High Speed Rail beyond HS2

[Zoe]

I should have added a

Yes but the point is that it won't make any difference which route you choose north of Newcastle, most of it will be single carriageway. The trunk route though does have some dual sections.

 

[LE Greys]

Yes but the point is that it won't make any difference which route you choose north of Newcastle, most of it will be single carriageway. The trunk route though does have some dual sections.

I'm the one who's annoyed about the west getting all the good stuff at the cost of the east, remember? They can't even give us a dual carriageway at the top of the Great North Road, let alone continuous motorway from London to Newcastle.

 

[Zoe]

I'm the one who's annoyed about the west getting all the good stuff at the cost of the east, remember? They can't even give us a dual carriageway at the top of the Great North Road, let alone continuous motorway from London to Newcastle.

There would have been a continuous motorway from London to Newcastle had it not been for the economic crisis. As for north of Newcastle I can't see either the Scottish or UK governments upgrading their part if the other won't do so.

 

[HSTEd]

Whether or not the faster route to Edinburgh from London is via the WCML and ECML north of Manchester/Leeds, the fact remains that any extension further north of HS2 will in all probability go via Newcastle for the simple reason that that is where the population centres are.

Either way, some sort of HS2 route to Bristol/South Wales/South West England? is probably in order, although the GWML is nowhere near full so the capacity argument doesn't wash at the present time.

EDIT:

Will the station at Birmingham International (and if it is built on a spur, Heathrow Airport) have the potential to seperate one (or perhaps two?) of the platforms (like the international platforms at Gare Du Nord or somesuch) to enable them to be operated with passengers from "airside" as the king of all airport people movers?

With future extensions of the line to Leeds and Manchester (with probable connections at East Midlands and Manchester Airports) this could prove quite useful at grabbing some of the domestic air market taken up by transfers by passengers looking to take another flight in connection. (ie. it enables Birmingham Airport to really be Heathrow Terminal 6 because you can avoid having to go back through security to take a flight from there coming from Heathrow proper)

 

[transmanche]

If a road is trunk then it is of strategic importance to be maintained by the Highways Agency and this is the way that traffic is routed and the road users will notice this as the signs to Edinburgh will send them via the trunk route.

Whether a road is a trunk road or not has no bearing on how routes are signposted. That's done by trying to keep traffic on primary routes for as long as possible. Routes are not signed on the basis of which agency is responsible for maintaining them.

In this example, there are two primary routes between two locations. In general they won't sign two routes as it's confusing, so they've chosen the A1 as a) the distance difference between between the two routes is not that great b) the A1 is less likely to be closed by winter weather and c) the A1 is more suitable for heavy lorries. In other situations; e.g. the A5 towards Bangor at Chirk, the signed route is via the A5 with an HGV route signed via the A481/A55 - because the alternative route is much longer than the direct one.

I think through traffic should keep to the trunk routes as that is what they are for.

And how exactly is a road user meant to know if a road is a trunk road or not?

If you were driving from Grimsby to Lincoln, would you take the A46 direct? Or would you take the A180/M180/M18/A1(M)/A1/A46? Both of those routes use primary routes, but only one uses trunk roads. Which is which? And which one of those do you think is the signposted route?

 

[Zoe]

Whether a road is a trunk road or not has no bearing on how routes are signposted. That's done by trying to keep traffic on primary routes for as long as possible. Routes are not signed on the basis of which agency is responsible for maintaining them.

No, trunk roads are roads of strategic importance and that is the way traffic should be routed. Traffic from Newcastle to Edinburgh is signed via the A1(T) as it has been decided that this is the strategic route from Newcastle to Edinburgh and why it is a trunk road. If through traffic was to be routed via the A68 this would be the trunk road and the A1(T) could be detrunked as it would no longer need to be a trunk road.

 

[transmanche]

Whether a road is a trunk road or not has no bearing on how routes are signposted. That's done by trying to keep traffic on primary routes for as long as possible. Routes are not signed on the basis of which agency is responsible for maintaining them.

No, trunk roads are roads of strategic importance and that is the way traffic should be routed.

Sorry, you're wrong. So very, very wrong. I think you've misunderstood the difference between a trunk road and a primary route... look back at the Lincoln-Grimsby example.

Since the Highways Agency was formed, many roads have been 'de-trunked'. This isn't because they are less important, just that for operational reasons it's been decided that the highway authority for the road and the agency responsible for maintenance should change.

[...]with the possibility of detrunking the A1(T) as it would no longer need to be a trunk road.

In 2000, the A1 in Greater London was 'de-trunked'. This wasn't because it had somehow become less important, but because it was decided that it would be better to have the GLA as the highway authority for that road instead of the DfT. Simple as that.

So now that section of the A1 is maintained by TfL rather than the HA... but that didn't change how routes were signposted.

 

[Zoe]

Sorry, you're wrong. So very, very wrong.

No I am not wrong. Roads are trunk roads as they are of strategic importance and so should be maintained by the Highways Agency. In some cases it as decided the road isn't strategically important enough to be maintained by the Highways Agency and is detrunked. Newcastle to Edinburgh though as a route of strategic importance and so has a trunk road. This is the way that the traffic is signed as it would be stupid to sign traffic away from the trunk route which is of strategic importance.

In 2000, the A1 in Greater London was 'de-trunked'. This wasn't because it had somehow become less important, but because it was decided that it would be better to have the GLA as the highway authority for that road instead of the DfT. Simple as that. So now that section of the A1 is maintained by TfL rather than the HA... but that didn't changed how routes were signposted.

In the case of Greater London it was unfortunate that the roads had to be detrunked when they took over. TfL were also not able to take over any motorways so the A40(M) had to be downgraded.

 

[transmanche]

In the case of Greater London it was unfortunate that the roads had to be detrunked when they took over.

Why 'unfortunate'? All 'detrunking' meant that the highway authority changed from being the DfT to being the GLA.

I notice that you're still ignoring the point that routes are signposted based on whether they are primary routes, not on whether they use trunk roads. Which proves my case.

it would be stupid to sign traffic away from the trunk route which is of strategic importance.

And I gave an example of where that happens above (Grimsby-Lincoln), but you ignored it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Will the station at Birmingham International (and if it is built on a spur, Heathrow Airport) have the potential to seperate one (or perhaps two?) of the platforms (like the international platforms at Gare Du Nord or somesuch) to enable them to be operated with passengers from "airside" as the king of all airport people movers?

With future extensions of the line to Leeds and Manchester (with probable connections at East Midlands and Manchester Airports) this could prove quite useful at grabbing some of the domestic air market taken up by transfers by passengers looking to take another flight in connection. (ie. it enables Birmingham Airport to really be Heathrow Terminal 6 because you can avoid having to go back through security to take a flight from there coming from Heathrow proper)

I doubt it.

Being domestic passengers they can just go through immigration at their point of entry to the UK, then catch the train to their destination along with everyone else. Domestic passengers also rarely want to go to an airport per se, and it will be quicker by HS2 from Heathrow to everywhere Glasgow and south thereof than it would HS2 to BHX and plane from there.

 

[Zoe]

Why 'unfortunate'? All 'detrunking' meant that the highway authority changed from being the DfT to being the GLA.

It was unfortunate that the GLA wasn't given responsibility for trunk roads like the other devolved governments were.

 

[transmanche]

It was unfortunate that the GLA wasn't given responsibility for trunk roads like the other devolved governments were.

The GLA is not a devolved government.

 

[Zoe]

If you were driving from Grimsby to Lincoln, would you take the A46 direct? Or would you take the A180/M180/M18/A1(M)/A1/A46? Both of those routes use primary routes, but only one uses trunk roads. Which is which? And which one of those do you think is the signposted route?

Grimsby to Lincoln isn't considered important enough to warrent trunk status. The other routes have trunk status as they are major routes for traffic and warrent this status.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The GLA is not a devolved government.

Yes it is.

 

[tbtc]

That's actually a major question, are they trying to do too much with one line? I still think that anything more than 10 tph is going to be very hard to deliver, all of which will end up being needed for western services. Essentially, I don't want to see my line ending up like the Midland, having its top cut off and becoming a second-rate service that scarcely sees any improvement for decades. After all, other than gaining Meridians, has Leicester seen any real improvement since the HSTs arrived? I'm probably overreacting, but I'm seeing so much being promised to every area of the country except the one I live in. Throw us the odd bone occasionally

Two HSTs an hour (London - Leicester) under BR, increased to two HSTs and two (2 coach) 170s an hour (under Midland Mainline), now four "full sized" trains an hour (HSTs and Meridians).

It's seen some improvements, even if the services don't generally go north of Sheffield

 

[transmanche]

Grimsby to Lincoln isn't considered important enough to warrent trunk status. The other routes have trunk status as they are major routes for traffic and warrent this status.

But you can travel between the two on solely on trunk roads. And according to you "it would be stupid to sign traffic away from the trunk route which is of strategic importance."

Yet traffic between the two towns is not signposted via the trunk roads. It's signposted via a non-trunk section of the A46. Still a primary route, but not a trunk road.

The simple reason is what I said earlier. "Whether a road is a trunk road or not has no bearing on how routes are signposted. That's done by trying to keep traffic on primary routes for as long as possible."

Now you may choose to disbelieve that, but that doesn't alter the truth.

 

[Zoe]

But you can travel between the two on solely on trunk roads. And according to you "it would be stupid to sign traffic away from the trunk route which is of strategic importance."

The trunk route in question doesn't serve traffic on the Grimsby to Lincoln route. In the case of Newcastle to Edinburgh this is an important route and has trunk status. There is also another route from Newcastle to Edinburgh but this does not have trunk status so traffic should not be signed to use it.

 

[Martin222002]

Whether or not the faster route to Edinburgh from London is via the WCML and ECML north of Manchester/Leeds, the fact remains that any extension further north of HS2 will in all probability go via Newcastle for the simple reason that that is where the population centres are.

Agreed. If HS2 does go north to Edinburgh then it would be a good idea to go via York, Tees Side and Newcastle, given the capacity constraints that have been raised in this thread. However, Glasgow would be best served by a west coast alignment.

With future extensions of the line to Leeds and Manchester (with probable connections at East Midlands and Manchester Airports) this could prove quite useful at grabbing some of the domestic air market taken up by transfers by passengers looking to take another flight in connection. (ie. it enables Birmingham Airport to really be Heathrow Terminal 6 because you can avoid having to go back through security to take a flight from there coming from Heathrow proper)

Going back to the service pattern I posted in one of my previous post, one of the 2 Glasgow/Edinburgh to Euston services will be calling at Birmingham Interchange (for Birmingham Airport), with the other calling at Manchester Outskirts (most likely close to Manchester Airport) which will give fast connections to both these airports. There are of cause also the services directly to and from Heathrow which will stop at both the Birmingham Interchange and Manchester Outskirts stations.

As for the East Midlands station. To me Toton is looking like the best site for it, with a direct connection with the classic network, the potential of a link to the Nottingham Tram extension (which is currently due to finish at a park and ride not far from Toton), as well as close link to the M1 at junction 25. So while it wouldn't be convenient for East Midlands Airport, it would be a lot more convenient for the people living around Nottingham and Derby areas.

That's actually a major question, are they trying to do too much with one line? I still think that anything more than 10 tph is going to be very hard to deliver, all of which will end up being needed for western services. Essentially, I don't want to see my line ending up like the Midland, having its top cut off and becoming a second-rate service that scarcely sees any improvement for decades. After all, other than gaining Meridians, has Leicester seen any real improvement since the HSTs arrived? I'm probably overreacting, but I'm seeing so much being promised to every area of the country except the one I live in. Throw us the odd bone occasionally.

Two HSTs an hour (London - Leicester) under BR, increased to two HSTs and two (2 coach) 170s an hour (under Midland Mainline), now four "full sized" trains an hour (HSTs and Meridians).

It's seen some improvements, even if the services don't generally go north of Sheffield

There is also the introduction of 125mph line speeds on the MML from December this year, which see some good improvements in journey times.

 

[transmanche]

The trunk route in question doesn't serve traffic on the Grimsby to Lincoln route. In the case of Newcastle to Edinburgh this is an important route and has trunk status. There is also another route from Newcastle to Edinburgh but this does not have trunk status so traffic should not be signed to use it.

Ah, so basically your rules apply until they don't make sense - when you simply ignore them.

Still, if you want to believe in your theory in spite of that facts - that's fine by me. Good luck with it. Meanwhile the rest of us will plan our journeys by using all primary routes, not just those which are maintained by the HA.

And now back to railway matters...

 

[Zoe]

Ah, so basically your rules apply until they don't make sense - when you simply ignore them.

I am not. Where you have a corridor of strategic importance like Newcastle to Edinburgh there is a trunk road. This is the way most traffic should go.

 

[Stats]

Where you have a corridor of strategic importance like Newcastle to Edinburgh there is a trunk road. This is the way most traffic should go.

As the A1 north of Newcastle has only been a road of Strategic National Importance since May 2011 can you explain why it was a trunk road before then?

 

[HSTEd]

Agreed. If HS2 does go north to Edinburgh then it would be a good idea to go via York, Tees Side and Newcastle, given the capacity constraints that have been raised in this thread. However, Glasgow would be best served by a west coast alignment.

In an optimum world, probably, but a fast accelerating high speed multiple unit, like the N700-7000 could do Edinburgh-Glasgow in <20 minutes stop to stop, even with only 270-300kph running on the line rather than the full 320kph.

At which point the time gains from going "straight" up melt away to the degree that they are merely a few minutes, and the via Edinburgh route gets you quite a bit (a fourth Glasgow-Edinburgh route for example) for the cost of only about 20km of extra track.

Such a route effectively allows Glasgow and Edinburgh to act as a single economic entity, especially if you were to run a non-stop "shuttle" service between them, in addition to a train with an intermediate stop (perhaps near Falkirk) where it would connect with the existing services that could be converted to shuttles.

It would also cut rather a long period of time off the Highland Chieftain even if it retained its current stopping pattern (probably with an additional call at Leeds).

Going back to the service pattern I posted in one of my previous post, one of the 2 Glasgow/Edinburgh to Euston services will be calling at Birmingham Interchange (for Birmingham Airport), with the other calling at Manchester Outskirts (most likely close to Manchester Airport) which will give fast connections to both these airports. There are of cause also the services directly to and from Heathrow which will stop at both the Birmingham Interchange and Manchester Outskirts stations.

As for the East Midlands station. To me Toton is looking like the best site for it, with a direct connection with the classic network, the potential of a link to the Nottingham Tram extension (which is currently due to finish at a park and ride not far from Toton), as well as close link to the M1 at junction 25. So while it wouldn't be convenient for East Midlands Airport, it would be a lot more convenient for the people living around Nottingham and Derby areas.

I have issues with parkway stations especially when there may be better options available, which I am currently working on, I will have to get back to you on that.
Certainly if any attempt is made at a town centre station it should be at Nottingham as its urban area dwarfs that of its nearest neighbour.

There is also the introduction of 125mph line speeds on the MML from December this year, which see some good improvements in journey times.

So they finally caught up with the other routes out of London eh?

I just wish more wire was going up to celebrate this achievement.

 

[Martin222002]

I have issues with parkway stations especially when there may be better options available, which I am currently working on, I will have to get back to you on that.

Certainly if any attempt is made at a town centre station it should be at Nottingham as its urban area dwarfs that of its nearest neighbour.

I do have some reservations about the Birmingham Interchange station, but as Birmingham International saw 4.228 million passengers in 2009/10 (from wikipedia) it will probably be ok. I do however think that any outer Manchester station located near the airport should do well as it would serve the areas of Altrincham, Stockport, Wilmslow and the southern suburbs of Manchester, which in all is a good proportion of the Greater Manchester area.

As a Nottingham city centre station. Good luck in finding a way in and out as the GC route has been built on in quite a few places and I don't think there's any other routes in other than the existing ones, which go in the wrong direction. Personally I favour a parkway station, as even though Nottingham area is a lot larger than than Derby, do think Derby deserves fast links to the capital as well.

So they finally caught up with the other routes out of London eh?

I just wish more wire was going up to celebrate this achievement.

Indeed the MML will have, and hopefully it won't be too long till the wires head north of Bedford.

 

[Zoe]

As the A1 north of Newcastle has only been a road of Strategic National Importance since May 2011 can you explain why it was a trunk road before then?

It was still a route of strategic importance. Around 2005/2006 it was decided that some trunk roads would be of national strategic importance with improvements funded directly by the government and other roads would be of regional strategic importance and have to compete with local road and public transport schemes for funding.

 

[HSTEd]

As a Nottingham city centre station. Good luck in finding a way in and out as the GC route has been built on in quite a few places and I don't think there's any other routes in other than the existing ones, which go in the wrong direction. Personally I favour a parkway station, as even though Nottingham area is a lot larger than than Derby, do think Derby deserves fast links to the capital as well.

Indeed the MML will have, and hopefully it won't be too long till the wires head north of Bedford.

Yeah, unfortunately it appears that a Nottingham City centre is right out.

The best approach I've got is along the trent in the South East, across the Weir Field recreation ground, cross the river twice on bridges or short tunnels.
Then cut across the Meadows using the alignment of the Queen's Walk.

This gets you to a place just short of the existing station where it would switch to a pair of 7.5km long tunnel bores emerging north of the city, there would be a box built between the tunnel bores containing the two platforms (formed as one island) with the station entrance being either adjacent to the Lace Market tram stop or located on the concourse at Nottingham station (depending on where you posistion the platforms).

This results in going on 15 bore kilometres of tunnels for the through lines plus a going on 750m long station box. (I reckon the turnoffs and most of the approach "slips" could be inside the tunnel bores as they would be hugely oversized to allow through running at 320kph and thus could have the ~approach lines off centre in the tunnels and still be in gauge as the stopping trains would be running far slower).

That comes to, according to the base costs for tunneling in the HST Risk model to roughly ~£450m for the tunnels themselves and I have no idea how much for the station box which could get very very expensive.
Probably looking at ~£750m overall compared to a route in open country which is annoying.

I shall keep searching and work out if it would be possible to rotate from a North South Axis to an East-West Axis, pass through the existing station and rotate back again without huge earthworks and without massively increasing the length of the line.

EDIT:

Unfortunately it turns out that such a pair of 90 degrees turns ends up using either a similar amount of tunnel as you would otherwise, even though you could develop a nice new open station in a trench next to the old Low Level station and using it and that burned out warehouse that has been there god knows how long as concourse/terminal buildings.

Either way I had another thought.

Since trains would be running through at 320kph the tunnels for the through lines would be enormously overbore, so overbore in fact that they are the size of lower speed twin track tunnels, according to the High Speed 2 engineering survey that short sections of smaller tunnel are acceptable as the train is pressure sealed, especially if there is a vent shaft available.

If we were to have the tunnels overbore (which would not incerase tunnel costs that much), could the platform, stopping line and running line be made to fit inside the single tube, meaning that only the escalator/stairs/lifts would be outside the TBM tubes, permitting the station to be almost entirely constructed with only a single pair of TBM drives.
There would be a vent shaft to stop the pressure rise of a passing train becoming uncomfortable for passengers on the platform.

 

[PR102]

Yes there is...but over to the experts! Delegation...try it sometime!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What part of this allows services to be removed off the WCML South and helps to speed up services to the North East, North West & Scotland? Where's the "class thing" in that? It's not just about services to Birmingham.... never has been

There's nothing wrong with the WCML south, other than to upgrade and make fast corner-cutting, and straighten out the route as said. I tend to avoid wasting time with all the elementary stuff like quadding or dynaic four-tracking, sorry if that was too advanced for you. It's expensive, but will benefit more people that way. Freight can take the old route, along with semi-fast services for people that need to stop there, and the rapidos can avoid these and still stop at Heathrow. In short, the 'class thing' is this: we don't need 50 minute trains to Birmingham...1 hour is fine, with good facilities on the train. The only reason why they (the government) want the route as per the press photos, is because in order to build it, you need to build expensive concrete motorway-style flyovers and other road-buiding-style equipment...which is what the elite of our country have been investing in since the 1960's. No intention to humiliate, but, don't you realise the price of champagne and canapes, these days, old boy???

 

[Geezertronic]

There's nothing wrong with the WCML south, other than to upgrade and make fast corner-cutting, and straighten out the route as said. I tend to avoid wasting time with all the elementary stuff like quadding or dynaic four-tracking, sorry if that was too advanced for you. It's expensive, but will benefit more people that way. Freight can take the old route, along with semi-fast services for people that need to stop there, and the rapidos can avoid these and still stop at Heathrow. In short, the 'class thing' is this: we don't need 50 minute trains to Birmingham...1 hour is fine, with good facilities on the train. The only reason why they (the government) want the route as per the press photos, is because in order to build it, you need to build expensive concrete motorway-style flyovers and other road-buiding-style equipment...which is what the elite of our country have been investing in since the 1960's. No intention to humiliate, but, don't you realise the price of champagne and canapes, these days, old boy???

Hmmm, time to join the real world old chap... There is just too many holes to pick in your obvioulsy biased Logic. For a start you obviously are not clued up enough to realise the HS2 picture is and always has been bigger than just reducing journey times between London and Birmingham so whilst Birmingham will have reduced journey times, so will Manchester and Scotland especially from Day One of opening. The rest of your waffle is just that...

 

[LE Greys]

Yeah, unfortunately it appears that a Nottingham City centre is right out.

The best approach I've got is along the trent in the South East, across the Weir Field recreation ground, cross the river twice on bridges or short tunnels.
Then cut across the Meadows using the alignment of the Queen's Walk.

This gets you to a place just short of the existing station where it would switch to a pair of 7.5km long tunnel bores emerging north of the city, there would be a box built between the tunnel bores containing the two platforms (formed as one island) with the station entrance being either adjacent to the Lace Market tram stop or located on the concourse at Nottingham station (depending on where you posistion the platforms).

This results in going on 15 bore kilometres of tunnels for the through lines plus a going on 750m long station box. (I reckon the turnoffs and most of the approach "slips" could be inside the tunnel bores as they would be hugely oversized to allow through running at 320kph and thus could have the ~approach lines off centre in the tunnels and still be in gauge as the stopping trains would be running far slower).

That comes to, according to the base costs for tunneling in the HST Risk model to roughly ~£450m for the tunnels themselves and I have no idea how much for the station box which could get very very expensive.
Probably looking at ~£750m overall compared to a route in open country which is annoying.

I shall keep searching and work out if it would be possible to rotate from a North South Axis to an East-West Axis, pass through the existing station and rotate back again without huge earthworks and without massively increasing the length of the line.

EDIT:

Unfortunately it turns out that such a pair of 90 degrees turns ends up using either a similar amount of tunnel as you would otherwise, even though you could develop a nice new open station in a trench next to the old Low Level station and using it and that burned out warehouse that has been there god knows how long as concourse/terminal buildings.

Either way I had another thought.

Since trains would be running through at 320kph the tunnels for the through lines would be enormously overbore, so overbore in fact that they are the size of lower speed twin track tunnels, according to the High Speed 2 engineering survey that short sections of smaller tunnel are acceptable as the train is pressure sealed, especially if there is a vent shaft available.

If we were to have the tunnels overbore (which would not incerase tunnel costs that much), could the platform, stopping line and running line be made to fit inside the single tube, meaning that only the escalator/stairs/lifts would be outside the TBM tubes, permitting the station to be almost entirely constructed with only a single pair of TBM drives.
There would be a vent shaft to stop the pressure rise of a passing train becoming uncomfortable for passengers on the platform.

Do you think the people of Nottingham would miss the Victoria Centre that much?
[/flippancy]

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Do you think the people of Nottingham would miss the Victoria Centre that much?
[/flippancy]

As someone who lives near Nottingham I wouldn't miss it at all, ugly concrete monstrosity (especially with the redevelopment of the Broadmarsh centre by Westfield in the coming years ) However the people who live in the flats above may have something to say about the demolishing the Victoria Centre!

 

[Badger]

@midlandmainline - Westfield sold Broadmarsh to the owners of the Victoria Centre cancelling the redevelopment!

 

[MidlandMainlie]

@midlandmainline - Westfield sold Broadmarsh to the owners of the Victoria Centre cancelling the redevelopment!

Oh well, I tend to do most of my shopping online these days anyway, carn't remember the last time I went to Nottingham City Centre shopping.

Anyway back on topic I do agree that Toton seems the most obvious choice for a high speed rail station, but what are the chances for a connection to the classic lines so that services could serve Nottingham or Derby city centre stations directly for say a High speed rail sevive from Nottingham > Notts/Derby Parkway > Sheffild (parkway?) > Leeds or York > Newcastle?