Improvements to Devon/Cornwall (and maybe West Wales) would probably have been the sort of thing that could have benefitted from EU funding in better times. Portugal seems to have done quite well leveraging funds for electrification out of the regional pot.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Would we need a GWML high speed line?
- Thread starter Sad Sprinter
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Yes, well... Cornwall voted to remove itself & then asked if they were going to keep their EU money :P
I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better to move the Navy from Devonport, history be damned, and turn it into a container port. That'd surely find some money for the railway. The rate the Navy is shrinking they could all fit into Cowes soon, let alone Portsmouth.
zwk500
Veteran Member
I doubt they'd find very much money, certainly not enough to do gauge and length clearance of any meaningful scale. You'd also then have heavy freight over the South Devon banks, which will do wonders for passenger capacity.
The SW already has Avonmouth, there's no demand for another in a worse position.
irish_rail
On Moderation
That would be nice, however wishful thinking unfortunately. Although I do wonder how much time would be saved on a ship coming from say across the Atlantic , unloading at Plymouth instead of say Felixstowe. Gotta be a quicker voyage? Although admittedly the onwards land journey may well slow that saving. Though if gov were committed to levelling up something like this would provide new industry to the south west etc but the loss of the military port equally wouldn't likely to palatable to all the ex service men down here and would be a big vote loser sadly.
Sir Felix Pole
Established Member
The main station in Florence, Santa Maria, is in the World Heritage zone. It is fully electrified and one of the busiest stations in Italy. Bath City Council should be careful what they wish for as they could end up with just a DMU shuttle to Swindon and no through trains to Paddington. The biggest blot on the landscape in Bath is the ridiculous car dependency and chronic traffic congestion.
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
I am unconvinced there are no benefits at all from a high speed line from London to Bristol.
Such a line could then curve south to Exeter, speeding up Devon/Cornwall journey times.
Such a line could then curve south to Exeter, speeding up Devon/Cornwall journey times.
Of course but the 80Xs are fairly clean environmentally so while the local services are diesel under wires its difficult to justify the fairly ugly GWML electrification.
I think the DfT would find it difficult to justify running bi mode trains around Bath solely because it isn't electrified. As mentioned if a significant number of fast trains were to be electric only they would be willing to let that go ahead, but I find it difficult to see where the DfT would get these electric only trains from, considering the only real option is 387s, which would be worse than the current 800s in terms of passenger quality and also a downgrade.
Regardless I think the ideas of Bath getting a 'DMU shuttle' are fanciful, it's a major tourist destination and such a change would attract the attention of Parliament very quickly.
The plan was to use a bespoke design through Bath, the design for Sidney Gardens was made public and is probably still somewhere on the internet
zwk500
Veteran Member
Here are some of them: https://bathnewseum.com/2016/04/26/is-this-the-sydney-gardens-rig-for-electrification/
Nice to see, looks fine to be fair. The cancellation of Cardiff to Swansea is much worse than cancelling this though.
Northumbriana
Member
Probably already mentioned, but six tracking from Paddington to Reading. Probably via a new line which runs through Heathrow.
A new Severn crossing.
And a new line from Exeter to Plymouth.
That's probably all that is needed? Maybe a tunnel and underground platforms at Reading also.
A new Severn crossing.
And a new line from Exeter to Plymouth.
That's probably all that is needed? Maybe a tunnel and underground platforms at Reading also.
Very little. The big container ships are almost permanently on much bigger voyages than ’to and from Felixstowe’. They will typically come from Shanghai the stop somewhere else in China before coming round to Le Harve before then sailing to one of Southampton / Gateway / Felixstowe and then on to Antwerp / Rotterdam / Hamburg. They will take short sea boxes on these legs too, and you certainly don’t want a box going from Daventry to Rotterdam going via Plymouth.
There are definitely benefits, no question. However, it is almost certain they will be nowhere near large enough to offset the very significant cost.
The thing is to see much in the way of capacity increase there's always going to be significant costs.
Whilst Crossrail 2 would provide some decent capacity enhancements to the Southwest Mainline, until there's another pair of lines out of London the GWML is going to have limited capacity enhancements available, almost whatever is done.
The question isn't really do we need another pair of lines from London westwards, but rather what do we need to do to allow it to create the benefits to justify building it.
Given how busy the M4 gets it's not as if there's a shortage of potential passengers.
If there's scope to cater for M3 "passengers" too then that's a whole load more.
Getting to Salisbury (30 minutes at 180mph) even if the trains then carried on to Southampton using existing tracks and calling at Romsey it would cut about 15 minutes of the current Waterloo - Southampton services (yes that's not a lot, but it'll provide a whole load more capacity).
With some improvements Southampton - Salisbury - Bath (to allow London - Bath to see journey time improvements) you could run some express services to relieve the overcrowding on the Portsmouth - Cardiff services.
It could even allow for more freight (something which National Highways has talked about rail taking more of a role in on the M3/A34 corridor).
Obviously it's never going to have the loading of HS2, however it may only need about 1/3 of the track distances of HS2.
zwk500
Veteran Member
Although a lot of the costs don't scale linearly with distance. There's considerable fixed costs before the length of the track becomes materially important.
Indeed, for example building a tunnel is always going to be more expensive than a line through a field and building 400m platformed station in Central London, Manchester and Leeds is always going to increase costs significantly.
Which is why it's always going to be preferable to maximise the number of "country end" locations which can be served by a HS line, whilst if many of the locations (Southampton, Bath, Exeter, etc.) are limited to existing train lengths then many of the high up front costs are reduced until there's a need to build the next stage as demand had built up enough to justify building a 400m platform at the next location which needs further capacity.
It's why if there's going to be enough of a case for it it's unlikely to be enough to run an extra pair of tracks alongside/under the GWML.
Also, as things stand, if the HS tracks could get to Old Oak Common, in theory you could use the existing fast lines to Paddington and shift (as an example) some of the further out services which are currently going to Paddington so they ran as Elizabeth Line services (for example Oxford or Newbury), you'd limit the impact by running them fast from Reading to Old Oak Common on the fast lines.
You may opt to then turn back some of the services at Old Oak Common or have a short tunnel to a limited station to provide interchange with another underground/overground station . With the view to then possibly extend it to connect with a new HS line serving the East Coast and maybe even to connect further around to Stratford to connect with HS1.
Although, again, those options would be subject to further justification of future projects.
To misquote Fiennes “you don’t blow whistles at people off the Newbury Line, Sir”.
Imagine giving them a 345!
It depends, there's a route which means that you wouldn't need to. However, there's a cost in doing that.
As such it depends on if the numbers stack up to fund the extra to get a HS line into London or if there's a need to keep costs down and so the option to use 345's in some of the marginally closer stations come into play.
zwk500
Veteran Member
There is a need to keep cost to a minimum.
Then it's a car is how to sell the use of 345's.
No need to change to get to a larger number of stations across London, is the easy thing to pick up on.
Do remember just how much traffic comes off at Airport Junction. It's going to be 10tph by May meaning that 6 tracking the route past there has little benefit past there. Given that there are 5 tracks on most places on the route between Airport Junction and Paddington it would be a pretty easy job compared to any dedicated line.Using more 345s is unlikely to be cost effective when they are all in use by TfL and there are far more suitable AC EMUs ready for use once GWR actually utilises all its 387s.
What's to say that sixth line hasn't been put in place already when a GWML HS line is under development (or at the very least it's in place before building of the new line starts)
Also, when it was looked at on the attach to Waterloo the cost of an extra line, whilst only a fraction of the cost of Crossrail 2, didn't provide the level of capacity uplift. In that it couldn't deliver about +8tph for the services which were further afield (typically services to Reading/which pass Woking), as well as the metro services uplift as well as the cross London line.
Sometimes cheapest doesn't equal best value.
In the same way that serving Euston by HS2 tunnels is better value than trying to serve too many services into Old Oak Common when it's not designed for it, even though it's more expensive.
bbuuttlleerr
Member
No to the High Speed line, and a tunnelled line paralleling the overcrowded section is preferable to the disruption of six-tracking. It just needs this development to justify and fund it:
A super-dense (and private car-free) new town “West Windsor” of up to 200,000 people straddling Drift Road, intended to part-solve the housing crises of unaffordability and insufficient housebuilding.
Supported by a new road from M4 J8/9, plus a 10tph Elizabeth Line branch:
A portal on the Acton-Northolt line immediately west of Old Oak Common (OOC) leads to HeathrowT5b and WestWindsor underground stations. Line surfaces at Suttons Business Park / Gasworks with new surface tracks parallel to the North Downs Line into Reading platforms 7&8.
Current HeathrowT5 Elizabeth Line services plus most OOC terminators take this new route, now terminating at Oxford (2tph service with 2 stops before OOC), DidcotParkway (2tph 5 stops), Basingstoke (6tp2h 5 stops), and Newbury (3tph 6 stops).
Mostly running Semifast, they replace these station's 8tph of local Stopping and Fast services which currently terminate at Reading or Paddington. Only the Oxford-DidcotParkway Stopping service is not absorbed and extended.
Overcrowding would be eliminated and 5tph of additional long-distance trains are now possible into Paddington. Some relief for Chiltern and SouthWestern mainlines too.
Crucially, half or possibly all the £10Bn cost can be privately funded + no need for the inferior £0.9bn Western Approach for Heathrow:
-£4.5Bn from Developers: £50k value uplift from Elizabeth Line on 90,000 new West Windsor homes;
-£1.0Bn from Heathrow: gets faster and more frequent services, but more importantly an ample supply of cheaper staff a 10-minute train commute away;
-£4.5Bn+ more from Developers possible: if the government buys the currently normal-value land for West Windsor, and sells it for with-planning-permission prices.
Service levels:
OOC 10tph*. Reading 10tph. WestWindsor 6tph*. HeathrowT5b 5tph*. Basingstoke, Newbury, Thatcham, Theale, ReadingWest 3tph. Oxford, Cholsey, Goring&Streatley, Pangbourne, Tilehurst, 2tph. Chineham (new station), Bramley, Mortimer, ReadingParkway 3tp2h. NewburyRacecourse, Midgham, Aldermaston 1tph.
*Add 2-4 extra tph terminating at WestWindsor as the town grows and nears completion.
A super-dense (and private car-free) new town “West Windsor” of up to 200,000 people straddling Drift Road, intended to part-solve the housing crises of unaffordability and insufficient housebuilding.
Supported by a new road from M4 J8/9, plus a 10tph Elizabeth Line branch:
A portal on the Acton-Northolt line immediately west of Old Oak Common (OOC) leads to HeathrowT5b and WestWindsor underground stations. Line surfaces at Suttons Business Park / Gasworks with new surface tracks parallel to the North Downs Line into Reading platforms 7&8.
Current HeathrowT5 Elizabeth Line services plus most OOC terminators take this new route, now terminating at Oxford (2tph service with 2 stops before OOC), DidcotParkway (2tph 5 stops), Basingstoke (6tp2h 5 stops), and Newbury (3tph 6 stops).
Mostly running Semifast, they replace these station's 8tph of local Stopping and Fast services which currently terminate at Reading or Paddington. Only the Oxford-DidcotParkway Stopping service is not absorbed and extended.
Overcrowding would be eliminated and 5tph of additional long-distance trains are now possible into Paddington. Some relief for Chiltern and SouthWestern mainlines too.
Crucially, half or possibly all the £10Bn cost can be privately funded + no need for the inferior £0.9bn Western Approach for Heathrow:
-£4.5Bn from Developers: £50k value uplift from Elizabeth Line on 90,000 new West Windsor homes;
-£1.0Bn from Heathrow: gets faster and more frequent services, but more importantly an ample supply of cheaper staff a 10-minute train commute away;
-£4.5Bn+ more from Developers possible: if the government buys the currently normal-value land for West Windsor, and sells it for with-planning-permission prices.
Service levels:
OOC 10tph*. Reading 10tph. WestWindsor 6tph*. HeathrowT5b 5tph*. Basingstoke, Newbury, Thatcham, Theale, ReadingWest 3tph. Oxford, Cholsey, Goring&Streatley, Pangbourne, Tilehurst, 2tph. Chineham (new station), Bramley, Mortimer, ReadingParkway 3tp2h. NewburyRacecourse, Midgham, Aldermaston 1tph.
*Add 2-4 extra tph terminating at WestWindsor as the town grows and nears completion.
Tri-modes to use the 750 dc to Portsmouth
zwk500
Veteran Member
On a pedantic point, I feel these should properly be called Dual-Voltage Bi-modes as you don't call a 750v/25KV unit a 'bi-mode'.
Bigger problem is that GWR are about to hand back their stock of 25KV/750V/Diesel units to the ROSCO, so where do these units come from?
Is Paddington maxed out at 9 coach IETs, or can longer trains provide extra capacity?
My crayons demand an electric route from Newton Abbot and Plymouth, upgraded to Totnes, then all new to Plympton (including a new P&R Station at Ivybridge south of the A38).
Built to a spec matching whatever speed/acceleration a future HS type train can achieve between the stops - ie design down to spec, not up.
How well built is that section - with the ongoing issues with old earthworks and climate change etc would a serious survey for speed increases and electrification end up with lots of remedial/upgrade work on a line with tight curves, big earthworks, and several viaducts to get up to standards?
Elsewhere I would concentrate upgrades on removing conflicts with other services.
Didcot East flyover
Grade separate Southcote with extra lines extended north toward Reading West as far as practicable.
A new Yate to Parkway line to keep XC and local/regional trains out of the way of the South Wales trains.
My crayons demand an electric route from Newton Abbot and Plymouth, upgraded to Totnes, then all new to Plympton (including a new P&R Station at Ivybridge south of the A38).
Built to a spec matching whatever speed/acceleration a future HS type train can achieve between the stops - ie design down to spec, not up.
How well built is that section - with the ongoing issues with old earthworks and climate change etc would a serious survey for speed increases and electrification end up with lots of remedial/upgrade work on a line with tight curves, big earthworks, and several viaducts to get up to standards?
Elsewhere I would concentrate upgrades on removing conflicts with other services.
Didcot East flyover
Grade separate Southcote with extra lines extended north toward Reading West as far as practicable.
A new Yate to Parkway line to keep XC and local/regional trains out of the way of the South Wales trains.
Nottingham59
Established Member
Welcome to the forum!
I agree that what the GWML needs is a tunnel to provide extra capacity, but I just run a twin-track tunnel from Old Oak Common to Airport Junction. This would give the additional flexibility that comes from 6-tracking, while still providing the extra capacity.
And new towns are badly needed close to London. But why particularly build any new town around Drift Road? Centre it on the mainline betweeen Maidenhead and Twyford, so it can use the existing transport infrastructure?
By the time you have cleared enough land for portals, ramps, TBM launching and work sites, and maybe a ventilation shaft you probably wouldnt be much better off than clearing a strip next to the line all the way!
bbuuttlleerr
Member
The GWML would cut through a smaller Twyford-Maidenhead town, and it doesn’t have the spare capacity or service needed to make a largely carless rail-dependant town viable.
West Windsor station could see >20M passengers/year with 10,000 commuting to Heathrow alone (they’ll need 20,000 more staff post-Runway 3).
This new line removes all London commuter traffic west of Maidenhead from the GWML, allowing it to specialise in being the high speed long distance line this thread espouses.
Plus I see no other way to finance a new rail line before 2045.
Non-rail stuff:
Drift Road is one of the few sites large enough, that's towards central England and close enough to London, that has little to no existing housing, and isn’t in a National Park/SSSI/AONB. Much of it is one private estate.
Yes it’s Greenbelt, but everything is: best sacrifice a single area away from existing towns that the public never use, to protect urban fringe greenbelt that is appreciated.
Upsetting one large sparse area of NIMBYs is better than dumping 250 unwanted new homes on 400x existing communities spread across the south. One properly planned self-contained and fully walkable new town will be a much nicer place to live, and can be built far more quickly and cheaply.
- Status