Ideas for alternative railway projects

[tom73]

So many people appear so excited over Crossrail, High Speed 1 and High Speed 2.

Personally, I believe that the billions of pounds involved would have been better spent giving the country a 21st Century railway network the entire nation would be proud of.

Upgrading every inch of existing track and signals to European TGV-type standards allowing high speed operation on all main lines with provision for possible future high speed running on what are now branches.

What is the problem with converting the miles and miles of double track running through open countryside to four track, allowing fast trains to overtake semi-fast trains?

Nationwide overhead electrification would also prevent the need for electric trains to be dragged along a diversionary route by a diesel locomotive.

I don't agree with minor routes being doomed for all eternity to diesel powered units unable to operate at more than 50mph because of the track not being able to safely accommodate higher speeds.

This massive network wide upgrade would include the procurement of a brand new fleet of trains of just two types, one for long distance use and one for local use.

Such an upgrade could surely have been carried for the same cost as the two projects currently in progress and the one proposed.

All three projects are vanity projects allowing the government to brag about how wonderful its rail network is while hiding the fact that 95% of the rail network has not been substantially upgraded since the last century.

 

[JonathanH]

What is the problem with converting the miles and miles of double track running through open countryside to four track, allowing fast trains to overtake semi-fast trains.

Name a route with 'miles and miles of double track through open countryside' which coincides with a capacity issue. If the land was available something would be happening as it would be an easy win. The problem you will find is that the route either has platforms that need resiting or houses are close to the railway.

You might suggest the Great Eastern Main Line beyond Shenfield or the line from Hitchin to Cambridge but neither have the kind of space to their side where you can get a material length of four tracking easily.

Crossrail can be seen as four tracking the centre section of the Central line. HS2 adds an extra pair of tracks to the West Coast Main Line. HS1 effectively adds a fast line to routes in Kent.

 

[squizzler]

So many people appear so excited over Crossrail, High Speed 1 and High Speed 2.
Personally, I believe that the billions of pounds involved would have been better spent giving the country a 21st Century railway network the entire nation would be proud of.

No, you believe the billions of bounds involved could be better spent hot-rodding a 19th century railway network.

If you were a keen motorist, had money to indulge your passion and wanted the best sports car you could get, would you go and buy the latest Ferrari? Or would you dig Grandad's Morris minor from the barn, put in a V8 with nitrous injection, slick rear tyres and a transmission between the two that allowed you to get from 0-60 just as fast? It would be good fun but not as capable all-round as the first option.

 

[Esker-pades]

So many people appear so excited over Crossrail, High Speed 1 and High Speed 2.
Personally, I believe that the billions of pounds involved would have been better spent giving the country a 21st Century railway network the entire nation would be proud of.
Upgrading every inch of existing track and signals to European TGV-type standards allowing high speed operation on all main lines with provision for possible future high speed running on what are now branches.

Thus significantly reducing capacity. The larger the variation between slowest and fastest services, the fewer trains can run.

What is the problem with converting the miles and miles of double track running through open countryside to four track, allowing fast trains to overtake semi-fast trains.

There isn't the space where the capacity issues exist.

Nationwide overhead electrification would also prevent the need for electric trains to be dragged along a diversionary route by a diesel locomotive.

There does need to be more electrification. Of course, it isn't as simple as that. For example, the Forth Bridge is probably impossible to wire.

I don't agree with minor routes being doomed for all eternity to diesel powered units unable to operate at more than 50mph because of the track not being able to safely accommodate higher speeds.

Isn't that the exagguration of the year (?)

This massive network wide upgrade would include the procurement of a brand new fleet of trains of just two types, one for long distance use and one for local use.

That wouldn't be such a good idea. One would end up having to accommodate the vast variations in specific requirements for different routes all into one train. That would be utterly thick and probably undeliverable. There's a reason that 150s, 158s etc. cannot operate on the Cumbrian Coast Line (the tunnel between Whitehaven and Corkickle). That doesn't mean that 150s, 158s etc. aren't really good for other routes.

Such an upgrade could surely have been carried for the same cost as the two projects currently in progress and the one proposed.

Utter, utter rubbish. How on earth have you managed to come up with that?

All three projects are vanity projects allowing the government to brag about how wonderful its rail network is...

Again, utter rubbish.

...while hiding the fact that 95% of the rail network has not been substantially upgraded since the last century.

I've only been properly tuned to railway stuff for the past few years, so I'm not in a position to comment. There are other users on this forum who will be able to explain exactly what's happened, and exactly why this is incorrect.

Meanwhile, here are 2 justification articles I wrote for HS2. If you've got comments on them, please respond on the main HS2 discussion thread.
https://felixunstructured.weebly.com/the-opinions-section/hs2-part-1-why-hs2-is-required
https://felixunstructured.weebly.co...-2-the-pr-failure-and-the-damage-of-deception

 

[Chris125]

What is the problem with converting the miles and miles of double track running through open countryside to four track, allowing fast trains to overtake semi-fast trains.

It should be obvious - what's the point of building capacity in the 'open countryside' if you don't increase capacity elsewhere?

The real constraints are bottlenecks in urban areas like Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and London which are super expensive, disruptive and time consuming to address and justify schemes like HS1/HS2/Crossrail to maximise the benefits.

Nationwide overhead electrification would also prevent the need for electric trains to be dragged along a diversionary route by a diesel locomotive.

Electrifying diversionary routes should be a long, long way down any logical list of priorities.

 

[Ken H]

Tile Hill - Hampton in Arden could be 4 tracked. hampton is difficult cos it a cutting. But the rest would be easy. Except for the tunnel at nailcote. But its posh round there...

 

[The Planner]

Tile Hill - Hampton in Arden could be 4 tracked. hampton is difficult cos it a cutting. But the rest would be easy. Except for the tunnel at nailcote. But its posh round there...

Except most of the traffic is the other side of Birmingham International, 4 tracking Beechwood to Hampton in Arden isn't giving you a lot.

 

[Ken H]

Except most of the traffic is the other side of Birmingham International, 4 tracking Beechwood to Hampton in Arden isn't giving you a lot.

you could squeeze a down slow line where the goods line was through Adderley Park. Big rebuild of Adderley Pk down platform through. The overbridge may need adjustment, but the down goods was electrified.
You could put in a connection from the up line to the other side of the Stechford Up platform. That would allow an overtake there, maybe when a Virgin is late, but less delay to the local, timetabled to follow it.

 

[Wirewiper]

So many people appear so excited over Crossrail, High Speed 1 and High Speed 2.
Personally, I believe that the billions of pounds involved would have been better spent giving the country a 21st Century railway network the entire nation would be proud of.
Upgrading every inch of existing track and signals to European TGV-type standards allowing high speed operation on all main lines with provision for possible future high speed running on what are now branches.
What is the problem with converting the miles and miles of double track running through open countryside to four track, allowing fast trains to overtake semi-fast trains.
Nationwide overhead electrification would also prevent the need for electric trains to be dragged along a diversionary route by a diesel locomotive.
I don't agree with minor routes being doomed for all eternity to diesel powered units unable to operate at more than 50mph because of the track not being able to safely accommodate higher speeds.
This massive network wide upgrade would include the procurement of a brand new fleet of trains of just two types, one for long distance use and one for local use.
Such an upgrade could surely have been carried for the same cost as the two projects currently in progress and the one proposed.
All three projects are vanity projects allowing the government to brag about how wonderful its rail network is while hiding the fact that 95% of the rail network has not been substantially upgraded since the last century.

Crossrail, High Speed 1 and High Speed 2 are (or will be) essential components of the 21st Century railway network that you appear to crave. I grant you there are considerable improvements that could also be made to the existing network, either to allow it to take full advantage of the extra capacity released by these new lines or to speed up services to, from and within areas that do not benefit directly from the new lines (e.g South West England, Wales).

Also don't forget the need for high capacity local urban networks, including trams and light rail. You don't mention these yet they are an indispensable part of a 21st-Century railway network in a country that is in parts very densely populated.

 

[hooverboy]

It should be obvious - what's the point of building capacity in the 'open countryside' if you don't increase capacity elsewhere?

The real constraints are bottlenecks in urban areas like Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and London which are super expensive, disruptive and time consuming to address and justify schemes like HS1/HS2/Crossrail to maximise the benefits.



Electrifying diversionary routes should be a long, long way down any logical list of priorities.

it's not just a question of building extra capacity or speed.
there has to be a use for it.

having a tgv style operation to cleethorpes for instance is not really a go-er, as the line does not get that much use.
there is a case for upgrading rural lines to min 75mph line speed/double track /removal of harsh curves etc as standard because that removes quite a few single track bottlenecks and will improve connectivity/times to coastal resorts(a shorter journey should increase tourism,and therefore revenue)

 

[DarloRich]

So many people appear so excited over Crossrail, High Speed 1 and High Speed 2.
Personally, I believe that the billions of pounds involved would have been better spent giving the country a 21st Century railway network the entire nation would be proud of.
Upgrading every inch of existing track and signals to European TGV-type standards allowing high speed operation on all main lines with provision for possible future high speed running on what are now branches.
What is the problem with converting the miles and miles of double track running through open countryside to four track, allowing fast trains to overtake semi-fast trains.
Nationwide overhead electrification would also prevent the need for electric trains to be dragged along a diversionary route by a diesel locomotive.
I don't agree with minor routes being doomed for all eternity to diesel powered units unable to operate at more than 50mph because of the track not being able to safely accommodate higher speeds.
This massive network wide upgrade would include the procurement of a brand new fleet of trains of just two types, one for long distance use and one for local use.
Such an upgrade could surely have been carried for the same cost as the two projects currently in progress and the one proposed.
All three projects are vanity projects allowing the government to brag about how wonderful its rail network is while hiding the fact that 95% of the rail network has not been substantially upgraded since the last century.

Pie in the sky nonsense that is beyond even the most fevered spottery wibblefest.

There are also several factual inaccuracies and some questionable statements

EDIT - The thread is incorrectly named. This is not views on 21st century railway projects. It is a thread based on a fantasy. It isnt even a sensible fantasy!

 

[yorkie]

Such an upgrade could surely have been carried for the same cost as the two projects currently in progress and the one proposed.

Are you sure? What are your cost estimates?

All three projects are vanity projects allowing the government to brag about how wonderful its rail network is while hiding the fact that 95% of the rail network has not been substantially upgraded since the last century.

I think your ideas are vanity projects.

 

[The Planner]

you could squeeze a down slow line where the goods line was through Adderley Park. Big rebuild of Adderley Pk down platform through. The overbridge may need adjustment, but the down goods was electrified.
You could put in a connection from the up line to the other side of the Stechford Up platform. That would allow an overtake there, maybe when a Virgin is late, but less delay to the local, timetabled to follow it.

But there would be no point to it, to get a train inside at Adderley Park and back out again would cost it five minutes minimum and by the time you did that you could just be at New St anyway adding only a couple of minutes into the following down train. Stechford is the same, why do that when you could just make the stopper wait at New St. You certainly wouldn't timetable anything with that sort of infrastructure. That Stechford idea would need a massive re-modelling and cost a fortune.

 

[Ianno87]

Crossrail, HS1 and HS2 *are* 21st century projects.

 

[Ken H]

But there would be no point to it, to get a train inside at Adderley Park and back out again would cost it five minutes minimum and by the time you did that you could just be at New St anyway adding only a couple of minutes into the following down train. Stechford is the same, why do that when you could just make the stopper wait at New St. You certainly wouldn't timetable anything with that sort of infrastructure. That Stechford idea would need a massive re-modelling and cost a fortune.

stetchford would require a turnout from the main, a diamond across the up to Aston, and another set of points where our new route joins the up line from Aston. Hardly massive

 

[The Planner]

stetchford would require a turnout from the main, a diamond across the up to Aston, and another set of points where our new route joins the up line from Aston. Hardly massive

Take a look at Google Maps and look at the topography, its embankments, bridges and the Aston line is curving away. To get the S&C to fit in there would be a nightmare.

 

[Ianno87]

stetchford would require a turnout from the main, a diamond across the up to Aston, and another set of points where our new route joins the up line from Aston. Hardly massive

As explained, hardly any use either.

 

[MarkyT]

If you were going for an up platform loop for locals leaving New Street to pull into then the first station out at Adderley Park would probably be a more useful location than Stechford. It would never be a timetabled overtake here but such a facility could allow a late running local to pull out right in front of an express and then for the express to depart on time but not lose anything significant following on yellows behind to overtake at Adderly Park. That would allow the local to clear its platform at congested New Street ASAP ready for a subsequent arrival. There's no need for any extra matching facilities on the down approaching New Street though as regulation for this segment should sensibly always take place at less congested International in that direction. As to BCR for my Adderley Park Up Platform Loop, it would be difficult to justify as its a 'just in case' facility so doesn't bring any extra ridership potential, and the fewer express services in New Street after HS2 would probably render it pointless.

 

[Ianno87]

If you were going for an up platform loop for locals leaving New Street to pull into then the first station out at Adderley Park would probably be a more useful location than Stechford. It would never be a timetabled overtake here but such a facility could allow a late running local to pull out right in front of an express and then for the express to depart on time but not lose anything significant following on yellows behind to overtake at Adderly Park. That would allow the local to clear its platform at congested New Street ASAP ready for a subsequent arrival. There's no need for any extra matching facilities on the down approaching New Street though as regulation for this segment should sensibly always take place at less congested International in that direction. As to BCR for my Adderley Park Up Platform Loop, it would be difficult to justify as its a 'just in case' facility so doesn't bring any extra ridership potential, and the fewer express services in New Street after HS2 would probably render it pointless.

Given that two of the 4 'locals' are fast to Marston Green (and only 1 stops at Adderley Park some 9 minutes after the previous Pendolino), the other first stop Stechford), you are most of the time just as well carrying on to International anyway.

 

[Ken H]

Given that two of the 4 'locals' are fast to Marston Green (and only 1 stops at Adderley Park some 9 minutes after the previous Pendolino), the other first stop Stechford), you are most of the time just as well carrying on to International anyway.

The daft timetable for that line needs sorting - but there is is no capacity.
In the old days there were half hourly stoppers - all stations New St-Cov
There was the hourly Inter-City Eustons
there was the hourly semi fast Euston Emus
XC went via Solihull.

Small capacity improvements would allow the all stations stoppers, and make the semi fasts just stop at intl and Cov.

making Adderley Pk - Lea hall journies possible again

 

[jonty14]

Pie in the sky nonsense that is beyond even the most fevered spottery wibblefest.

There are also several factual inaccuracies and some questionable statements

EDIT - The thread is incorrectly named. This is not views on 21st century railway projects. It is a thread based on a fantasy. It isnt even a sensible fantasy!

How dare someone suggest something on this forum. You always have to be nasty to everyone with suggestions. People like you are harming this forum. If you spoke to people like you do in the real world you wouldn't last long.

 

[MarkyT]

The daft timetable for that line needs sorting - but there is is no capacity.
In the old days there were half hourly stoppers - all stations New St-Cov
There was the hourly Inter-City Eustons
there was the hourly semi fast Euston Emus
XC went via Solihull.

Small capacity improvements would allow the all stations stoppers, and make the semi fasts just stop at intl and Cov.

making Adderley Pk - Lea hall journies possible again

There are difficulties meshing the 20 minute intervals of the London Pendolinos with the typically 30 or 15 minute interval of local and other services. Also West Midlands didn't like the idea of the Coventry stoppers all having a long dwell (at least 8 minutes) en route at International for scheduled overtaking, which would be a necessity if they all stopped at all stations under any timetable. These were the factors that led to the current timetable with its different calling patterns at 'inner' stations in Birmingham. HS2 might allow remaining fast services on the route to be rejigged to a 30 or 15 minute interval which could better coexist with the similar frequency locals and then allow a more consistent stopping pattern.

 

[DarloRich]

How dare someone suggest something on this forum. You always have to be nasty to everyone with suggestions. People like you are harming this forum. If you spoke to people like you do in the real world you wouldn't last long.

Suggest what you like. If it is nonsense as this thread plainly is expect it to be challenged. Bluntly.

Ps I have lasted quite a way into adult life thanks. I am much more direct face to face.

 

[The Planner]

The daft timetable for that line needs sorting - but there is is no capacity.
In the old days there were half hourly stoppers - all stations New St-Cov
There was the hourly Inter-City Eustons
there was the hourly semi fast Euston Emus
XC went via Solihull.

Small capacity improvements would allow the all stations stoppers, and make the semi fasts just stop at intl and Cov.

making Adderley Pk - Lea hall journies possible again

The only way you could get all station stoppers back is to have an half hourly fast service as MarkyT says, the timetable extracts the best from what is there. XC serving the airport is much more useful and has more demand than Adderley Park to Lea Hall. Calling at Coventry and International is not semi fast, that is fast and would make 6tph doing that, overkill.

 

[Ken H]

The only way you could get all station stoppers back is to have an half hourly fast service as MarkyT says, the timetable extracts the best from what is there. XC serving the airport is much more useful and has more demand than Adderley Park to Lea Hall. Calling at Coventry and International is not semi fast, that is fast and would make 6tph doing that, overkill.

the silverlinks used to stop just Cov and Intl

 

[The Planner]

the silverlinks used to stop just Cov and Intl

Yes, but travel patterns change, just because we used to do it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

 

[tasky]

Did the original poster notice, when suggesting TGV-style lines, that TGV lines are new builds, not upgrades? Is there anywhere in the world where most of the high-speed rail system was 'upgraded' from existing infrastructure to 300km/h? I don't think there is – in fact the UK might even be the place in the world where upgrading existing lines has been the policy above building new alignments

 

[Ken H]

Did the original poster notice, when suggesting TGV-style lines, that TGV lines are new builds, not upgrades? Is there anywhere in the world where most of the high-speed rail system was 'upgraded' from existing infrastructure to 300km/h? I don't think there is – in fact the UK might even be the place in the world where upgrading existing lines has been the policy above building new alignments

With HST, the UK was definitely in the high speed club. Only France and japan went faster. The HST was the worlds fastest diesel train. I think without it, there would not be much UK railways left.
The blight caused by the cancellation of APT, and the lack of a 25Kv HST is one of the great shames. But track engineers were scared of track forces with Co-Co bogies, and it was thought a Bo-Bo would not be enough, so just shoving a transformer and pantograph on a Class 43 wasnt an option.

 

[Ianno87]

the silverlinks used to stop just Cov and Intl

If you actually bother to compare timetables - a 350 on the fastest current stopping pattern pretty much matches the time it took a 'fast' Silverlink to call only at Coventry and International.

 

[Ken H]

If you actually bother to compare timetables - a 350 on the fastest current stopping pattern pretty much matches the time it took a 'fast' Silverlink to call only at Coventry and International.

Well I worked with someone recently in Cov who lived in Wolverhampton. There was another guy who lived in brum. They would not touch the stoppers with a bargepole, they went for the virgins or x country.