GCML as HS2

[LE Greys]

Not sure this is where this would go but oh well I apologise if its not.

Well this is my first post on these forums but Ive been reading them for quite some time, seem to have a real cross section of knowledgeable people here.
Well, I got thinking about the really insane cost of HS2 infrastructure and how it wont really benefit anyone in the actual north that much with the half hour shortenings in journey times.

I also admit having a bit of a soft spot for reopening old railway lines and the idea of upgrading everything as opposed to building new stuff from scratch.

So I came up with the probably totally unoriginal idea of restoring the Grand Central as an alternative to the entirely new built HS2. The Exact Proposal I have here is:

1. Expand the Marylebone Station to form the basis of a High Speed Rail terminal.
2. Upgrade and rebuild the lines out of Marylebone to Harrow-on-the-hill and the Chiltern Main Line to ~100mph running perhaps using slab track and judicious cambers, electrify to 25kV.
3. Install a fancy signalling system on the metropolitan line north of Harrow-on-the-hill to allow moving blocks north to Moor Park.
4. Properly Quadrouple the line from Moor Park to Amersham.
5. Electrify the line from Amersham to Aylesbury at 25kV and perhaps install slab track to enable high speed running. Perhaps triple it to enable local trains to stay out of the way of high speed stock and enable services during engineering works.
6. Electrify/Upgrade the Chiltern Main Line all the way to Birmingham and install cab signalling.
7. Double the High Wycombe-Aylesbury spur and electrify.
8. Reinstate the Grand Central Main Line all the way from Aylesbury to Sheffield with quadrouple or double track as required, you can probably get away with using almost the entire existing right of way with relatively minor reroutes at Leicester and Rugby to get around all the stuff that's been built in the way and possibly use the Robin Hood line RoW to bypass Nottingham.
9. Electrify the surrounds of Nottingham to enable trains to leave the restored GCML and enter the Midland station and vice versa
10. Electrify the remainder of the Robin Hood Line
11. Restore the Woodhead line from the old site of Sheffield Victoria all the way to Glossop, fitting cab signalling and other shiny things.
12. Electrify and upgrade lines to allow electric trains coming from Glossop/Hadfield to enter Sheffield Victoria station (its a few extra miles) and revitalise the station as a viable station to take the pressure off Picadilly.
13. Electrify and upgrade the Penistone line from Penistone-to-Barnsley, installing new chords at Penistone and Barnsley to allow trains to move run from Sheffield to Leeds over it without reversing.
14. Electrify the Barnsley-Leeds line via Wakefield Kirkgate (not sure what thats called)

This gives what amounts to two two track routes out of Marylebone to Aylesbury and takes advantage of the fact that there are apparently only four Metropolitan line trains an hour on the fast tracks north of Harrow-on-the-Hill.
It allows suburban services that terminate at High Wycombe and Aylesbury to be converted to electric traction and extended to somewhere like Ruby or even Leicester in an analogous situation to that on the ECML (outer suburban all the way to Peterborough).
You can use both of the upgraded lines as required to allow the high speed and local services out of London during busy times and provides redundancy.
Upgrades to the Chiltern Main Line make the 2tph run to Snow Hill a viable alternative to the WCML service, nearly doubling the service frequency to Birmingham.
Meanwhile you would be able to slash travel times from Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester using something like a dual voltage (750V/25kV) ETR 610 (Italian 155mph Pendolino). I estimate 60 minutes to Nottingham, 75 to Sheffield and like 95-100 minutes to Leeds and Manchester although those numbers are probably not really realistic.

Electrification of the remainder of the Robin Hood line would enable conversion of those services to electric traction for operational and cost reasons.
I know this would never happen and would probably be almost as expensive as HS2.... but I can dream.
Who wants to shoot holes in it first?

This is roughly what I would have gone for, with a few alterations. Firstly, any 200 mph lines would have to be on a new alignment parallel to the old one, with the obvious fork at Sheffield for Manchester, Preston, Carlisle and Glasgow on one side and Leeds, York, Darlington, Newcastle and Edinburgh on the other. Going north, the line between Leicester and Nottingham would need an all-new route (to avoid both the preserved line and the development around north Leicester. You would also have to gut the Victoria Centre (you would need some sort of alternative car parking) and rebuild it as a station for services on all former LNER lines around Nottingham, in particular the line from Grantham, restoring Weekday Cross junction - this allows Liverpool-Norwich services onto the slow lines, just as the Banbury link allows Reading-Sheffield onto them. Sheffield Victoria would absorb all former LNER services around Sheffield, with an improved route through Tinsley to Rotherham Central (Midland services divert to a reopened Rotherham Masborough). Then reconnect the Tinsley and Mxeborough lines through a dualled and upgraded Roundwood Chord at Aldwarke Junction. Not sure if the Wath Road-Penistone route is still viable, but look at it and see.

Then, of course, there is the question of the fast lines between Aylesbury and London. My answer would be to use the current HS2 route, because I can't really see an alternative. However, I'd still electrify the current Metropolitan fast lines and use dual-system stock on Met services (which would extend to Aylesbury Town).

The GCR then sees Baker Street/Aldgate-Aylesbury Town/Watford/Uxbridge, various Chiltern suburbans, South Coast/Reading-Sheffield/North East, Liverpool-Norwich, local services around Nottingham and Sheffield, and all sorts of freight as well as the expresses. These would be London-Manchester/Bradford/Leeds and points north, plus a few through from Paris. East Coast could scale back its Leeds service and use the paths for trains to Lincoln, Hull and so on, Virgin could divert one or Manchester path into Birmingham and add a few stops, while EMT could start adding stops on expresses.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Possible "losers". Given that phase 2 hasn't even had it's route decided yet, it's even harder to say what the effect on "classic" timetables will be than it is for phase 1.

Most of those stations will however be close enough to a HS2 station that they may well gain a faster overall journey time to many destinations (including London) although with a change

By the same token, it is impossible to say who will be the winners beyond the obvious end to end journeys. However, the suggestion is that the Manchester arm will be have no stations between Birmingham Airport and the outskirts of Macnhester. Stoke is hardly 'close' enough to allow a faster journey to London via a change.

 

[gordonthemoron]

as exemplified elsewhere, i.e. house building, greenfield building is far cheaper than reusing existing route space

 

[HSTEd]

Well you could save money on the Marylebone expansion by electrifying the Dudding Hill Line and run a viaduct-chord over the Grand Union canal so you can run trains out of Paddington

 

[Tim B]

Well you could save money on the Marylebone expansion by electrifying the Dudding Hill Line and run a viaduct-chord over the Grand Union canal so you can run trains out of Paddington

Or send the locals from Aylesbuy / Wycombe through Crossrail thereby freeing up capacity at Marylebone

 

[Chris125]

There will be no need for ticket prices to fall on the WCML if they will be lower than those charged on HS2. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the fares on the latter will be anything but premium, to reflect the premium service/speed. This suggests they will be higher than the WCML, and based on what the market is prepared to pay for high speed travel i.e. WCML/ECML fares plus a bit more.

Its been mentioned many times that the business case for HS2 is not based on premium fares - given how expensive WCML tickets will be by 2025 with the need to price people off peak services, they'll be artifically high anyway; and compared to how high they'd go without HS2 to stop WCML travel becoming a lottery at peak times, they'll be a bargain.

Chris

 

[Greenback]

Its been mentioned many times that the business case for HS2 is not based on premium fares - given how expensive WCML tickets will be by 2025 with the need to price people off peak services, they'll be artifically high anyway; and compared to how high they'd go without HS2 to stop WCML travel becoming a lottery at peak times, they'll be a bargain.

Chris

Forgive my cynicism, but I take these sort of assurances with a pinch of salt!
The fact that the HS2 journey will be much faster suggests that its fares will be higher than those on competing routes, whether that is actually called a premium or not. If the market will pay more for a faster journey and an earlier arrival/later departure, then higher fares will be charged, one way or another.

 

[paul1609]

Forgive my cynicism, but I take these sort of assurances with a pinch of salt!
The fact that the HS2 journey will be much faster suggests that its fares will be higher than those on competing routes, whether that is actually called a premium or not. If the market will pay more for a faster journey and an earlier arrival/later departure, then higher fares will be charged, one way or another.

Lets face it the way fuel prices are going, motoring is going to be for only the rich.
Lots of people like me on middle incomes are beginning to think of giving up their cars.
I reckon demand for rail is going to rocket within even the next 5 years.
Currently nearly every rail journey is subsidised by the Govt. With tax incomes from motoring plumetting there is no way that fixing the increase in fares to inflation plus a few percent is going to survive.
Rail fares are increasingly going to relect demand and their costs.
On that basis I reckon a normal London to Scotland ticket is going to be £250 to £300 within 10 years.

 

[mallard]

On that basis I reckon a normal London to Scotland ticket is going to be £250 to £300 within 10 years.

Hate to break it to you, but the "normal" Anytime Return is already in that price range, or were you talking about the single?

 

[Greenback]

Indeed, I am certian thatd emand for rail will increase. I am also sure that the price of tickets will increase even more. I don't see why that will make HS2 cheaper to travel on than the traditional lines.

 

[paul1609]

Hate to break it to you, but the "normal" Anytime Return is already in that price range, or were you talking about the single?

By Normal ticket I mean an advance, turn up and go tickets in standard class will long be history on inter city services.

 

[Greenback]

By Normal ticket I mean an advance, turn up and go tickets in standard class will long be history on inter city services.

That very thought makes me feel very, very depressed, bordering on suicidal. The idea that I can't just jump on a HST or its replacement for an unplanned trip to Neath from Swansea rather defeats the point of having a railway.

 

[TinManDerby]

Where the Phase 2 East Midlands Station is placed, (Most likely between Derby and Nottingham) the line has to go north to the east of the Derbyshire Dales / Pennines and west of Mansfield area. Further East of Mansfield would put it too near the ECML at Newark.

There are two paths I would think they would consider.

1. The GCML trackbed goes north under the A38, about 1/2 mile from the M1 J28, just to the west of Sutton In Ashfield. A38 bridge hight has to be around 50 ft.

2. The Eriwash line goes to the east of Alfreton.

Any ideas on these or any other possible route.

 

[Snapper]

The fact that the HS2 journey will be much faster suggests that its fares will be higher than those on competing routes, whether that is actually called a premium or not. If the market will pay more for a faster journey and an earlier arrival/later departure, then higher fares will be charged, one way or another.

There is absolutely no point in building a new HS line then pricing people off it! It's not going to happen. We have the experience of elsewhere to sow us what will.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I do agree with re-opening the Woodhead route which should never have been closed in the 1st place.

Why?

The traffic the Woodhead carried no longer exists. There's very little freight traffic over the Pennines nowadays and if you need any extra capacity you could have that far more cheaply by spending money enhancing one or more of the existing routes.

As for the plan to reopen the Woodhead to carry trucks - it was a private sector idea that never got any serious backing as the whole concept was flawed. The Pennines are not the Alps.

 

[mallard]

Any ideas on these or any other possible route.

My guess:
Follow the Derby-Birmingham route until just south of Willington, follow the Trent and join the currently freight-only line through Weston-on-Trent and Castle Donnington. Build the station close to Jct 24 of the M1. Turn north and follow the M1 corridor for a short distance, leaving it just before Breaston towards Heanor/Langley Mill and following the general corridor of the Erewash valley line, leaving it to run east of Chesterfield and passing through Sheffield via the Darnall and Meadowhall areas (with a station near one of these). Re-join the M1 corridor past Barnsley leaving it to run between Osset and Dewsbury and joining the Wakefield line just north of Tingley and into Leeds.

Additional stations as necessary. When I say to "join" an existing line, this may mean extra parallel tracks, interworked tracks or the replacement of the existing line.

Nottingham could be reached by continuing to follow the Castle-Donnington line to Trent Junction. Connections to the existing lines in the Sheffield area would be desirable.

Anyone have a better route idea?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why?

The traffic the Woodhead carried no longer exists. There's very little freight traffic over the Pennines nowadays and if you need any extra capacity you could have that far more cheaply by spending money enhancing one or more of the existing routes.

For passengers! The Hope Valley Line is slow and more-or-less at capacity. The Woodhead would allow "express" Sheffield-Manchester services to run faster and more frequently. You can't easily "enhance" the Hope Valley very much because it runs through a National Park (as does the Woodhead, but over a shorter distance and re-opening a former alignment would be easier than making drastic changes to an existing one).

Frankly, the closure of the Woodhead was a huge mistake on the part of BR. They used "dirty tricks" to justify it (e.g. including the cost of renewing the electrification and locomotives in the future running costs, when it could have been cheaply de-electrified) and did not account for the fast that the Hope Valley can't cope with increasing passenger numbers.

 

[Snapper]

For passengers! The Hope Valley Line is slow and more-or-less at capacity. The Woodhead would allow "express" Sheffield-Manchester services to run faster and more frequently. You can't easily "enhance" the Hope Valley very much because it runs through a National Park (as does the Woodhead, but over a shorter distance and re-opening a former alignment would be easier than making drastic changes to an existing one).

Frankly, the closure of the Woodhead was a huge mistake on the part of BR. They used "dirty tricks" to justify it (e.g. including the cost of renewing the electrification and locomotives in the future running costs, when it could have been cheaply de-electrified) and did not account for the fast that the Hope Valley can't cope with increasing passenger numbers.

Yes, you can enhance the Hope Valley. There's space to add loops, resignalling would add extra capacity and of all the freight paths on the route, a third are never used. In fact, extra service are being introduced on the route soon.

Of course, if you really wanted to reopen a line that would be woth having, you'd reopen the Midland route through to Derby. That would take all the heavy freights off the Hope Valley and send them in the direction they really want to go: South.

How much time saving (and and what cost) would you gain by sending Manchester - Sheffield services via the Woodhead? What would the cost benefit ratio be (other than unacceptable)?

BR didn't use 'dirty tricks' to close Woodhead. They didn't need to. Where is the traffic it carried now? How many freight trains cross the Pennines on a daily basis? The route was no longer needed.

The problem with the Woodhead is that it's a totem for some enthusiasts. There was no economic case for keeping it open and there's no economic case for reopening it either.

 

[Greenback]

There is absolutely no point in building a new HS line then pricing people off it! It's not going to happen. We have the experience of elsewhere to sow us what will.

It makes no commercial sense to price people off the railway, unless capacity is at a premium. There is a difference, though, between pricing people off trains and the maximisation of revenue that is the raison d'etre of private companies who a duty to their shareholders to do exactly that. Maximising revenue does not necessarily mean full trains, it means charging as much as the market will pay.

I suggest that sections of the market will pay a higher price for the faster service that HS2 brings. It is quite normal in the free market that if you want a faster service, a better product or both, then you expect to pay more for it. I don't see any reason why HS2 will not conform to those rules.

 

[mallard]

Yes, you can enhance the Hope Valley. There's space to add loops, resignalling would add extra capacity and of all the freight paths on the route, a third are never used. In fact, extra service are being introduced on the route soon.

Adding loops and improving the signalling adds a bit of capacity, but it doesn't make the route any shorter or less curvy. I've yet to travel over the hope valley line on a "fast" EMT or TPE service that isn't full, even off-peak. It's not just lack of rolling stock causing the crowding, there just aren't enough paths.

Of course, if you really wanted to reopen a line that would be woth having, you'd reopen the Midland route through to Derby. That would take all the heavy freights off the Hope Valley and send them in the direction they really want to go: South.

I'd agree with that reopening that too, it would also improve passenger connections between the East Midlands and East Anglia and the North West. Sheffield is a bit of a bottleneck.

How much time saving (and and what cost) would you gain by sending Manchester - Sheffield services via the Woodhead? What would the cost benefit ratio be (other than unacceptable)?

I'm not an economist, but doesn't the fact that the Woodhead is one of the lines most often mooted for re-opening (and not just by enthusiasts!) tell you something? Also note how much road freight uses the A628, surely some of this could be transferred to rail if there were the capacity to do it?

BR didn't use 'dirty tricks' to close Woodhead. They didn't need to. Where is the traffic it carried now? How many freight trains cross the Pennines on a daily basis? The route was no longer needed.

Traffic was declining, true. BR didn't just close it on a whim, but BR's justification was based largely on the costs of renewing the electrification. Removing it and running the route with diesels does not seem to have been seriously considered.

The problem with the Woodhead is that it's a totem for some enthusiasts. There was no economic case for keeping it open and there's no economic case for reopening it either.

I, several local councils and bidders for the Transpennine rail franchise respectfully disagree.

 

[Snapper]

I, several local councils and bidders for the Transpennine rail franchise respectfully disagree.

Which local councils and which bidders (I note the plural) have disagreed?

You still haven't answered any of the questions I've posed:

How much time would this new route between the two cities allegedly save?

How much would it cost?

What would any projected CBR be?

Why is this option preferable to providing extra capacity on existing routes?

You say that the number of people suggesting it should be reopened tells us something. Yes. It does, it tells me something about the reality of their plans - as the route has remained closed and there's no serious proposals to reopen it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Traffic was declining, true. BR didn't just close it on a whim, but BR's justification was based largely on the costs of renewing the electrification. Removing it and running the route with diesels does not seem to have been seriously considered..

No, they didn't close it on a whim. Nor was there any conspiracy or any other such nonsense.

The line was closed because the traffic that it was built for was rapidly disappearing. Tell me, how much of the coal and steel traffic that the Woodhead was built for still crosses the Pennines today? What type of traction you use to haul trains that no longer exist is entirely moot.

 

[starrymarkb]

I beleive politics came into play. BR would have rather have kept woodhead, but there was pressure to maintain the Hope Valley due to relativly poor road access

 

[Greenback]

In the late 1970's the railway was in retreat. it was losing its tradiitonal traffic left, right and centre, and there was a general feeling that it had had its day.

In the context of the time, it was not considered necessary to retain so many trans pennine routes. I can well believe that it was thought more desirable to close the Woodhead, given the capital expenditure that would have been necessary to replace the electrification. Maybe no thought was given to running diesel trains, but if it was considered necessary to retain the Hope Valley line for passenger services, there wa sno need to.

When we look back now we think it was a mistake, and maybe it was, just like a lot of the 1980's track rationalisation turned out to be. But at the time, it was probably the only decision that could have been made.

 

[mallard]

Which local councils and which bidders (I note the plural) have disagreed?

The "Trans-pennine Rail Group", which supported reopening, was supported by Derbyshire, South Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and other county councils, as well as The Peak District National Park Authority, Sheffield and Barnsley Councils and SYPTE and GMPTE (now TfGM). (And others).
The North West Rail Campaign is also in favour of re-opening the line and is supported by several local councils and authorities.

Both the Institute of Logistics and Transport and Arriva included re-opening the line as part of their transpennine bids.

You still haven't answered any of the questions I've posed:

Because I don't know the answers and I don't have a few million quid and a year or two to commission a study to find out. I'm not an expert here, I'm just an enthusiast in favour of increasing the capacity of our rail network in general and Woodhead appears to me to be a good way of doing that. By anyone's projections, within 20-or-so years the vast majority of the rail network will be operating at or very close to capacity. Big things need to be done.

 

[Snapper]

I beleive politics came into play. BR would have rather have kept woodhead, but there was pressure to maintain the Hope Valley due to relativly poor road access

The truth is rather different. The Hope Valley line generates rail traffic - both passenger and freight. Hope Cement and the quarries around Buxton meant that it was a very sensible decision to keep it. The Woodhead generated no traffic at all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The "Trans-pennine Rail Group", which supported reopening, was supported by Derbyshire, South Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and other county councils, as well as The Peak District National Park Authority, Sheffield and Barnsley Councils and SYPTE and GMPTE (now TfGM). (And others).
The North West Rail Campaign is also in favour of re-opening the line and is supported by several local councils and authorities.

Both the Institute of Logistics and Transport and Arriva included re-opening the line as part of their transpennine bids.



Because I don't know the answers and I don't have a few million quid and a year or two to commission a study to find out. I'm not an expert here, I'm just an enthusiast in favour of increasing the capacity of our rail network in general and Woodhead appears to me to be a good way of doing that. By anyone's projections, within 20-or-so years the vast majority of the rail network will be operating at or very close to capacity. Big things need to be done.

'Supporting' something is very different to being willing to fund it. Arriva were the only TOC to suggest it and their bid failed. No-one has seriously suggested it again.

As for you last point. You don't know the answers to some very basic questions that have a crucial bearing in the viability of a proposal, yet you still maintain that it's a 'good way of increasing capacity'...

What's the point of increasing capacity in the most expensive way when the railways are increasingly being expected to become cost-efficient?

There's not an unlimited post of money and that money would be far better spent elsewhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The "Trans-pennine Rail Group", which supported reopening, was supported by Derbyshire, South Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and other county councils, as well as The Peak District National Park Authority, Sheffield and Barnsley Councils and SYPTE and GMPTE (now TfGM). (And others).
The North West Rail Campaign is also in favour of re-opening the line and is supported by several local councils and authorities.

Both the Institute of Logistics and Transport and Arriva included re-opening the line as part of their transpennine bids.



Because I don't know the answers and I don't have a few million quid and a year or two to commission a study to find out. I'm not an expert here, I'm just an enthusiast in favour of increasing the capacity of our rail network in general and Woodhead appears to me to be a good way of doing that. By anyone's projections, within 20-or-so years the vast majority of the rail network will be operating at or very close to capacity. Big things need to be done.

'Supporting' something is very different to being willing to fund it. Arriva were the only TOC to suggest it and their bid failed. No-one has seriously suggested it again.

As for you last point. You don't know the answers to some very basic questions that have a crucial bearing in the viability of a proposal, yet you still maintain that it's a 'good way of increasing capacity'...

What's the point of increasing capacity in the most expensive way when the railways are increasingly being expected to become cost-efficient?

There's not an unlimited post of money and that money would be far better spent elsewhere.

 

[mallard]

As for you last point. You don't know the answers to some very basic questions that have a crucial bearing in the viability of a proposal, yet you still maintain that it's a 'good way of increasing capacity'...

What's the point of increasing capacity in the most expensive way when the railways are increasingly being expected to become cost-efficient?

So I'm not allowed to be in favour of something unless I can construct a business case for it? This isn't Dragons Den, I'm not asking for your money!

Honestly, I don't know what the viability of the proposal is. What I do know is that containing to tweak the Hope Valley Line isn't a long-term strategy and that passenger numbers are increasing. Most of the passengers on the line are through passengers, so snaking around a bunch of villages in the Peak District only slows down their journeys.

Frankly, the only way to make the railways cost-efficient in the long term is to get rid of all the private companies walking off with their profits. How anyone could think that running something for-profit can be cheaper than running it not-for-profit is beyond me!

Even if it isn't viable enough now, it's only going to get more viable over time.

 

[Greenback]

I agree that although it was a sensible decision in 1980, without the benefit of a crystal ball, that does not necessarily mean it is not worth looking at reopening the line.

It will be muche asier to get freight off the roads if we have an additional trans pennine route in the future. Demand for rail is going to increase, and it is the age of the road that is coming to an end, not the railway age.

The fact is that even if it is not a viable proposition now, it will become more so in a few years time.

 

[Snapper]

You can be in favour of anything you like but if you can't justify why something should be done then you can't really expect anyone to take your proposal seriously.

It certainly won't persuade those who do control the purse strings.

 

[HSTEd]

Trains capable of ninety tops did Sheffield-Manchester in 56 minutes over the Woodhead at electrification, the current fastest timing over the Hope Valley is 48 minutes.

As someone that travels on the Norwich-Liverpool "express" with some regularity, I can tell you the line at or near capacity, a new route is needed, if for no other reason than to ensure services can continue during engineering works.
Shifting "fast" services onto the Woodhead line would enable additional freight paths to be freed over hope valley by removing those annoying 158s that want to run faster than anything else.
Hell, if the Midland Main Line electrification to Sheffield goes ahead, you could help alleviate WCML capacity issues by extending London-Sheffield trains to Manchester and in that case you would want a line that isnt full of freight, the woodhead line could provide this path and its reopening would not cause the major disruptions that massive upgrades to the Hope Valley would.

On an entirely unrelated matter, as the Aylesbury-London line is part of the GCML that was apparently engineered to a continental loading gauge, does that mean the structures could support double deck trains as-is?


EDIT: Using Pendolinos would require 160km of 4 track and 70.2km of twin track (over Woodhead), which comes to a mighty 710.2 track kilometres not counting station wiring or whatever, which is like £360 million at current prices.
Then theres the cost of Reopening the Woodhead itself, which we will put at like £340 million as a guess(wonder if you could do that overhead rail thing in the old Victorian tunnels now those cables are in the modern one).
So ~£700 million for infrastructure.

Assuming 1:1 replacement of Class 222s with Class 390s thats 27 additional sets which is something on order of £240 million, and then theres the suburban units. So thats like a round billion.

Billion pounds for three additional paths on the WCML as the Euston-Manchester services are withdrawn, you could break the Norwich-Liverpool services at Nottingham and convert the western half to electric traction, free up a tonne of new paths on the Hope Valley line.......
What about using the Penistone Line as a diversion route for the Northern Transpennine?

 

[Snapper]

Shifting "fast" services onto the Woodhead line would enable additional freight paths to be freed over hope valley by removing those annoying 158s that want to run faster than anything else.

The problem is, a third of the existing freight paths on the Hope Valley are never used. The capacity is being eaten up by 'ghost' trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On an entirely unrelated matter, as the Aylesbury-London line is part of the GCML that was apparently engineered to a continental loading gauge, does that mean the structures could support double deck trains as-is?

That's one of the great myths about the GC..

You'll see that 'the GC was built to Berne gauge' quote in various sources. The problem is - it isn't true. Berne gauge wasn't adopted until AFTER the GC was built. But, like a lot of myths, it keeps getting repeated.

 

[bluenoxid]

FFS Snapper, why can't you admit that some people are lost in a world of their own and its not worth the time and effort arguing.

With 4 trains in each direction per hour, it is clearly not a full route, regardless of how you look at it. Claiming that the enhancements would not release enough capacity is a novice mistake.

The Woodhead would be better reopened as a road with its easier gradients than the existing routes.

 

[Snapper]

FFS Snapper, why can't you admit that some people are lost in a world of their own and its not worth the time and effort arguing.

I guess I'm just an optimist!