South , though the parallel "rebuilding" of the North London line over-ran by a mere 6 months.

 

[Bald Rick]

I can't remember. Maybe it was the plan all along to reduce Home Counties->North service to get small gains in London->North service. Which isn't a good plan at all - at least for the small gains eked out (bigger gains, maybe).

It was the plan all along. The gains for London - North were (are!) absolutely massive. The loss to, let’s face it, Watford, is comparatively negligible. And I speak as a regularish traveller from Watford to the North.

Didn't Ledburn go in as swing nose crossings, or was it Bourne End?

Ledburn. Of course all S&C on the 140mph section had to be swing nose, and was planned as such, but the 140mph was dropped after the design of Ledburn was done (and too late to stop it) but before anything else was too far gone.

To be fair it was only the poor reliability of the swingnoses that caused them to be pulled out.

Re the Schweihags - generally standard fitment now of course.

 

[The Ham]

Those that wish to come up with a "simple" upgrade to the existing lines rather than build HS2 may complain that such horror stories are off topic.

However it is worth remembering how bad it is during such upgrades.

Commuting during the 2015 (?) Waterloo upgrade works wasn't great and I was fortunate that I wasn't going into Central London and had a backup route for half my journey.

Yet it's had fairly limited benefit for many services.

 

[The Ham]

Moving block, cab signalling, grade separation, modified timetables (trains stopping in more regular patterns) new rolling stock, double-heading on freight services etc. It is also possible to build 6 tracks

Whilst it is entirely possible to increase the capacity of the existing lines how much extra capacity would this bring?

Then compare this to the comparison in the numbers of seats on the existing trains Vs the HS2 trains.

An 11 coach class 390 has 589 seats.

A 9 coach class 390 has 469 seats.

The combined number of seats across both these trains is 1,048 seats.

This compares to an expected 1,100 seats on a HS2 train.

Given that HS2 is effectively the 5th and 6th tracks for the WCML, but with the ability to run high capacity trains, the other measures would need to provide a lot of extra capacity to get even close.

Especially given that HS2 would release capacity on the WCML, ECML, MML and the Chiltern Line (whist it may not be needed as much as the others it is likely to need it at some point, even if that's too allow extra stops on the Mainline Services to release capacity on the more local services).

 

[Peter Kelford]

This compares to an expected 1,100 seats on a HS2 train.

An HS2 train is considerably longer. With some work, we could also extend WCML trains.

 

[The Ham]

An HS2 train is considerably longer. With some work, we could also extend WCML trains.

Whilst we could lengthen trains, not by enough to facilitate 400m long trains and run at the same frequency as they currently do. Not unless you build a new pair of tracks which had little to do with the existing lines and then you're back to building something very much like HS2.

 

[tasky]

An HS2 train is considerably longer. With some work, we could also extend WCML trains.

"Some" doing quite a lot of work here, essentially rebuilding every station on the route

 

[krus_aragon]

Rugby went down in folklore, some of the stories you hear about that one

Oh it was quite something.

I don't suppose there's anywhere us proles can read about those stories of old?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/2068/352.pdf

Gives you the official "stewards enquiry" into Rugby , Shields Junction and Liverpool Street. Not good reading.

 

[tbtc]

An HS2 train is considerably longer. With some work, we could also extend WCML trains.

Of course.

But with existing platforms? With existing junctions? With existing signalling blocks? A four hundred metre train is going to be hanging off both the ends of intermediate platforms and fouling junctions (thus stopping other trains using parallel lines).

The length of an eleven coach 390 is pretty much as long as anything is going to get on the WCML (inc twenty five metre long carriages).

If you were stating from scratch, you could build infrastructure that could accommodate much longer trains, sure, but that's what HS2 is - we are bumping up against capacity maximums on the existing network so the only way we can provide additional capacity is a separate line which is designed for much longer trains.