Planning HSR

[Waverley125]

The developments with regard to HSR in the last few months are very good news, as it looks like we're finally going to get the system we've been crying out for. However, I'm still very worried about how and where this will be built.

Firstly, the conservatives have suggested going to Leeds via Heathrow, Manchester & Birmingham. This will make no time saving between Leeds & London, and seems to be aimed to increasing capacity rather than journey times.

This now seems to have been adapted as the logical route, despite the fact it's 40-50 miles too long, and spends 10 miles going in completely the wrong direction. It also intends to make heathrow the Hub of the network, rather than looking to build a new domestic HS terminus in the centre, or upgrading existing termini.

Surely the logical route is to stay central, branching off to places like Heathrow, Birmingham, Manchester etc. and using Sheffield, Leeds & Carlisle as main junctions for journeys into the northeast, northwest & Scotland?

So here's my proposed network:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37256032@N05/3431628826/

this would, IMO, be a far more sensible network. As a key, Red lines are core routes, using limited stops & built for 225mph maximums, with potential to raise this limit. Gauged for double deck trains if expansion should require it.

Yellows are 'slow' lines, built to the same standards as the early LGVs in france, for a maximum of 185mph. These stop more frequently, for commuter services & can branch off into non-HS stations.

Black lines indicated non-HS routes potentially served by HS trains.

Green squares are stations, and only cover the routes they serve e.g. First stop on the 'red' route north is Sheffield, while the 'yellow' also calls at Milton Keynes, Northampton, Leicester & Derby.

'red' trains to Birmingham do not call anywhere else, but 'yellow' trains call MK, Northampton, Coventry, Birmingham Airport & Birmingham.

We have to accept this project will cost a staggering amount of money to complete. Included in this map as major infrastructure works are a new London terminal (probably at Euston), new severn tunnel, new Forth Rail Bridge, Reopening of the LSWR Exeter-plymouth route, New S&C and Woodhead routes, plus, most shockingly, a tunnel under the Irish sea.

Some of this may be fanciful, but this transport system would be, without a shadow of a doubt, the best in the world.

 

[generalvegitable]

i cannot see the map, but it sounds like an interesting network, and one thing, milton keynes and northampton are so close together that a train wouldnt get that much speed up between the stations

 

[Waverley125]

link now working.

 

[generalvegitable]

thats a good and thorough network, something like that would work

 

[Waverley125]

It'd be boom time day for the construction industry & civil engineers-i reckon there's at least 2,500 miles of HS line all over the country, not to mention the special 'landmark' projects that would also create public appeal, such as the bridges, the tunnels etc.

It'd also create the opportunity for fast, fixed freight moves around the country. Who'd use a lorry to take eggs from London to Manchester when you can use a chiller wagon, taking 5 times as much in half the time?

However, while the 'trunk routes' are obvious, i think it's some of the lesser ones that would have more of an impact. For instance, the Norfolk/Suffolk HSR would slash journey times-probably knocking an hour off the present 2hr London-Norwich journey times, with I'd imagine 30-40 mins going from Ipswich. These towns would no longer be out of the way, but serious Satelitte cities for London. The Same is true with lines to the Solent, which has a regular but slow service.

High speed rail has the potential to be the biggest economic kick-start Britain's ever received. So let's get on with it!

 

[generalvegitable]

looking at it again, a tunnel from Liverpool to Ireland via the isle of man is probably not the best route, jack it up north a bit to somewhere closer to save construction costs, or just have it going across to Ireland at the shortest point

 

[anthony263]

Wasnt there an article somewhere which suggested building a tunnel to ireland either from Fishgaurd or from Holyhead?.

i do agree that a high speed rail network should be started, certainly will give a major kick start to the economy and it would create thousands of jobs in the constructions industry and could get a lot more young people interested into the railways again.

the government although it will cost a lot of money to build they should realise just how much money they can make back from fares and from tax and national insurance money from the jobs that have been created

 

[Waverley125]

going via Anglesey would be most sensible for a tunnel to Dublin, while Liverpool and Belfast are on basically equal latitutdes.

The shortest stretch of the irish sea is in Southern Scotland, but this would have a lot more rail miles, so might not be cheaper.

 

[generalvegitable]

a 100 mile surface route is probably the same price as a 50 mile tunnel

 

[asylumxl]

It seems a bit... busy. I'd simplify the number of lines. Seems good apart from that.

 

[generalvegitable]

if he used a larger map in the background (or thinner lines) it would seem less busy

edit:
i have attempted to create another possible map, see attached (if it worked)
WARNING: a rather large image

 

[bluenoxid]

High Speed Rail is not being built for its speed enhancing capabilities. In fact a recent report noted that it should really be called High Capacity 1 as it is being built to boost capacity rather than cut journey times.

Our High Speed Rail network is going to be restricted by a number of things particularly cost, connections and the land it travels over. Such a vast network proposed will probably not be delivered until 2040 at the earliest and that's without the Irish link.

The High Speed Rail network is likely to be a spine route serving Birmingham, East Midlands, Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear with many of the services using existing tracks/infrastructure for part of their journey. East Anglia will probably not see High Speed with the South West likely to be an additional set of tracks beyond Heathrow rather than a self contained High Speed Line.

The final route will be debated but then decided swiftly to reduce planning blight with construction likely to take place in stages. In city centres is where it will get interesting and this will be the place to watch.

Those with grand ideas of grid based networks are probably pinning their hopes on the wrong donkey.

Much of the existing infrastructure is not filled to capacity. Bad junctions and pinch points play the problem. Small sections of new line, flyovers and flyunders will help release much more capacity than a High Speed Line. These five year wins (because they will take a Control Period to deliver) will deliver much more capacity enhancement by delivering more out of the existing infrastructure than High Speed Lines dotted around the country through peoples back yards.

 

[shinkansen09]

The developments with regard to HSR in the last few months are very good news, as it looks like we're finally going to get the system we've been crying out for. However, I'm still very worried about how and where this will be built.


Surely the logical route is to stay central, branching off to places like Heathrow, Birmingham, Manchester etc. and using Sheffield, Leeds & Carlisle as main junctions for journeys into the northeast, northwest & Scotland?


this would, IMO, be a far more sensible network. As a key, Red lines are core routes, using limited stops & built for 225mph maximums, with potential to raise this limit. Gauged for double deck trains if expansion should require it.

Yellows are 'slow' lines, built to the same standards as the early LGVs in france, for a maximum of 185mph. These stop more frequently, for commuter services & can branch off into non-HS stations.

Black lines indicated non-HS routes potentially served by HS trains.

Green squares are stations, and only cover the routes they serve e.g. First stop on the 'red' route north is Sheffield, while the 'yellow' also calls at Milton Keynes, Northampton, Leicester & Derby.

'red' trains to Birmingham do not call anywhere else, but 'yellow' trains call MK, Northampton, Coventry, Birmingham Airport & Birmingham.

We have to accept this project will cost a staggering amount of money to complete. Included in this map as major infrastructure works are a new London terminal (probably at Euston), new severn tunnel, new Forth Rail Bridge, Reopening of the LSWR Exeter-plymouth route, New S&C and Woodhead routes, plus, most shockingly, a tunnel under the Irish sea.

Some of this may be fanciful, but this transport system would be, without a shadow of a doubt, the best in the world.

Alot of work has gone into this......... I am curious about why there is nothing to connect south of ...Is it york or Leeds to connect into the ECML?...yet you give Norwich a high speed line of its own! To give the icing on the cake of your plan....fit all ECML trains with a French KVB system so the trains can run at 225kph on the current infrastructure (upgraded where required).
However, I do think with no HSR (ring road) round London ala round Paris linking up different LGV`s you couldn`t say yours is the best in the world.
Why not double deck trains from the start? Why wait to see if you get growth, then its too late, ordering, testing and commissioning of trainsets and what to do with the single decker fleet you have just bought.
Very intresting plan

 

[Waverley125]

Bluenoxid-capacity enhancement is all very well for domestic, conventional rail projects, but the point of HS1, since it is a HIGH SPEED line is to reduce journey times, which will help rail increase its modal share against air and road traffic.

As for the other poins

HSR would link into the ECML, at Doncaster, which would be on the Hull-Sheffield section of line. Likewise, a connection would be made on the Leeds-Hull line.

The London avoiding lines have been ommitted for clarity, but do exist.

 

[PhilipW]

... and how are you going to build a High Speed Line from Leeds to Carlisle as per the map ?

Tunnel .... I don't think so.
Overland .... Settle-Carlisle already exists as the best possible alignment through the Pennines.

 

[Metroland]

HSR 2 should be sold as reducing the north south divide, which seems to be driven by transport, education and decline of traditional industry.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jqp0p/Time_Shift_Series_8_The_NorthSouth_Divide/

(from 6min 30)

 

[Waverley125]

yes it should. It will also help reduce the case Britain has of a 'london-centric' economy-something virtually no other country has. If Birmingham is 35 minutes away, Leeds & Manchester 60-90 mins, Edinburgh & Glasgow less than 3 hours, then the impetus to stay in london wil be reduced, and Businesses will take advantage of lower land prices outside of london.

 

[Metroland]

http://www.hs2.org.uk/

 

[gordonthemoron]

don't think double deckers are a good idea, single deck TGVs are pokey enough as it is. should be similar size to an ICE-1

 

[Waverley125]

I've not seen any problem with TGV or duplex interiors. But needs to be well designed, alternating seat direction & window tables aligned to seats.

 

[tbtc]

Much of the existing infrastructure is not filled to capacity. Bad junctions and pinch points play the problem. Small sections of new line, flyovers and flyunders will help release much more capacity than a High Speed Line. These five year wins (because they will take a Control Period to deliver) will deliver much more capacity enhancement by delivering more out of the existing infrastructure than High Speed Lines dotted around the country through peoples back yards.

That's a very good point- there's a lot of "simple" improvements that could be implemented (e.g. bottlenecks that could be tackled), which are easier than building hundreds of miles of brand new allignment.

I'm sure we could think of half a dozen flat junctions that could be grade seperated, "local" stations that should have loops, or "pinch points", which would be much easier.

For example, around Sheffield, if you had a "loop" at Meadowhall (to allow fast trains to overtake) and a second line on the Holmes Chord (to Rotherham) and Dore Junction, you'd improve things a great deal.

However, a brand new "high speed" line is easier for politicians to "sell" to voters than just a few flyovers, loops and additional points.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Newark, Welwyn & possibly Doncaster spring to mind, and that's just the east coast

 

[Metroland]

One thing to bear in mind, mixed traffic railways like ours absolutely destroy capacity. Railways work best where all traffic is of the same type/speed: Commuter, with similar stopping patters, Metro, High speed/express, freight. You can get some amazing throughputs on metro systems where trains stop in the same places, and thus are able to run at 90 second intervals.

The cross country lines are especially bad for this because they are very mixed traffic. Take the situation between Didcot and Leamington Spa. You have a very heavy mix of stopping trains , freight and non stop passenger trains. Loops can and do help, but some of the stopping services especially, and freight (which can be looped) destroys several more profitable express paths. Loops at every station wouldn't help, because it would extend stopping timetables by some margin, and only provide marginally more capacity as trains have to slow down to enter.

There are deep questions whether we should keep small stations open that only service a few passengers per day at the expense of running several more express trains which CAN be filled. Having said that there are also questions over running longer express trains, where you don't need metro type frequency. 4 car voyagers are an amazing waste of a good path.

There are also questions whether looping trains destroys speed, wastes fuel, and makes rail less competitive against road as it reduces average speeds considerably.

Where possible and financially viable (there is not always the demand!) its better to keep traffic types separated, as it provides far more reliability and overall capacity. This is one thing a dedicated high speed line would do, leaving classic lines for far more freight and semi-fast/stopping passenger trains.

Its not to say that the addition of longer trains, flyovers, loops etc wouldn't help. I also think trains need to match demand more. There is little point in running the same length trains at 08.00hrs, 14.00hrs, and 2200 hrs.

 

[me123]

However, a brand new "high speed" line is easier for politicians to "sell" to voters than just a few flyovers, loops and additional points.

Don't forget also that this will involve minimal work on existing lines; we'll only need to connect the new High Speed Line to train stations, and may well in places build new stations altogether. In the case of Sheffield works, it would disrupt local and cross country services. The proposed Hitchin Flyover, whilst a deserving and important project, will surely cause a lot of disruption to services; I don't want to know how many buses will be needed for NXEC between PBO and The Cross!

 

[tbtc]

One thing to bear in mind, mixed traffic railways like ours absolutely destroy capacity. Railways work best where all traffic is of the same type/speed: Commuter, with similar stopping patters, Metro, High speed/express, freight. You can get some amazing throughputs on metro systems where trains stop in the same places, and thus are able to run at 90 second intervals.

The cross country lines are especially bad for this because they are very mixed traffic

I agree with all of that - well said.

 

[bluenoxid]

I was actually playing devils advocate above but those points still stand. A well planned High Speed Route will deliver capacity enhancements but only a long that corridor. On the approach to commuter stations or on lines with heavy use by freight, the smaller projects will deliver more.

 

[jopsuk]

One thing to bear in mind, mixed traffic railways like ours absolutely destroy capacity. Railways work best where all traffic is of the same type/speed: Commuter, with similar stopping patters, Metro, High speed/express, freight. You can get some amazing throughputs on metro systems where trains stop in the same places, and thus are able to run at 90 second intervals.

Aye- in a world without petty considerations such as "budgets" and "planning restrictions" we'd ideally have, often parrallel, frequently not, but mainly seperate in running, four basic networks- Metro/local, freight, "regular" intercity and high speed. I'd possibly allow HS to run onto IC, and some IC and frieght to run onto lighter used "local" routes. One of the things I'd would be throw an eight-track ring, at about the M25, around London...

 

[Waverley125]

yes but the point of HSR isn't to increase capacity, but lower journey times. At the end of the day, modal share will only increase by reducing times, and the way to do that is high speed. Taking the train to Leeds, Manchester or Glasgow will be much more attractive if it costs less. e.g. leeds, currently 2hr 30 min. At 220mph with 1 stop, at least one hour could be knocked off of that time. Whether hitchin, peterborough etc. have flying junctions is irrelevant, as it won't reduce the overall journey times.

 

[Metroland]

I would say the new line would be about:

Speed: Quickest end-to-end journey times under 400 miles, 3 times faster than road and faster than air under 400 miles on a typical journey.

Capacity: 50% more capacity than the M1 and M6, and freeing up classic lines for Freight and Commuters. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3465221.stm

Reliability: High punctuality, In April Spain's AVE: punctuality was 99.4 per cent between Madrid and Barcelona, 98.7 per cent between Madrid and Seville. http://www.railnews.co.uk/opinions/guest-opinion/2008/07/01-gerry-doherty-tssa.html

Not that Rail's punctuality is bad now, its just media attention: RAIL Average 89.9%, AIR Average 71.2%, BUS Average 74%

 

[Waverley125]

the suggested improvements do also need to go ahead. Obviously serious remodelling at Reading, New Street, Leeds etc. will ne necessary to accomodate HSR. But things like the Hitchin flyover, Skipton-Colne, March-Spalding, Leeds-Ripon-Northallerton, Battersby-Darlington, Lewes-Uckfield etc. would all hugely improve rail transport.

As an example, reopening Leeds-Northallerton via Ripon would not only return a rail service, but allow freight from the southwest to be taken off the ECML north of york. As a long shot, reopening Wetherby-Ilkley-Skipton in addition would provide a west-east coast connection avoiding both Leeds and Manchester, surely a boon for freight.