Great Western Main Line should be upgraded to 140mph

[FGWHST43009]

I'd argue the model we should be going for is not the TGV one though.

There isn't much traffic to Swansea compared to traffic to Cardiff, so if we built a bypass very few people would actually use it.
I'd argue a better model is the Shinkansen style segregated station model.

That is true at the moment, you could do 4 tracking in some places to enable a frequent all-stations service as well as allow IC services to overtake. A new alignment would be useful east of Cardiff, especially if it connects to HS2 as well as the GWML at Bristol Parkway. High speed trains from Cardiff/Swansea to Manchester etc would use the line as well as GWR's expresses to London Paddington. I would at least electrify Cardiff - Swansea and try to bypass Neath for the fastest trains.

 

[JonathanH]

I would at least electrify Cardiff - Swansea and try to bypass Neath for the fastest trains

Given there is seemingly only demand for an hourly off-peak and half hourly peak service to Swansea, which are the fastest trains and which ones are going to continue to serve Neath? It doesn't sound like there would be sufficient use to justify a cut off line.

 

[MarkyT]

Given there is seemingly only demand for an hourly off-peak and half hourly peak service to Swansea, which are the fastest trains and which ones are going to continue to serve Neath? It doesn't sound like there would be sufficient use to justify a cut off line.

You might plausibly be able to put in a new connecting chord between the District and Main lines near Llansamlet to bypass Neath, but it would be steep, needing to gain about 25m in elevation in just over a km. It would save about 3km and a stop, say five or six minutes? Neath is a busy station however, with significantly more usage at 0.827m pa in 2018/19 than Port Talbot's 0.536m pa. Neath also compares well to Swansea's 2.156m in the same year. That may be due to its good location, certainly more convenient for many people than Swansea with Neath's easy road access from the A465 and a large car park. The rail station is also a short walk ( < 300m ) from the town's bus station with its broad range of routes serving the wider settlement and surrounding valleys, with some routes stopping closer to the station as well. It might be argued that car-borne customers could 'just' as easily' drive on to Port Talbot, but clearly many don't, and an additional 30 minutes round trip in traffic might be a deal-breaker for a practical drop-off in peoples' busy morning schedules. There's also a risk that once heading in that direction some drivers might just keep on driving!

 

[Bald Rick]

You might plausibly be able to put in a new connecting chord between the District and Main lines near Llansamlet to bypass Neath, but it would be steep, needing to gain about 25m in elevation in just over a km. It would save about 3km and a stop, say five or six minutes?

or you could save over half the time (3-4 minutes) by not spending anything and just not stopping. Which means the true journey time benefit of a cut off is about 2 minutes.

 

[FGWHST43009]

Neath is a busy station however, with significantly more usage at 0.827m pa in 2018/19 than Port Talbot's 0.536m pa. Neath also compares well to Swansea's 2.156m in the same year. That may be due to its good location, certainly more convenient for many people than Swansea with Neath's easy road access from the A465 and a large car park. The rail station is also a short walk ( < 300m ) from the town's bus station with its broad range of routes serving the wider settlement and surrounding valleys, with some routes stopping closer to the station as well.

Maybe skipping calls at Port Talbot would be a better idea? Or maybe keeping the existing service then run an extra faster service that only stops at Neath, Bridgend, Cardiff, Newport, Bristol Parkway, Reading then Paddington. Either a new 200-250km/h alignment from Birmingham via Bristol Parkway to Swansea, with provision allowing trains to call at Newport, Cardiff etc, or new line to Cardiff then upgrades west to Swansea like 4 tracking. There could be a new high speed service to Manchester as well as 2tph to Paddington. Then there could be more freight and stoppers

 

[JonathanH]

Either a new 200-250km/h alignment from Birmingham via Bristol Parkway to Swansea, with provision allowing trains to call at Newport, Cardiff etc, or new line to Cardiff then upgrades west to Swansea like 4 tracking.

Total fantasy.

Or maybe keeping the existing service then run an extra faster service that only stops at Neath, Bridgend, Cardiff, Newport, Bristol Parkway, Reading then Paddington.

Is it really worth running an extra service just to miss out Port Talbot and Swindon?

 

[FGWHST43009]

Total fantasy.


Is it really worth running an extra service just to miss out Port Talbot and Swindon?

I'm thinking more about the future. Possibly for now just run an extra peak hour service that only stops at Cardiff, Newport, Bristol, Reading and Paddington. I'd at least electrify and upgrade the line to reduce journey times and allow more frequent all-stations services that stop at smaller stations the GWR expresses don't serve. That said, more frequent services to Swansea overall are needed to get people out of their cars

 

[507020]

Total fantasy.

It isn’t. Following the completion of HS2, HS3 etc, what do you think will be the candidates for HS4, HS5 or HS6? Just look at the development of the network of the Midland Railway.

 

[JonathanH]

It isn’t. Following the completion of HS2, HS3 etc, what do you think will be the candidates for HS4, HS5 or HS6? Just look at the development of the network of the Midland Railway.

OK, but we are going to have to wait a very long time such that it isn't achievable in the lifetime of most people reading this forum today. HS2 / IPR accounts for the available funding up to 2040. Then probably Crossrail 2 in the 2050s and 2060s, so it could easily be 2070 before anyone is thinking about any railway line between Birmingham and Bristol. I'm not sure where any investment to fund a GW upgrade to 140mph would come from. I wouldn't expect it within the lifespan of the current 80x as it just isn't clear where the money will come from with so many other demands on the public purse.

 

[Bald Rick]

It isn’t. Following the completion of HS2, HS3 etc, what do you think will be the candidates for HS4, HS5 or HS6? Just look at the development of the network of the Midland Railway.

There isn’t an HS3. There will be no candidates for any high speed railways beyond those planned.

 

[507020]

There isn’t an HS3. There will be no candidates for any high speed railways beyond those planned.

Have you not noticed that the trend in Europe and elsewhere is that once one high speed railway is finished, others start being planned on other potential corridors. To say that there are no candidates for more high speed lines ever in the future is just ludicrous. There are many busy railways in this country, Birmingham - Bristol is one and people use domestic flights to travel between Cardiff/Bristol and Edinburgh/Newcastle, so clearly it’s a candidate, along with either connection to the ECML or extension of HS2 north to Scotland.

 

[Bald Rick]

Have you not noticed that the trend in Europe and elsewhere is that once one high speed railway is finished, others start being planned on other potential corridors.

Have you not noticed the trend in Europe and elsewhere that high speed railways are built where current railways are either slow speed or don’t exist? Not an issue here. And also outside Benelux and northern Germany, there’s usually long distances between the cities served.

as for flying Cardiff / Bristol to Edinburgh / Newcastle: in 2019 (the most recent busy year for domestic aviation), the entire air market on those four flows would comfortably fit on two return Class 800s a day. Add in Glasgow, Leeds and Manchester and it rises to three return trips a day.

 

[507020]

Have you not noticed the trend in Europe and elsewhere that high speed railways are built where current railways are either slow speed or don’t exist? Not an issue here. And also outside Benelux and northern Germany, there’s usually long distances between the cities served.

as for flying Cardiff / Bristol to Edinburgh / Newcastle: in 2019 (the most recent busy year for domestic aviation), the entire air market on those four flows would comfortably fit on two return Class 800s a day. Add in Glasgow, Leeds and Manchester and it rises to three return trips a day.

Many of our main lines are not slow because BR made upgrades to the permissible speed rather than build new high speed lines, but we do have problems in this country with capacity, particularly freight capacity and also important lines between nearby centres not existing and in some cases not being able to be brought back into existence due to these capacity constraints.

High speed lines are of course entirely about freed up capacity and have nothing at all to do with journey times, with the high speeds merely being a consequence of building a new alignment with modern engineering. It would make sense to expand 2 return 80xs a day on the existing network across domestic air corridors as has been done with Lumo and then discontinue the flights. I am sure that can just about be accommodated without building a high speed line.

 

[Bald Rick]

I am sure that can just about be accommodated without building a high speed line.

excellent so you agree.

 

[507020]

excellent so you agree.

Yes in the expansion of Lumo operations to Bristol, but that’s not to say that a high speed line shouldn’t ever be built.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes in the expansion of Lumo operations to Bristol, but that’s not to say that a high speed line shouldn’t ever be built.

Lumo’s parent company already operates to Bristol. Job done!

 

[507020]

Lumo’s parent company already operates to Bristol. Job done!

Yes but it only operates on the GWML and doesn’t go to Birmingham or Newcastle. You also can’t get away with not making any improvements to the infrastructure or service…

 

[Irascible]

Can we start by electrifying Bristol TM-Bromsgrove? that'd be a lot cheaper than a new railway & still a considerable improvement...

 

[507020]

Can we start by electrifying Bristol TM-Bromsgrove? that'd be a lot cheaper than a new railway & still a considerable improvement...

Yes but apparently on the 4 track sections between Bromsgrove and New Street, only the slow lines are electrified, so unless you want to reduce it all to 2 tracks it’s not as simple as an extension from Bromsgrove, but getting Temple Meads done would mean one less excuse for them not doing Bath

 

[zwk500]

Yes but apparently on the 4 track sections between Bromsgrove and New Street, only the slow lines are electrified, so unless you want to reduce it all to 2 tracks it’s not as simple as an extension from Bromsgrove, but getting Temple Meads done would mean one less excuse for them not doing Bath

Electrifying the fast lines between King's Norton and Longbridge at the se time as Bromsgrove to Westerleigh Jn would still be cheaper than a brand new alignment. Might as well chuck in the Camp Hill lines between New Street and King's Norton while you're at it, would still have cash to spare when compared to a brand new high speed railway through quite hilly terrain.

 

[Irascible]

Electrifying the fast lines between King's Norton and Longbridge at the se time as Bromsgrove to Westerleigh Jn would still be cheaper than a brand new alignment. Might as well chuck in the Camp Hill lines between New Street and King's Norton while you're at it, would still have cash to spare when compared to a brand new high speed railway through quite hilly terrain.

Let's go all the way to Temple Meads, please? but it would give a wired route from S.Wales ( where there are, afaik both docks & heavy industry still ) to the midlands even if the wires stopped short in Bristol *again*.

 

[zwk500]

Let's go all the way to Temple Meads, please? but it would give a wired route from S.Wales ( where there are, afaik both docks & heavy industry still ) to the midlands even if the wires stopped short in Bristol *again*.

Electric freight is fairly inconsequential. I was assuming the last leg into Bristol TM would be done under a different project once the remodelling was complete.

 

[FGWHST43009]

Electrifying the fast lines between King's Norton and Longbridge at the se time as Bromsgrove to Westerleigh Jn would still be cheaper than a brand new alignment. Might as well chuck in the Camp Hill lines between New Street and King's Norton while you're at it, would still have cash to spare when compared to a brand new high speed railway through quite hilly terrain.

Electrification would improve the journey times more than increasing linespeeds with the existing diesels. That said electrification and linespeed upgrades would deliver the most benefits. In the case of linespeeds, the reduction in journey times needs to be substantial enough to justify that level of investment. However higher linespeeds would be needed along the SWML and at least a new tunnel under the Severn

 

[MarkyT]

I was assuming the last leg into Bristol TM would be done under a different project once the remodelling was complete.

Officialy it was 'deferred' rather than 'cancelled' work from the original GWML wiring scheme. I think most of the infrastructure remodelling and other enabling work has been completed now.

 

[507020]

Electrification would improve the journey times more than increasing linespeeds with the existing diesels. That said electrification and linespeed upgrades would deliver the most benefits. In the case of linespeeds, the reduction in journey times needs to be substantial enough to justify that level of investment. However higher linespeeds would be needed along the SWML and at least a new tunnel under the Severn

If you consider the Severn tunnel to be life expired, the original one could be allowed to flood and a new one constructed - to continental loading gauge as it could potentially form the first part of a new alignment in future.

 

[FGWHST43009]

If you consider the Severn tunnel to be life expired, the original one could be allowed to flood and a new one constructed - to continental loading gauge as it could potentially form the first part of a new alignment in future.

What I meant is that a new tunnel could allow an extensive refurbishment programme to be undertaken on the existing tunnel. When it's complete, along with a recasting of the timetable, the slower passenger trains and the freight will go through the old tunnel (assuming all the trains are electric) and all the fast trains through the new tunnel. I'd say the new tunnel would be designed for speeds up to 230-250km/h, as would be a future new alignment. Similar specs to NPR I'd say

 

[507020]

What I meant is that a new tunnel could allow an extensive refurbishment programme to be undertaken on the existing tunnel. When it's complete, along with a recasting of the timetable, the slower passenger trains and the freight will go through the old tunnel (assuming all the trains are electric) and all the fast trains through the new tunnel. I'd say the new tunnel would be designed for speeds up to 230-250km/h, as would be a future new alignment. Similar specs to NPR I'd say

Yes that would be a sensible way of doing it. My point is that then if a dedicated high speed line is opened at any point in the future, either from London or Birmingham, it could use this new tunnel instead of requiring it’s own.

 

[Irascible]

Electric freight is fairly inconsequential. I was assuming the last leg into Bristol TM would be done under a different project once the remodelling was complete.

Unfortunately yes, but at least an added benefit for the cost of some way of getting to the docks/what industry is left from the wires. That's a national topic, not limited to Wales

--

Might be easier to build a new bridge than repeat the pain of the tunnel? given all the recent work in the tunnel though, that also seems unlikely.

 

[FGWHST43009]

Yes that would be a sensible way of doing it. My point is that then if a dedicated high speed line is opened at any point in the future, either from London or Birmingham, it could use this new tunnel instead of requiring it’s own.

Initially while the existing tunnel is closed for its refurbishment everything would have to run through the new tunnel. But I would imagine the new tunnel would be fitted with newer signalling and would allow high frequency operations. There would be an opportunity for future cross country high speeds services to and from South Wales from the Midlands and the North as well as more services to London and possibly faster services to the South West, depending on whether the new line would be connected to Temple Meads

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jun 2022 ==

Unfortunately yes, but at least an added benefit for the cost of some way of getting to the docks/what industry is left from the wires. That's a national topic, not limited to Wales

--

Might be easier to build a new bridge than repeat the pain of the tunnel? given all the recent work in the tunnel though, that also seems unlikely.

That's a good alternative, would have to be built probably between the existing road bridges and built carefully so not to impact on the existing tunnel, which would still be used. Overall a new NPR-style line to serve Bristol and South Wales from Birmingham as well as being connected to the GWML would allow for metro style all-stations services to operate between Bristol and Swansea.

 

[Irascible]

I was going to suggest maybe replacing the original road bridge with a combination, given it's 57 years old, but now I see it's Grade 1 listed...