Projects you'd build but will (probably) never happen

[Northumbriana]

Bit in bold - there is precisely nothing of any significance between Northampton and Cambridge - and no real demand for travel between Northampton and Bedford, nor Northampton and Cambridge. EWR will provide the connection from Cambridge to the WCML, so not sure you need something else.

But it would be a fast link to Coventry, Birmingham and Wolverhampton via the WCML.

 

[Mikey C]

Cambridge - Norwich services take ~ 1h 20m to cover about 70 miles with 6 stops. Northampton - London, a similar distance, takes about 1 hour to cover the same with the same number of stops. Bearing in mind the WCML is a 100 mph + mainline. I'm not sure Norwich - Cambridge can justify being uplifted to WCML standards is remotely viable. Electrifying it might give some journey time improvement, but I can't see it being uplifted to full mainline standards.

The connection from Norwich to Cambridge is economically more important than the connection to Ipswich now, as reflected in the quality of the road links.

This is about servicing the future needs of the country, with the Cambridge area being a major growth area, and the Cambridge to Norwich corridor part of that.

 

[Austriantrain]

Nothing to build for me yet, just an integrated transport system.

I have an idea for a new thread: what should an integrated Takt - Swiss-Style - for the UK look like?

 

[takno]

A nice straight-line high-speed viaduct from Newcastle to Carlisle so I can visit my nephews and niece in under half an hour!

I feel like there must be a cheaper solution to this very specific problem....

 

[MPW]

Jubilee Line Southern Extension. For massively improved connectivity/modal shift and to free up the land where west ham depot is. Some other TOD might be possible in the SE. Route Idea Below. Would love to hear criticisms or alternative ideas.

The existing route would split in 2 at North Greenwhich, north to stratford and south along new route. There would also be branch going from stratford on existing lines then continuing south on new route from North Greenwhich. In that way the capacity is still there. Passengers could jump on the first train at Stratford and change at North Greenwhich if wanting to go west. Has EL reduced demand on this corridor anyway?

Phase 1
- From North Greenwhich, which was built with 3 platforms partly to facilitate a possible future extension.
- Emerge above ground as soon as possible to run elevated along either Parkside or Millenium Way, which are both 2 lanes in each direction with a median in between. A station to serve the large new and in-progress housing developments on the peninsula, location to be further studies but there are a number of options.
- Turning south at either Blackwall Lane, Commercial Way, or Peartree Way to run along the A2, either at grade or elevated, and whatever alignment creates the least conflicts. It would require taking 1 or 2 lanes taken away from the A2 but the connections created will greatly reduce traffic levels given driving is the best option for much of SE London to get to North Greenwhich and beyond. I also note there is an existing freight corridor along this path. but it is partly single track and the access might need to be maintained.
- Station perpendicular to Westcombe Park station, maybe on Westcombe Hill road with improved pedestrian access over the A2.
- New station where the A2 meets Charlton Road, Old Dover Road, or Shooter's Hill Road. There isn't much room for development at any location so should go where the best bus connections are or have potential for enhancement. I also note there is the existing rail tunnel for Blackheath to Lewisham services, but I think it would create too many issues with existing services to use that, better to create new connections along new route and serve areas where this is currently no rail station at all.
- Station connecting to Kidbrooke Station. Massive development here, some of which is still in progress, currently only served by national rail 6 tph on 3 different routes.
- It could terminate there. The West Ham depot could relocate to somewhere along this route on the peninsula or where the Charlton Police Car Pound is, with the police depot in-turn relocated or rebuilt above or next to the train depot. This might not be big enough and would itself become much more valuable land if the extension happened, so one of the following branches would work better for the depot itself. Could also be part of phase 2. The West Ham depot is in a location right next to DLR route to Stratford and a new station could also be added on JLE1. This could be a massive new development.

Phase 2 or branch 1 options

Eltham
- Take over existing NR lines to Dartford. New depot at Slade Green. Might not be popular idea similar to resistance from some Hayes residents for bakerloo taking over their existing big trains. Could Jubilee share tracks with NR?
- Alternatively running along A2 Rochester Way with new stations at various points along the route. Again this would serve areas where this is currently much better car than public transport infrastructure, at least once you get beyond Falconwood. If this route was taken it could turn NW where the A2 meets the Sidcup line, quad track to Crayford station for connection and new depot in the industrial area there.

A20 corridor
- This corridor brings in connections to another existing rail line
- Turning SW at A205 to Clifton Roundabout. This is also 2 lanes in each direction with median in the middle. Could run elevated with pillars in the median in order to maintain current traffic lanes. new station somewhere between Yorkshire Grey roundabout and Clifton Roundabout.
- From there, again, it could take over existing NR route (or share track? again I don't know if feasible) and run along to Crayford with depot in same place as Eltham route.
- Or running along A20, this would almost certainty require taking away a traffic lane or two. But I don't believe this route is as busy as the A2 and given modal shift it might be OK. New station where A20 meets Court Rd to connect to Mottingham station, which is 120m away. This short road section is 4 lanes including turning lane and parking/bus stop. One lane could be removed to expand room for interchange. The shops here would greatly benefit from the increased footfall. 1 or 2 new stations along Sidcup bypass then, importantly, a station at Queen Mary's hospital which is 1.5km from nearest station. New station where A20 meets Sevenoaks way, with improved bus priority going N/S from here. Slightly to the north is large industrial area where depot could go.

Bromley
- really a separate but complementary proposal, as much as my crayons want to take this to the bromley North branch, the railway from Lee around to Grove Park is too complex and the road narrows down to 2 lanes before it meets this line.
- instead I think a BRT take-over the BromNor line would be a big improvement, connecting through to serve civic centre and bromley South. And north from grove Park on baring Road and/or burnt Ash Road with either bus lane or closing the road to through traffic with bus gates (allowing residents still).
- Once joining south circular to travel in bus lane to an interchange with JL then up Eltham hill in bus lane to serve high street before heading to Eltham station.

 

[JohnElliott]

I would re-bore all the deep-level Tubes in London to 16ft tunnel diameter to allow "proper" size trains.

It'll never happen

I've sometimes wondered about that; it seems a shame that the bits at the end, that used to be full-size railways, are constrained by the tube-sized segments in the middle. But given the premise of unleashing full-sized TBMs on subterranean London, there's no reason for the replacement tunnels to follow the same routes as the existing ones.

 

[philosopher]

Birmingham Cross City Line tunnel. The new tunnel would start just south of Duddeston Station on the north side and end just east of Five Ways station on the south side. There would be low level / underground platforms at Curzon Street, New Street and a new station close to Broad Street. All cross city line trains would divert into the new tunnel but cross country trains would continue to use Birmingham New Street upper level platforms.

 

[cle]

I can’t see the Jubilee line being able to give up its full eastern frequency - the last three stations are all key interchanges, and Stratford is among the busiest stations in the country.

Cambridge to Norwich - I do wish it could be a faster link. Ely especially could be a great commuter town and growth arc for Cambridge - being so well connected. I wonder if ‘Norwich in 90’ could work from a Cruiser - but not today, for sure.

 

[MPW]

I can’t see the Jubilee line being able to give up its full eastern frequency - the last three stations are all key interchanges, and Stratford is among the busiest stations in the country.

Cambridge to Norwich - I do wish it could be a faster link. Ely especially could be a great commuter town and growth arc for Cambridge - being so well connected. I wonder if ‘Norwich in 90’ could work from a Cruiser - but not today, for sure.

The idea would be to maintain the same capacity. The same number of trains would still serve Stratford to North Greenwhich, though half would continue straight to SE London. If someone at Stratford wants to go west to central London and the next train is going SE, they could board that the next train and change at North Greenwhich. Ideally that could be cross platform interchange. Given the frequency, even splitting the service still maintains a high frequency for people not wanting to change trains. Plus they would also still have the option of taking the DLR to canary wharf, which will be increasing in frequency with new trains, and EL with faster journeys to most of central london.

 

[A0]

The connection from Norwich to Cambridge is economically more important than the connection to Ipswich now, as reflected in the quality of the road links.

This is about servicing the future needs of the country, with the Cambridge area being a major growth area, and the Cambridge to Norwich corridor part of that.

But you're not going to justify uplifting the Cambridge - Norwich line to WCML or ECML standards. Even with Cambridge being more important for Norwich than via Ipswich, you can't run London - Norwich via Cambridge in a sensible time, owing in no small part to the congestion on both routes from London - Cambridge. So the GEML will remain the main route out of Norwich regardless.

Liverpool St - Norwich is ~1h 45- - ~ 1h 50m.

Liverpool St - Cambridge is ~1h 10m - ~ 1h 25m

Kings Cross to Cambridge is 48 mins *at best* with most being over 1h 10m.

Also an uplift on Cambridge - Norwich will only be on the Ely - Norwich stretch which is about 50 miles - it takes an hour so the average speed is about 50 mph with 4 stops. Allowing for slowing / stop / starting on those stops at 3 mins / stop that's 12 mins of the journey related to the stops. So now you're trying to improve the remaining 48 mins of the journey - If you look at an electrified main line, e.g. the Midland Mainline to Corby, St P to Bedford run using 100 mph class 360s the distance is 50 miles, there are 2 intermediate stops and the journey takes 40 mins - add 2 more stops in and you're at 46 mins. And that's on a service which is running on the fast lines from St P to Bedford.

I reckon the most you could trim a Norwich - Cambridge service by will be 10-15 mins with electrification. You won't get any more than that.

But it would be a fast link to Coventry, Birmingham and Wolverhampton via the WCML.

It'd be no faster than EWR to Bletchley and changing again at MKC to an Avanti - that's the reality.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2023 ==

I can’t see the Jubilee line being able to give up its full eastern frequency - the last three stations are all key interchanges, and Stratford is among the busiest stations in the country.

Cambridge to Norwich - I do wish it could be a faster link. Ely especially could be a great commuter town and growth arc for Cambridge - being so well connected. I wonder if ‘Norwich in 90’ could work from a Cruiser - but not today, for sure.

Bit in bold, only if you doubled the size of Ely, which given the land that surrounds it is largely flood plain, doesn't seem like a very clever thing to do.

 

[Silenos]

only if you doubled the size of Ely, which given the land that surrounds it is largely flood plain, doesn't seem like a very clever thing to do.

That’s never stopped them in the past…

But I would have thought that Ely was already acting as a dormitory town for Cambridge, given the numbers getting on and off the Fen line trains there. Which makes sense, given Cambridge house prices.

 

[A0]

That’s never stopped them in the past…

But I would have thought that Ely was already acting as a dormitory town for Cambridge, given the numbers getting on and off the Fen line trains there. Which makes sense, given Cambridge house prices.

This is Fenland - it's entirely unsuitable to be built on - take a look at a map and you'll get the idea.

 

[Silenos]

This is Fenland - it's entirely unsuitable to be built on - take a look at a map and you'll get the idea.

As a Norfolk resident and a regular traveller in the area, I’m well aware of the issues. Nonetheless, the number of houses in Ely has expanded considerably over the last 15 years and we all know there have been issues in many areas of the country with unsuitable developments on floodplains that still somehow manage to get planning permission. However, we’re getting off topic.

 

[Northumbriana]

It'd be no faster than EWR to Bletchley and changing again at MKC to an Avanti - that's the reality.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2023 ==

Hence why I suggested it'd be a new line for higher speeds.

 

[swt_passenger]

I have an idea for a new thread: what should an integrated Takt - Swiss-Style - for the UK look like?

It wouldn’t be a new thread, it’s been done before. I’ll try and find it. Here‘s a few pages from May this year:

GB should have a national clockface timetable

What we need is a national clockface timetable like they have in Switzerland and are developing in Germany. That would be at lease a 20 year task even at generous levels of investment and would need a major change in approach and attitide at all levels. Its a tantalising thought, mind you.

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[A0]

Hence why I suggested it'd be a new line for higher speeds.

Even if you built a brand new 'as the crow flies' line from Northampton - Cambridge (which isn't remotely feasible and would ignore any other places en route, until you reach the St Neots area - take a look at an OS Map to understand why) - you're looking at a distance of 40 miles. That's going to be a 45 minute journey time and Northampton's a further hour onto Birmingham.

EWR is solving this problem - there doesn't need to be another solution. And that's before you try to find another viable route into Northampton (which genuinely doesn't exist).

 

[Northumbriana]

Even if you built a brand new 'as the crow flies' line from Northampton - Cambridge (which isn't remotely feasible and would ignore any other places en route, until you reach the St Neots area - take a look at an OS Map to understand why) - you're looking at a distance of 40 miles. That's going to be a 45 minute journey time and Northampton's a further hour onto Birmingham.

EWR is solving this problem - there doesn't need to be another solution. And that's before you try to find another viable route into Northampton (which genuinely doesn't exist).

Kind of makes me think of EWR linking onto HS2 for Cambridge to Birmingham trains if HS2 ever gets a relief line.

 

[stuu]

Birmingham Cross City Line tunnel. The new tunnel would start just south of Duddeston Station on the north side and end just east of Five Ways station on the south side. There would be low level / underground platforms at Curzon Street, New Street and a new station close to Broad Street. All cross city line trains would divert into the new tunnel but cross country trains would continue to use Birmingham New Street upper level platforms.

Good plan. As financial constraints don't belong on this thread, I would also add connecting tunnels towards the Wolverhampton and Coventry directions and run a second high frequency cross-city line from Wolverhampton-International, adding extra tracks as needed

 

[Austriantrain]

Good plan. As financial constraints don't belong on this thread, I would also add connecting tunnels towards the Wolverhampton and Coventry directions and run a second high frequency cross-city line from Wolverhampton-International, adding extra tracks as needed

I would rather see a larger Curzon Street with an underground level for everything that is not a strictly local service. That underground level would be connected with new lines towards Wolverhampton and Worcester/Cheltenham, thus freeing capacity for local services.

The current line through New Street and the station itself would be restricted to the S-Bahn, which would also have a stop at Curzon Street.

That way, full integration at Birmingham could be achieved.

 

[Bartsimho]

Speed increase and of the Old goods line from Bedford to Glendon South Junction.

Would allow the MML to be 4 track electrified all the way to where the lines split with good enough speeds to run passenger services on.

Coupled with a change to the Thameslink service pattern on the MML (All stops so they have complete use of the Slow lines).
EMR connect moving to the Slow lines north of Bedford to occupy this new line.
EMR Intercity to move all services to their more stopping pattern with Bedford as it's first stop out of St Pancras (post-HS2 running to East Midlands Parkway).

All Thameslink services have 8 minutes in-between which would allow for turn up and go to London on this service for all intermediate stations. I could see a Bedford to St Pancras time of 77 minutes (stitched an all stops Bedford-St Albans with an all stops St Pancras-St Albans and added 5 minutes for pathing allowances and potential crew changes if necessary). I think this is 44 miles which gives an average speed of 35mph which should allow 60mph maximum aggregate trains to use the line and at slower speeds to have less wear on the tracks (The freight is also incentivised to be present at night with less Thameslink services, every 15-20 minutes).

EMR Connect maintains it's current stopping pattern but switches to the Goods Line north of Bedford and from Bedford Junction North to Corby taking around 33 minutes to cover the distance of 26.9 miles giving an average speed of 49mph which can thread freight paths through even for the heavier aggregates.

 

[Bald Rick]

Speed increase and of the Old goods line from Bedford to Glendon South Junction.

Would allow the MML to be 4 track electrified all the way to where the lines split with good enough speeds to run passenger services on.

Coupled with a change to the Thameslink service pattern on the MML (All stops so they have complete use of the Slow lines).
EMR connect moving to the Slow lines north of Bedford to occupy this new line.
EMR Intercity to move all services to their more stopping pattern with Bedford as it's first stop out of St Pancras (post-HS2 running to East Midlands Parkway).

All Thameslink services have 8 minutes in-between which would allow for turn up and go to London on this service for all intermediate stations. I could see a Bedford to St Pancras time of 77 minutes (stitched an all stops Bedford-St Albans with an all stops St Pancras-St Albans and added 5 minutes for pathing allowances and potential crew changes if necessary). I think this is 44 miles which gives an average speed of 35mph which should allow 60mph maximum aggregate trains to use the line and at slower speeds to have less wear on the tracks (The freight is also incentivised to be present at night with less Thameslink services, every 15-20 minutes).

EMR Connect maintains it's current stopping pattern but switches to the Goods Line north of Bedford and from Bedford Junction North to Corby taking around 33 minutes to cover the distance of 26.9 miles giving an average speed of 49mph which can thread freight paths through even for the heavier aggregates.

I know this is fantasy, but I thought the proposals would at least be a net benefit to passengers. This one would be (considerably) net worse for passengers, and lose the industry tens of millions in revenue.

Other than that, it looks great.

 

[Northumbriana]

Going back to an earlier point, if you had to rebuild the entire network from scratch - how would you plan it? Let's say you the aim is to get the most passengers for money spent rather than recreate all current connections. And assuming full HS2 and HS1 is the starting point.

I'd be focusing mostly on the inter-city trunk network. London would have one large IC terminal for the GWML, WCML, ECML, HS1 and HS2. And with HS2 providing the fast journeys the IC network wouldn't be required to bypass cities unless geography requires it. So a WCML that goes through Birmingham, Stoke and Manchester whilst HS2 goes around them for example.

Then each city/hub station would take over local branches and could run then as self contained tram-train/metro networks.

And in some cases the line could be used for tourist trains. For example Settle to Carlisle. And Leeds to Carlisle trains instead go onto the WCML via a new chord North of Carnforth.

 

[stuu]

I would rather see a larger Curzon Street with an underground level for everything that is not a strictly local service. That underground level would be connected with new lines towards Wolverhampton and Worcester/Cheltenham, thus freeing capacity for local services.

The current line through New Street and the station itself would be restricted to the S-Bahn, which would also have a stop at Curzon Street.

That way, full integration at Birmingham could be achieved.

I would assume that most passengers on regional services are heading into the city centre, so by doing that they are going to be taken further from where they want to be - New Street is about as central as any main railway station anywhere. There's not a neat solution to all the journeys unfortunately

 

[Bartsimho]

I know this is fantasy, but I thought the proposals would at least be a net benefit to passengers. This one would be (considerably) net worse for passengers, and lose the industry tens of millions in revenue.

Other than that, it looks great.

Looking at how this would be a net worse for passengers. Currently there are 2 Thameslink services per hour at Bedford and 10 per hour at St Albans. This increases the number at Bedford to 7.5 per hour although it does reduce those at St Albans.
It increases the frequency of EMR Connect to 4 per hour which benefits Bedford and Luton passengers which are bigger than St Albans as well as Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough passengers. Also 7.5 trains per hour is still a turn up and go service (Also how many people transit through the Thameslink core itself? I would expect most to transit to Central London but not out the other side again with the exception of Gatwick Airport).

EMR Intercity timetable recasts probably also happen after HS2 reaches East Midlands Parkway and this can mean they all go Leicester-Market Harborough-Kettering-Wellingborough-Bedford-St Pancras meaning EMR can exclusively have the fast lines.
Also the Thameslink service pattern could be increased if you require less freight on the slow lines than this pattern allows which could mean you could push it back to 10 Thameslink trains per hour on the Slow Lines.

 

[Austriantrain]

I would assume that most passengers on regional services are heading into the city centre, so by doing that they are going to be taken further from where they want to be - New Street is about as central as any main railway station anywhere. There's not a neat solution to all the journeys unfortunately

That really depends: even with a station at Curzon Street, using adequate rolling stock and with longer distance services gone, you could path up to 20 trains an hour on each of the track pairs through New Street. Depending on S-Bahn frequency, much if not most of regional traffic could still serve New Street - depending basically on how much S-Bahn you want to run on the approaches. And there is certainly a case to be made that the benefits of an intensive S-Bahn service outweigh the drawbacks, consider you would also have a much denser regional service, even if for some of it, passengers would need to change on the tram at Curzon Street.

 

[Magdalia]

If Cambridge is to become a 'mega city' I'm guessing the new part of the city will be between the current city centre and M11.

You have guessed wrong. Most of the land between the city and the M11 that was suitable for development has already been developed, notably the University West Site, Trumpington Meadows and Eddington. The areas to the west of Grange Road and around Grantchester won't be developed.

Ely has expanded considerably over the last 15 years and we all know there have been issues in many areas of the country with unsuitable developments on floodplains that still somehow manage to get planning permission.

Ely is above the level of the Fens. It isn't called the Isle of Ely for nothing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2023 ==

Ely especially could be a great commuter town and growth arc for Cambridge

It already is.

 

[Northumbriana]

You have guessed wrong. Most of the land between the city and the M11 that was suitable for development has already been developed, notably the University West Site, Trumpington Meadows and Eddington. The areas to the west of Grange Road and around Grantchester won't be developed.

Then where, if anywhere?

 

[Magdalia]

Then where, if anywhere?

Gove's speech was conspicuously unrevealing on the location of the "major new quarter" for Cambridge.

The most obvious is an expanded version of the existing Marshall's Airport proposal, spreading all the way to Cherry Hinton and swallowing Teversham.

 

[Bald Rick]

Currently there are 2 Thameslink services per hour at Bedford and 10 per hour at St Albans.

There’s 4/hour to Bedford for most of the day.

It increases the frequency of EMR Connect to 4 per hour which benefits Bedford and Luton passengers which are bigger than St Albans

Bedford and Luton stations combined provide roughly the same amount of demand as St Albans.

Also 7.5 trains per hour is still a turn up and go service (Also how many people transit through the Thameslink core itself?

It’s only turn up and go if the trains are spaced evenly, which is by no means certain.

Also the Thameslink service pattern could be increased if you require less freight on the slow lines than this pattern allows which could mean you could push it back to 10 Thameslink trains per hour on the Slow Lines.

Why would you ‘require’ less freight?


You’ve missed the main point. All you have done is reshuffle the capacity without providing any more, in fact you have almost Certainly caused a reduction. But the main disbenefit is extended journey times for almost every Thameslink user north of St Albans, by around 15 minutes. That will put a huge dent in demand and revenue, and a substantial socio-economic disbenefit.

 

[The Ham]

1) HSGW - Old oak common to Bristol Parkway then over a new high speed bridge to Cardiff

I'd link this to HS East Coast and HS1 (as well as the already established HS2), by having it run Old Oak Common, a similar wedge is London station in HS East Coast before connecting to HS1 at Stratford.

In doing so providing the East West connectivity many desire when suggesting orbital rail routes, as well as a simple change (OK two changes from HS2 and HS East Coast) to services to Europe.

....with third rail electrification and worked by upgraded 442s!

That's the idea, keep the faith, we need the 442's to survive so we can use them to leave earth and save humanity.

HS2 great western, have an OOC - Reading - Bristol - Cardiff - join the classic lines onto swansea, as well as a second branch towards Exeter (so Reading - Newbury - Exeter )

HS Wales and Southwest could, because of the train speeds, be run with the first stop being Salisbury with it then radiating out to have services to Southampton, Exeter, Bristol and Wales (how much new track depends on capacity constraints).

Based on HS2 (having 18tph) you could run 4tph to Southampton/Weymouth, 3tph to Exeter/South West, 4tph to Bristol/Cardiff, 2tph to Basingstoke via Salisbury (no real advantage for those going to Basingstoke in journey time from central London, but does give them easy access to the hub at Salisbury a the outer London hubs for onwards travel).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Other projects:

Crossrail 2
Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton (as a precursor to building the Dawlish Avoiding Line at the time of HS Wales and Southwest
Metro schemes (most places with a population of over 200,000 to be considered)
More underground metros (most places with a population of over 750,000 to be considered)
Chords to link unconnected lines (especially if the two lines aren't over capacity and new services could be run between places otherwise difficult to get between)