Just for fun - a new railway after HS2

[NCT]

In stylised terms, the fixed costs of the railway infrastructure are paid directly to Network Rail as Network Grant, and all the variable costs (infrastructure wear and tear, rolling stock capital, energy, rolling stock maintenance, staffing) are attributed to TOCs, and these variable costs are compared with revenues to calculate operational surpluses and losses.

The SWML is a busy railway, Basingstoke and Salisbury are busy/constrained stations, so splitting / joining are best avoided. You size your trains for London end commuter volumes, so if you are running a 10-car train you run the full 10-car throughout. You are stuck with a 10-car train beyond Salisbury running through Romsey. Romsey is a small place - try as you might those morning peak trains towards London are not going to leave Romsey anywhere near reasonably loaded. Those peak trains will not cover the rolling stock capital and the off peak trains will not cover the non capital various costs.

The government has been very clear - it expects rail subsidy to reduce - in absolute terms. Reducing subsidies in the Midlands and North is trickier, so it will expect the L&SE to return to generating surpluses.

What would be far more efficient would be to tidy up the Wessex timetable into a half-hourly takt to improve interchanges at places like Salisbury and Eastleigh, and generate additional demand to justify a reference train length of 4 or 5 carriages for the non-London services (from the current norm of 2 or 3). More useful for Romsey would be a half hourly service to Eastleigh as part of a Wessex takt structure (single line should cope if the rest of the timetable is simple and resilient).

 

[The Ham]

In stylised terms, the fixed costs of the railway infrastructure are paid directly to Network Rail as Network Grant, and all the variable costs (infrastructure wear and tear, rolling stock capital, energy, rolling stock maintenance, staffing) are attributed to TOCs, and these variable costs are compared with revenues to calculate operational surpluses and losses.

The SWML is a busy railway, Basingstoke and Salisbury are busy/constrained stations, so splitting / joining are best avoided. You size your trains for London end commuter volumes, so if you are running a 10-car train you run the full 10-car throughout. You are stuck with a 10-car train beyond Salisbury running through Romsey. Romsey is a small place - try as you might those morning peak trains towards London are not going to leave Romsey anywhere near reasonably loaded. Those peak trains will not cover the rolling stock capital and the off peak trains will not cover the non capital various costs.

The government has been very clear - it expects rail subsidy to reduce - in absolute terms. Reducing subsidies in the Midlands and North is trickier, so it will expect the L&SE to return to generating surpluses.

What would be far more efficient would be to tidy up the Wessex timetable into a half-hourly takt to improve interchanges at places like Salisbury and Eastleigh, and generate additional demand to justify a reference train length of 4 or 5 carriages for the non-London services (from the current norm of 2 or 3). More useful for Romsey would be a half hourly service to Eastleigh as part of a Wessex takt structure (single line should cope if the rest of the timetable is simple and resilient).

You rightly highlight that ending services at Salisbury or Basingstoke is best to be avoided, yet Basingstoke would generate decent passenger numbers, as would Andover.

The service isn't running to Salisbury station, it's turn off before it gets there and heading to Romsey.

Basically the question is, if running the service beyond Basingstoke where could be a useful turn around point? Along the WofE line, Andover could work, otherwise the other stations aren't great. However, even Andover isn't going to give you chance to have much waiting time before it would then need to turn around so you're not blocking the line.

Going beyond Salisbury and you run into single track sections and so that's not great either and if you are looking to redouble the line you'd likely be looking to run 2tph to Exeter, so would be adding another service through Salisbury (so potentially 3tph Salisbury to Waterloo which would further constrain turning at Andover).

If you're heading south through the junction west of Salisbury, the cost of running to Southampton vs just to Romsey isn't much more but you increase the service provision making the existing services better.

Romsey to Eastleigh could be run separately anyway.

Where else could that path be turned given the other paths could be used to be:
Guildford +2
Basingstoke stoppers +1
Alton +1
Woking stoppers +2
Exeter +1

As to if it needs to be 10 cars, there's an extra 8tph to/through Woking than currently (due to Crossrail 2) so there's quite a lot of extra capacity on most corridors, with the exception of services to Southampton, so it's not likely to be an issue that there's a random short train.

Run the service just behind a faster service at Basingstoke and almost no one going anywhere after Farnborough will get on. Woking has enough fast services (especially with potentially 6tph heading to/from Guildford) that one calling at an extra station would limit the attractiveness, maybe those heading to Wimbledon, but otherwise not many will join.

Farnborough could be an issue, however with at least 5 other services in the peaks, altgough again it's not going to attract a lot of people to use it as a preference so shouldn't be a major issue.

Bottom line, why would it need to be a full length train, even in the peaks, when there's been a significant uplift in capacity across the SWML services?

 

[NCT]

You rightly highlight that ending services at Salisbury or Basingstoke is best to be avoided, yet Basingstoke would generate decent passenger numbers, as would Andover.

The service isn't running to Salisbury station, it's turn off before it gets there and heading to Romsey.

Then that leg of the service is reliant on a very small number of specific small flows. It won't pay.

Basically the question is, if running the service beyond Basingstoke where could be a useful turn around point?

By my eye-balling, the long-run cross-sectional capacity requirement along each corridor is 4tph Andover direction and 6tph Winchester direction. Where those services turnaround on each corridor should be informed by economic/financial efficiency.

Bottom line, why would it need to be a full length train, even in the peaks, when there's been a significant uplift in capacity across the SWML services?

If the post CR2 suppression released SWML fast lines aren't a long-train railway then there's insufficient justification for investing in CR2.

You want Basingstoke/Woking - London passengers to perceive a metro service. That means passengers turning up and random joining (hopefully) reasonably evenly sized trains. For that to work all services need to be the same or similar length. A random short train turning up will get overwhelmed.

There's also fleet uniformity and diagramming efficiency. For SWML (outer) fast lines you don't want more than 3 rolling stock types
- Electric intercity for Southampton and Portsmouth fast services (444 and replacement)
- Electric regional for other Southampton / Portsmouth services (450 and replacement)
- Multi-mode for Andover/Salisbury (159 and replacement, ideally single fleet)

You want each service to be able to form any service within type to maximise Waterloo turnaround efficiency, so you don't want to limit a specific service to a specific train length.

 

[cinders&ashes]

Complete the viaduct link through Camden to connect HS2 with HS1 spur at the entrance to St Pancras. It allows 3 trains/hr each way, was originally binned as it was felt there wasn't capacity, but with the HS2 network truncated there is both on the line and at Curzon to run both domestic services between E. London (Stratford), SE England (Ashford & Ebbsfleet), W.London (OOC) and W.Midlands (Interchange & Curzon) but also continental services from Curzon (via Stratford rather than St Pancras) at competitive speeds, all for a few km of track which is mostly there. This would also solve the issue of what to do with excess 400m HS2 trains as HS1 has 400m platforms. It also means Stratford is finally used for international, offerign much better option for travelers in E.Lon and E. Anglia. Also, some Eurostars are capable of >186mph.

 

[PTR 444]

[Deleted]

 

[Dave61]

I agree, I've thought of a similar plan myself and how it can be phased.
Full line would be London, Luton, Leicester, East Midlands Hub, Sheffield Meadowhall, Leeds Hauptbahnhof, Teesside Hauptbahnhof, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow Central Hauptbahnhof. Name would be HSNE.

Alignment designed for 400kmh where possible, 360/320 elsewhere.

Include a spur to connect with (hopefully) an electrified Highland Mainline and coast line to Aberdeen to allow HS service to Inverness and Aberdeen. Connect with HS2 XC leg from Birmingham at EMH and include a connection to electrified XC route south of Birmingham Interchange. Include an orbital HSL to the north of London connecting HSNE, HS2 and HSGW mentioned earlier with hub station in Heathrow.

Phase 1
London - new station underneath King's Cross/St Pancras with a mix of north-south facing platforms for domestic services and east-west platforms to connect with CTRL for trains to Europe. The E-W platforms would be connected to HS2 and HSGW to enable through services from all HS lines.

Luton - new station either in tunnel or on top of the existing line at Luton Airport Parkway, creating a transport hub called Luton Interchange.

Leicester - new underground Lille-Europe style station.

East Midlands Hub - largely built to original HS2 specs with upgrades to connecting rail, bus and tram routes.

I have only just read this thread so going to respond with a single post hopefully answering most of my thoughts
As for the one above, the MML is pretty good for services between Leicester and London, plus the HS2 eastern spur from Birmingham is mostly through open countryside alongside the M42/A42, so as with other posts it would make more sense to utilise the exisiting HS2 lines that are being built.

As for suggestions of developing around the East Midlands Parkway - forget it, it is a huge floodplain area where the rivers Trent, Derwent and Soar all come together and much of the countryside is permanently wet. The towns and villages around there would not appreciate the walls that would need building around them.

Finally as for getting people off cars my experience is : it depends. For a day trip to say London or Birmingham (I am in Long Eaton between Derby/Nottingham) then the train is a no brainer, I just wish for a better quality service!. On the other hand going somewhere say for a few days break/holiday then I will need a car to get around where I am staying, so of course I am going to drive all the way there. Plus I can take everything I can carry in the car!

So what would I like to see if I had some billions to burn? well here goes:

1) complete HS2 up the west coast to Glasgow/Edingburgh. with some upgrades hopefully most of the WCML route can be used without huge engineering.
1a) do the Manchester and Leeds links

2) As with others electrify the core mainline routes nationally and use bi-mode electric-battery trains on the other routes with each station having a short stretch of overhead to top up the batteries (maybe a solid bar?)

3) try and eliminate as many pinch points as possible although there would need to be a cost/benefit analysis here even with an near infinate wallet to pull from

and finally

4) have a standardised train stock across the network taking the time and effort to get it right instead of upteen different units

 

[AlexSJW]

1) complete HS2 up the west coast to Glasgow/Edingburgh. with some upgrades hopefully most of the WCML route can be used without huge engineering.
1a) do the Manchester and Leeds links

Taking HS2 into cities is a money pit giving little value. Just having it as a backbone, as Germany does, gives greater value. Manchester is easily access from the existing WCML spur from Crewe.

 

[JamesT]

Taking HS2 into cities is a money pit giving little value. Just having it as a backbone, as Germany does, gives greater value. Manchester is easily access from the existing WCML spur from Crewe.

But as has been noted repeatedly, our city centre stations do not have the spare capacity. At best you would be doing a 1 for 1 replacement of a Pendolino with a 895. No opportunity to provide the longer platforms for a double set, and more importantly no opportunity to increase local services by taking the express services off the legacy tracks. Finally, NPR is depending on the new HS2 infrastructure in Manchester to be able to provide its services, so that project goes in the bin too.

 

[The Ham]

Taking HS2 into cities is a money pit giving little value. Just having it as a backbone, as Germany does, gives greater value. Manchester is easily access from the existing WCML spur from Crewe.

The issue we have is that many of our stations are much smaller than many stations elsewhere.

It's the reason HS2 is costing per mile much more than many of the comparable European schemes as the last mile is building a large new station and the last few miles are building lines into large cities, something which many other schemes across Europe haven't needed to do.

If we exclude the cost of Old Oak Common and the line to and the station of Euston the cost is up to £61bn based on this being 135 miles of track that's uo to £451 million per mile, which is far less than the often (miss quoted) figure of £1bn per mile and still significantly less than circa £700 million per mile of the full scheme.

It also ignores the benefits of removing long distance services from the existing platforms at places like Manchester and Leeds. In that there's then more space for local services.

 

[NCT]

Ignore Mad John.

 

[Mikey C]

Build a second Welwyn viaduct. In the absence of a dedicated high speed line to replace the southern part of the ECML, or the full HS2 East scheme this bottleneck needs to be dealt with.

Then to exploit our expertise in the "knowledge" world -

Sort out Ely Junction, and then upgrade and electrify Ely to Norwich, so that fast through trains can operate London to Norwich via Cambridge, a much more economically important corridor than the Ipswich to Norwich one.

And a very pie in the sky one, a tram train running south from Oxford via Abingdon, Didcot and terminating at the Harwell campus, connecting an incredibly important scientific base with one of our main research universities.

 

[NCT]

Welwyn viaduct is a red herring. There’s not enough capacity at King’s Cross.

 

[LLivery]

A new Severn Crossing.

 

[AlexSJW]

Remodelling the station throat at Mcr Piccadilly will increase platform lengths. Extending Metrolink trams to the likes of Stockport will ease pressure on the station.

Manchester trains can be run off HS2 at just before Stone or Crewe if HS2 ever reaches Crewe of course. No need to spend a fortune on high speed track into one city when two routes exist for the run in.

 

[AlexSJW]

Finally, NPR is depending on the new HS2 infrastructure in Manchester to be able to provide its services, so that project goes in the bin too.

There has been no announcement on the NPR route, just speculation. Taking NPR on a tour of Cheshire via Ringway airport, instead of the direct route between the two big cities is akin to madness. The journey time between the two cities will be slower than in Victorian times.

 

[saismee]

Sort out Ely Junction, and then upgrade and electrify Ely to Norwich, so that fast through trains can operate London to Norwich via Cambridge, a much more economically important corridor than the Ipswich to Norwich one.

Is it? None of the stops between Ely and Cambridge could be served, and there are no local services like what Ipswich has to Lowestoft, Felixstowe, and Bury St Edmunds. I could see value in splitting the Fen Line branch into a shuttle and running fast trains to Norwich to ease the pressure on the NRW<>CBG services, but where would it go south of Cambridge? Kings Cross would be the most sensible, but it sounds operationally questionable, and the WAML wouldn't be able to cope if it went to Liverpool Street.

 

[Port Road]

Electrify the G&SW Gretna Junction to Barrhead.....

 

[JamesT]

There has been no announcement on the NPR route, just speculation. Taking NPR on a tour of Cheshire via Ringway airport, instead of the direct route between the two big cities is akin to madness. The journey time between the two cities will be slower than in Victorian times.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...t-travel-upgrade-in-the-north-in-a-generation isn't an announcement?

This will be followed by a new route between Liverpool and Manchester, running via Manchester Airport and Warrington,

Madness would be trying to stuff high speed services down already congested lines and ignoring major intermediate traffic generators or interchange points.

 

[The Planner]

Remodelling the station throat at Mcr Piccadilly will increase platform lengths. Extending Metrolink trams to the likes of Stockport will ease pressure on the station.

Manchester trains can be run off HS2 at just before Stone or Crewe if HS2 ever reaches Crewe of course. No need to spend a fortune on high speed track into one city when two routes exist for the run in.

Why would Metrolink release capacity? Trains from Buxton, Mid Cheshire, Crewe, Alderley Edge, Stoke and so on are still going to pass through Stockport, so they are going to stop.

 

[Mikey C]

Is it? None of the stops between Ely and Cambridge could be served, and there are no local services like what Ipswich has to Lowestoft, Felixstowe, and Bury St Edmunds. I could see value in splitting the Fen Line branch into a shuttle and running fast trains to Norwich to ease the pressure on the NRW<>CBG services, but where would it go south of Cambridge? Kings Cross would be the most sensible, but it sounds operationally questionable, and the WAML wouldn't be able to cope if it went to Liverpool Street.

None of those are between Ipswich and Norwich.

I don't see why a Kings X to Norwich via Cambridge couldn't be the main route to Norwich. After all 40 years ago the main route to Cambridge was from Liverpool St, with a DMU shuttle between Royston and Cambridge, and now that route is the main one.

 

[saismee]

None of those are between Ipswich and Norwich

You wouldn't be able to terminate the fast intercity services at Ipswich as there's just not enough platforms, so they have to cover the Ipswich to Norwich section. I agree that it's the least utilised part but it has to run.

 

[EveningStarr]

Gotta have a North to South Wales High Speed line, tunneling straight through Bannau Brycheiniog. Maybe Cardiff Central to Llandudno Junction? Targeting Merthyr Tydfil, Brecon (currently no railway at all), Builth Wells and Welshpool along the way, and so interchanging with the Heads of the Valleys Road, Heart of Wales line and Cambrian Line. Mid Wales is sparsely populated, so the link would primarily be end-to-end, however a slower route going through the towns and villages would also be welcome of course.
A branch from Merthyr to Swansea could also be of use.