UIC GC Loading Gauge Clearing of WCML south

[popeter45]

how hard/expensive would it be to as part of HS2 related projects expand the loading gauge of WCML south to:
A: Provide backup routing for Future Captive HS2 Rolling stock when HS2 is out of action for maintenance
B: Enable GC gauge Freight from HS1 up to the Midlands
C: Enable Cheaper procurement of Rolling stock as can use off the shelf European designs
D: Related to C enable double Decker stock to help relive congestion on Regional LNW services
E: Provide a starting point to expand such route Gauge Clearing for up the WCML and other routes

 

[Bletchleyite]

Very, very expensive.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Hugely expensive on a route that dates back to 1837 , tampered with on various times after that in the late 1890's and onwards - not just for 4 tracking squeezed in - but with several single bore tunnel sections (Linslade for one).

Also this much trumped idea (from travellers to say the Netherlands or Germany / France) , as to "why cannot we have double decks to solve the capacity issues" - it does not work as the dwell times and the internal capacity is not quite a doubling of seats and so on. Trust me , it has been looked at many times in the past. Everything comes at a price.

Of course , as a working example of how to do it - consider HS1 , which could - on a captive group of services- take "continental" double deckers of both regional and inter city types. Unless I have totally misjudged it.

 

[edwin_m]

Not only very expensive but very distruptive, as all platforms would have to be moved back for the wider trains, and couldn't be used for UK-sized trains after that as the gap would be too wide. And that's assuming you could get away without increasing the track spacing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not only very expensive but very distruptive, as all platforms would have to be moved back for the wider trains, and couldn't be used for UK-sized trains after that as the gap would be too wide. And that's assuming you could get away without increasing the track spacing.

Indeed.

Essentially, the high cost of mucking with the existing WCML (including the failed PUG2 140mph project) demonstrates why HS2 (or some variant of it) is the only fix.

 

[Bald Rick]

Genuinely, it would be cheaper to build a new railway.

All the tracks would have to move to get greater separation, combined with the extra height means that almost every OLE structure and every signal would have to be moved. The whole formation would have to be widened, meaning every underbridge would need reconstruction, and almost every overbridge too. There would e significant landtake. Every platform would need cutting back, which in some cases would make them too narrow, meaning further width extensions. A good many sets of points would need to be moved due to changes in fouling points. Effectively, you’d be building a new railway on the route of the existing. And you’d need to do all this whilst trying to run a service.

And that’s before you get to the issue of stepping distances for trains during the construction period, when some elements would have been altered and some wouldn’t. (Cue someone mentioning the GW regauging....)

 

[edwin_m]

And that’s before you get to the issue of stepping distances for trains during the construction period, when some elements would have been altered and some wouldn’t. (Cue someone mentioning the GW regauging....)

And the fact that after the completion of the work, no British gauge trains would be able to call at the modified platforms.

If you're referring to the GW gauging that ended in 1892, stepping distance wasn't really an issue when everyone had to scramble up from a low platform regardless of the coach width.

 

[furnessvale]

And the fact that after the completion of the work, no British gauge trains would be able to call at the modified platforms.

If you're referring to the GW gauging that ended in 1892, stepping distance wasn't really an issue when everyone had to scramble up from a low platform regardless of the coach width.

In any case, wasn't the "Brunel" gauge mainly about track gauge? If I recall, the loading gauge was little if any, larger than that used on the WCML.

Even now, W10/12 has been enabled on the WCML while GWML still requires low height wagons, or has that now been corrected?

 

[Bald Rick]

And the fact that after the completion of the work, no British gauge trains would be able to call at the modified platforms.

If you're referring to the GW gauging that ended in 1892, stepping distance wasn't really an issue when everyone had to scramble up from a low platform regardless of the coach width.

In any case, wasn't the "Brunel" gauge mainly about track gauge? If I recall, the loading gauge was little if any, larger than that used on the WCML.

Yes I was referring to the change in track gauge, but in the context that it was done in a weekend. (Except it wasn’t, and moving a rail 2’ 3 3/4” on timber sleepers is rather easier than rebuilding a whole route).