Report from Greengauge 21 on HS2 eastern arm

[JonathanH]

A report posted on the eastern arm of HS2 by Greengauge 21 last week doesn't appear to have been reported. Clearly this is just a pressure group / speculative but the report is published in the context of the "Government calling for the eastern component of the Y-shaped HS2 network to be reviewed alongside the rail investment plans of Transport for the North (TfN) and Midlands Connect1 and brought together in an Integrated Rail Plan".

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/Greengauge-21-HS2s-Eastern-Arm.pdf

http://www.greengauge21.net/what-is-the-purpose-of-hs2s-eastern-arm/

What is the purpose of HS2’s Eastern Arm?
30 July, 2020

The Eastern Arm of HS2 is a critical part of an Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands but its role and function can be significantly strengthened says a new report by Greengauge 21.

The report from Greengauge 21 calls for clarity on the role and function of HS2’s planned eastern arm.

“Ten years ago, the aim was to get an HS2 London-Leeds journey time to match Manchester’s”, says report co-author Jim Steer. To achieve this, trains would pass through the East Midlands and South Yorkshire non-stop. This means that the key intermediate cities of Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield would need to be served by new connections to the HS2 line, to be funded outside the HS2 project.

“The original ambition is understandable in headline terms, but with Government now seeking an integrated rail plan for the area, we have to ask if this is the best approach. With a prospective eastern arm delivery date 20-25 years ahead – the 2040s – it is an approach that risks adding a new east-west imbalance, instead of helping Government’s levelling up agenda”, according to Jim Steer. “It would be 10 years behind Birmingham and the North-West getting the economic boost of HS2.”

A better approach is available, according to the Greengauge 21 report. Four key amendments to current plans are needed to maximise the role the eastern arm of HS2 can play:

1. Recognise that in this north-east/south-west corridor there is the opportunity to transform the inter-connectivity of most of the English core cities and many key towns too – as well as their links with Cardiff and Edinburgh. This means a focus on better connections cross-country rather than to/from London
2. Instead of the planned HS2 shuttle services between dead end stations in Birmingham and Leeds, ensure that the North East and South West are served directly by HS2 with services that run through Birmingham and Leeds
3. Put Nottingham on the HS2 network, linked directly from the south
4. Plan on building the eastern arm of HS2 in three phases, to get early benefits and stimulate economic regeneration as early as possible.

“This doesn’t mean abandoning the planning work to date at all”, says report co-author Jim Steer. Indeed, developments around an expanded city station in Leeds and at a new station at Toton in the East Midlands should be accelerated.

The three phases would comprise Leeds-Sheffield (so start building part of HS2 from the north); Birmingham-Nottingham (the primary link across the Midlands); and thirdly a central section linking the first two phases. When it comes to the third and final section, there may be a better option to locate it in the East Coast Main Line corridor and increase its benefits considerably, according to the report. Powers can be sought for the first two elements, Greengauge 21 suggests, armed with an improved understanding of the investment and business case.

“Alongside these accelerated and broadened benefits, we have identified where some key savings in capital costs can be made. Value for money is going to be critical, we sense, in setting rail spending priorities ahead” Jim Steer added.

Places joining the national high speed cross-country network with an adapted HS2 eastern arm

Aberdeen	Edinburgh	Plymouth
Bradford	Exeter	Portsmouth
Bristol	Glasgow	Reading
Cardiff	Hull	Southampton
Cheltenham	Lincoln	Wolverhampton
Darlington	Middlesbrough	York
Doncaster	Newcastle
Dundee	Nottingham

 

[Sad Sprinter]

They do have a point, building "dead end" stations always seemed a bit of a mystery for me-I can understand them when looking from a London centric position. But to create a regional railway system they seem self-defeating. Hopefully they will be reviewed.

 

[edwin_m]

They do have a point, building "dead end" stations always seemed a bit of a mystery for me-I can understand them when looking from a London centric position. But to create a regional railway system they seem self-defeating. Hopefully they will be reviewed.

They aren't proposing to build any new through stations. They propose connections so the existing stations at Birmingham and Leeds can be used for through journeys. For Birmingham and Sheffield they are actually proposing a reversal in the existing stations.

All in all, based on a quick read this seems mostly sensible, and far more so than their proposals for the Manchester through station.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Having given the report a read though I agree with the proposals or making Leeds a through station and integrating it into the NPR plans and linking to the lines around Trent junction allowong a Nottingham - Toton - Leeds service but don't understand others such as approaching Sheffield from the North forcing a reversal or the idea of diverting Newcastle services via an upgraded Nottingham - Newark line line then up the ECML.

 

[CW2]

It is an interesting read - and typical of the Greenguage product, in that it is presented well, is well-argued, but lapses into misty-eyed optimism mode too frequently.
The notion of turning the Leeds station construction back to front is an interesting one (i.e. build terminal platforms on the new site for local services, and use the existing through platforms for HS2). There could be some merit in that idea. One of the principles of HS2 is that it will be compulsory reservation allocated seating, and no standing permitted. With that in mind, access to platforms is likely to be restricted.
Another guiding principle is that HS2 needs to run at a very high level of punctuality. There comes a point where spreading the tentacles of services further and wider merely risks importing delays and unpunctuality onto the core route.
It could be possible to link the HS2 route to NR infrastructure in the vicinity of Saltley, to enable through running of services to / from Bristol (assuming electrification takes place). But given the normal loadings of Cross Country, and the fact that much of their traffic is comparatively short distance, and they lose vast amounts of money on it, you have to wonder if there is any kind of economic justification for this.

 

[JamesT]

Not building to European gauge seems a very short-sighted measure to try and keep the capital costs down. Building to UK gauge means being forever stuck with our limited rolling stock, whereas HS2 is giving the opportunity to start afresh and build up a network that's better.

 

[CW2]

I was also struck by the author's emphasis on providing services to Nottingham. In my eyes Derby, Nottingham and Leicester are much on the same level in terms of regional importance, but Derby and Leicester scarcely merit a mention. Was there somebody from Nottingham amongst the report's authoring team, I wonder?

 

[JamesT]

Having given the report a read though I agree with the proposals or making Leeds a through station and integrating it into the NPR plans and linking to the lines around Trent junction allowong a Nottingham - Toton - Leeds service but don't understand others such as approaching Sheffield from the North forcing a reversal or the idea of diverting Newcastle services via an upgraded Nottingham - Newark line line then up the ECML.

Where do you see there would be a reversal? The current HS2 plans is that Sheffield would be on a standard UK rail loop from the main HS2 line, with connections both North and South to allow running through. Greengauge appear to be suggesting prioritising this loop over the main HS2 path in order to get services up and running. Leeds to Sheffield would mostly be fast along HS2 before coming off onto the legacy network to get to Sheffield. It would then continue on the existing network South until getting to Toton where it would be back on HS2.

 

[si404]

All in all, based on a quick read this seems mostly sensible, and far more so than their proposals for the Manchester through station.

Low bar to clear!

It does seem sensible on the surface, but the good stuff lures you in to a less sensible masterplan.

Section 6 on phase 3 takes the argument into nonsensical territory.

Decent points like "have Leeds as a through station" turn into more dubious ideas like "drop the Leeds bypass" and we end up with building the Toton-north of Sheffield section of HS2 20 miles east from Newark to south of Selby, Leeds services being routed via Sheffield and Newcastle ones via Nottingham.

 

[si404]

Where do you see there would be a reversal?

It's in a 'if we must build a Sheffield bypass high-speed line as HS2 propose, rather than the Doncaster bypass we prefer' reality. A curve at Wales, removing Chesterfield from the HS2 network and approaching Sheffield from the north. Coupled with their desire for Sheffield to not be a branch, they talk about reversing services there.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Where do you see there would be a reversal? The current HS2 plans is that Sheffield would be on a standard UK rail loop from the main HS2 line, with connections both North and South to allow running through. Greengauge appear to be suggesting prioritising this loop over the main HS2 path in order to get services up and running. Leeds to Sheffield would mostly be fast along HS2 before coming off onto the legacy network to get to Sheffield. It would then continue on the existing network South until getting to Toton where it would be back on HS2.

From page 20-22

(iii) Shorter loop to serve Sheffield

To access Sheffield from the south, HS2 trains will need to use a new HS2 spur and around 15 miles of existing relatively low-speed railway via Chesterfield and Dronfield. This compromises Sheffield HS2 timings. A much quicker access route (only 8 miles over existing lines) together with a much shorter new HS2 spur could be established near where the HS2 route crosses the Retford-Sheffield railway (near reference point 3 in the map below). This would allow fuller use of the central section of the eastern arm of HS2, and faster London-Sheffield journey times. While this routing would not serve Chesterfield there are good opportunities to improve Chesterfield’s connectivity as set out below on page 22.

An off-setting disadvantage of this shorter access route (over existing lines which have more spare capacity than the line from the south via Chesterfield), is that it means that all HS2 trains would make the final approach into Sheffield station from the north rather than the south. This might:

• Trigger the need for an additional running line into Sheffield station from the north.
• Would require Sheffield HS2 trains from the south to reverse before continuing onwards to the north.

To which it can be said that:

• it may well be that an additional running line (or lines) into Sheffield station would be needed in any event because of expected increases in train movements, regardless of the direction of approach from HS2 into Sheffield. In other words, this is a likely expenditure to be faced anyway with NPR and Sheffield City Region train service expansion ambitions.
  
• even with a reversal, HS2 trains would still be able to call at Sheffield more quickly (in terms of through north-south journey times) than if the longer southern loop was used.
• London-Sheffield HS2 times would be reduced
• trains from the south originating in say Nottingham or Leicester could continue without reversal onwards from Sheffield to Manchester.
  
  This change reduces HS2 eastern arm costs somewhat – a shorter new HS2 spur is required and project benefits are increased with shorter HS2 Sheffield journey times. This alternative should be considered further.

The downside is that by approaching Sheffield from the North any services that were to continue onto Leeds would have to reverse losing any benifits in time savings from aproching from the south plus not serving Chesterfield on HS2 directly.

 

[squizzler]

Not building to European gauge seems a very short-sighted measure to try and keep the capital costs down. Building to UK gauge means being forever stuck with our limited rolling stock, whereas HS2 is giving the opportunity to start afresh and build up a network that's better.

I recall reading similar in a previous report. I find it very hard to believe that there is much of a difference actually. I understand that most EU stock is maybe a foot taller than allowed in the UK but not much wider, albeit squarer in the sides. French HSL are using the UIC-B guage is not massive. There need to be large separations between the tracks and within tunnels to avoid air pressure effects associated with high speeds, making the cross sections of the trains themselves even less relevant.

Unless they are comparing UK loading guage with a Swedish guage called Class SE-C which according to Wikipedia is "3.60 by 4.83 m (11 ft 10 in by 15 ft 10 in) with a completely flat roof top. Similar to OPS-GC (Netherlands) loading gauge."

Wikipedia goes on to claim this loading guage is quite widespread already in Sweden: "When building new railways or extensive reinvestments are made to the existing railway infrastructure, the gauge is expanded to SE-C that also accepts UIC GC. The structure gauge on the bulk of the system already (2012) allows large cars built to SE-C, albeit with restrictions and a special permit." and that it is being increasingly adopted abroad: "The SE-C loading gauge is the future European standard, for the 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) Rail Baltica II and the Narvik to Tel-Aviv train routes including the fixed rail links between Sweden and Poland and the second Marmaray fixed rail link."

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

My thoughts are:

1. Leeds station being redesigned to be HS2/NPR using the main station and the bays for local services could be beneficial, could save money and serve Newcastle and meets NPR ambitions.
2. Nottingham to Leeds service via HS2 a good idea
3. The X Network idea not bad either
4. having an ECML High Speed Line and diverting services via an upgraded Nottingham-Newark line, not a good idea imo
5. Having Nottingham served by HS2 to Birmingham and London is not a bad idea though
6. Removing HS2 platforms at Toton, not keen on that idea
7. Removing continental loading gauge not to keen on that idea either
8. Shorter Loop at Sheffield not a good idea, loss of Chesterfield and reversing to continue to Leeds

 

[MidlandMainlie]

My thoughts are:

1. Leeds station being redesigned to be HS2/NPR using the main station and the bays for local services could be beneficial, could save money and serve Newcastle and meets NPR ambitions.
2. Nottingham to Leeds service via HS2 a good idea
3. The X Network idea not bad either
4. having an ECML High Speed Line and diverting services via an upgraded Nottingham-Newark line, not a good idea imo
5. Having Nottingham served by HS2 to Birmingham and London is not a bad idea though
6. Removing HS2 platforms at Toton, not keen on that idea
7. Removing continental loading gauge not to keen on that idea either
8. Shorter Loop at Sheffield not a good idea, loss of Chesterfield and reversing to continue to Leeds

Agreed some good ideas and some not so good ideas.

 

[class26]

It is an interesting read - and typical of the Greenguage product, in that it is presented well, is well-argued, but lapses into misty-eyed optimism mode too frequently.
The notion of turning the Leeds station construction back to front is an interesting one (i.e. build terminal platforms on the new site for local services, and use the existing through platforms for HS2). There could be some merit in that idea. One of the principles of HS2 is that it will be compulsory reservation allocated seating, and no standing permitted. With that in mind, access to platforms is likely to be restricted.
Another guiding principle is that HS2 needs to run at a very high level of punctuality. There comes a point where spreading the tentacles of services further and wider merely risks importing delays and unpunctuality onto the core route.
It could be possible to link the HS2 route to NR infrastructure in the vicinity of Saltley, to enable through running of services to / from Bristol (assuming electrification takes place). But given the normal loadings of Cross Country, and the fact that much of their traffic is comparatively short distance, and they lose vast amounts of money on it, you have to wonder if there is any kind of economic justification for this.

I thought X Country had been profitable in recent years ?

 

[edwin_m]

I was also struck by the author's emphasis on providing services to Nottingham. In my eyes Derby, Nottingham and Leicester are much on the same level in terms of regional importance, but Derby and Leicester scarcely merit a mention. Was there somebody from Nottingham amongst the report's authoring team, I wonder?

Notttingham is generally reckoned to be more important than Derby. They have similar nominal population but many of the suburbs linked to Nottingham are outside the city boundary so not included in the count, whereas Derby is within its own boundary. Take that into account and Nottingham getting on for twice the population.

Decent points like "have Leeds as a through station" turn into more dubious ideas like "drop the Leeds bypass" and we end up with building the Toton-north of Sheffield section of HS2 20 miles east from Newark to south of Selby, Leeds services being routed via Sheffield and Newcastle ones via Nottingham.

Both of those make good sense in my view. As soon as you start downgrading the Eastern leg then the ECML becomes quicker from London to York and beyond so there's almost nothing left to use the Leeds bypass. So why not continue to use the ECML and indeed upgrade it? In engineering terms the route further east on flatter ground will be much cheaper than following the M1 through the hills, and provides a big upgrade to the ECML as well as the Cross Country benefits. It's essentially delivering most of the eastern route from London originally floated by HS2 8-10 years ago.

The downside is that by approaching Sheffield from the North any services that were to continue onto Leeds would have to reverse losing any benifits in time savings from aproching from the south plus not serving Chesterfield on HS2 directly.

Reversal would only cost 5min or so and the report notes that the time saving from running via Wales rather than Chesterfield would be more than that.

I recall reading similar in a previous report. I find it very hard to believe that there is much of a difference actually. I understand that most EU stock is maybe a foot taller than allowed in the UK but not much wider, albeit squarer in the sides. French HSL are using the UIC-B guage is not massive. There need to be large separations between the tracks and within tunnels to avoid air pressure effects associated with high speeds, making the cross sections of the trains themselves even less relevant.

Reading closely it's the stations where there is potential saving, as HS trains wouldn't need dedicated platforms. They also say platforms could be shorter and curved, although that could be done equally regardless of the structure gauge. There's also a bit of saving in tunnel cross-section, because it needs to be a certain percentage bigger than the train cross-section so the air can find its way round the train. But I agree it's probably not very significant, especially as I'm not sure if pantographs allow high speed running at any other than one specific wire height and if that's so the wire height on Stage 1 would have to be adopted for all HS sections. If it was me I'd probably build the new sections to UIC gauge but drop to UK gauge when re-using existing infrastructure.

 

[si404]

As soon as you start downgrading the Eastern leg then the ECML becomes quicker from London to York and beyond so there's almost nothing left to use the Leeds bypass.

That's the problem - right there in your words. It all starts with a downgrade.

One problem with the classic-stations only thing is that that means 400m trains can't use that branch (unless they split at Toton, but there's zero point in doing that as that station is after the branch split under Greengauge plans). So the number of units you can send that way drops from 10/hour (4 going all the way to Leeds as 400m trains, 4 splitting at Toton), to just 6/hour. Downgrade!

 

[edwin_m]

That's the problem - right there in your words. It all starts with a downgrade.

One problem with the classic-stations only thing is that that means 400m trains can't use that branch (unless they split at Toton, but there's zero point in doing that as that station is after the branch split under Greengauge plans). So the number of units you can send that way drops from 10/hour (4 going all the way to Leeds as 400m trains, 4 splitting at Toton), to just 6/hour. Downgrade!

An ECML bypass would get back the 27min or so time difference (HS2 projected vs classic) to York and probably the 50min or so to Leeds, where the longest platform appears to be over 500m.

 

[ABB125]

I don't agree with them about double deck trains:

• It increases infrastructure costs
• Bi-level trains cannot be made compliant with disabled access regulations (except by adding lifts into each coach but this risks losing the extra seating capacity as well as adding cost)
• It precludes achieving level boarding of trains except at special-purpose HS2 platforms.

Yes, it increases costs, but not by much, and if you build to UK guage you can never "upgrade" to EU guage in the future (unless you want to basically rebuild your entire railway and go through what HS2 is going through currently again!). Why limit yourself indefinitely for the sake of a few percentage points of cost savings?
I find it hard to believe that you can't build a double deck train that meets disability regulations. Besides, even if you do need a lift, surely you only need one lift in a dedicated carriage (just like wheelchair spaces and toilets etc are in the same place)?
I don't agree with the third point either: surely you would just design your double deck train to have level boarding for whatever platform height is available?

That said, I'm not convinced we actually need double deck trains on HS2 (at least to begin with!).

 

[si404]

probably the 50min or so to Leeds

The ECML bypass won't see any Leeds trains on it, AFAICS.

And the gains for Leeds are going to be a lot less than HS2 as they only run at high speed either London to Toton or the Trent to the Aire.

Leeds, where the longest platform appears to be over 500m.

And Sheffield, which they want all the Leeds trains to stop at?

Besides, even if you do need a lift, surely you only need one lift in a dedicated carriage (just like wheelchair spaces and toilets etc are in the same place)?
I don't agree with the third point either: surely you would just design your double deck train to have level boarding for whatever platform height is available?

Re: the bespoke (it's not EU-standard) platform height of the HS2 captive stations, Greengauge's point there is that you can't have level boarding at both the classic stations and the captive ones, and it has nothing to do with double deck trains. I'm not sure it's right - they chose the bespoke platform height deliberately to fit both gauges.

Of course, with double deck trains and UK high platforms you end up boarding at a mezzanine. Which makes accessibility difficult - each door area is a level change. And I cannot see how a dedicated carriage would be legal.

 

[edwin_m]

The ECML bypass won't see any Leeds trains on it, AFAICS.

And the gains for Leeds are going to be a lot less than HS2 as they only run at high speed either London to Toton or the Trent to the Aire.
And Sheffield, which they want all the Leeds trains to stop at?

Re: the bespoke (it's not EU-standard) platform height of the HS2 captive stations, Greengauge's point there is that you can't have level boarding at both the classic stations and the captive ones, and it has nothing to do with double deck trains. I'm not sure it's right - they chose the bespoke platform height deliberately to fit both gauges.

Of course, with double deck trains and UK high platforms you end up boarding at a mezzanine. Which makes accessibility difficult - each door area is a level change. And I cannot see how a dedicated carriage would be legal.

I don't think there's anything to prevent London-Leeds trains using the ECML bypass, although as shown it would have to be via Hambleton not Wakefield. In fact it makes sense for them to take that route as it avoids the congestion in Sheffield and would give a shorter journey time. Other slower ones could run via Sheffield or Doncaster then Wakefield.

Trains to Leeds and the north-east benefit less from HS2 than Manchester, because the longer route via the edge of Birmingham cancels out much of the benefit of running faster. So I think using the relatively fast ECML as far as Newark then a high speed bypass to Hambleton has a good chance of being faster overall.

As I understand it HS2 wants a platform at about 1.2m above top of rail for level boarding at HS stations. This is higher than the standard British platform of 914mm, which they will have to use at stations where dedicated platforms aren't possible, so those stations won't have level boarding (unless there is an onboard lift, which I haven't seen any suggestion of).

I'm not sure why restricting wheelchairs to specific doorways would be illegal, considering that almost every British train today has this arrangement. If necessary one or more cars of each unit could remain as single-level.

 

[si404]

I don't think there's anything to prevent London-Leeds trains using the ECML bypass, although as shown it would have to be via Hambleton not Wakefield.

Indeed, but that doesn't seem to be what Greenguage are proposing, which is Euston-Sheffield-Leeds and Euston-Nottingham-York.

And with Leeds and Newcastle trains remaining out of Kings Cross, there's no relief of the ECML...

In fact it makes sense for them to take that route as it avoids the congestion in Sheffield

Congestion that this Greengauge reports wants those trains to go through to get to Leeds...

would give a shorter journey time.

But not as short as HS2.

Trains to Leeds and the north-east benefit less from HS2 than Manchester, because the longer route via the edge of Birmingham cancels out much of the benefit of running faster. So I think using the relatively fast ECML as far as Newark then a high speed bypass to Hambleton has a good chance of being faster overall.

They benefit less, but still benefit hugely.

London-Leeds is 40 minute reduction
Leeds-Birmingham is 69 minutes reduction - I believe this is the best city pair reduction on HS2 and Greengauge's plan makes it just a 14 minutes (or less) reduction by diverting to run via Toton rather than Derby.
London-York is 27 minutes reduction
London-Newcastle is 33 minutes reduction

Newark to York (stopping at Doncaster for 2 minutes, and starting from a standing start at Newark) is 46 minutes. To get a similar reduction to HS2, you'd need to travel it in about 20 minutes (a 26 minute reduction). You have about 45 miles of High Speed line and 19 miles of classic line. If the High Speed line was 360km/h and the classic 140mph then you do get that 20 minutes time. But that's running at line speed with no acceleration or deceleration vs stopping once and starting finishing with a stop. The saving for York and the NE is going to be less under Greengauge's plan than HS2's...

...and likewise for Leeds. Kings Cross-Newark is about 70 minutes at 125mph (74 minutes with one stop), add 20 minutes on the high speed line, and we've hit the 81 minutes HS2 time before even reaching Hambleton junction. Now, sure this is better than the via-HS2 route Greengauge has for Leeds - using HS2's timings (which involves building Toton-Chesterfield that Greengauge doesn't want) it's 87 minutes to Sheffield and another 27 minutes to Leeds - a 20 minute saving over today despite being on classic tracks through Sheffield, but still only half of the saving that building HS2 as planned offers.

OK, I've not worked out the London-Newark time diverting via Birmingham and Nottingham that Greengauge has the service doing. London to Toton is 52 minutes so London to Nottingham would be about 55 minutes, ~20 miles on upgraded classic track through Nottingham = ~12 minutes (after all it won't all be 125mph and we're starting from a stop, and we reach Newark only a couple of minutes quicker than now.

Now sure, if you are in the situation that lead to this idea for an ECML high-speed bypass, then sure, it's a good idea. But getting yourself into the situation is just silly.

Greengauge's plan is to begin with a downgrade and to then try and recover from it. It's clever because it says many sensible things to lure you into their narrative for a stupid downgrade, but the downgrade is still stupid.

 

[class26]

And on the Nottingham to Newark stretch you will have the all stations to Lincoln presumably ?

 

[CW2]

As I understand it, HS2's desire for a bespoke 1.2m platform height is because the faster you go the larger the wheel diameter needs to be. Having larger wheels means a higher floor level over those bogies, so to avoid a slope down into the seating area a higher floor level throughout is desirable.

 

[HSTEd]

In essence they are demanding that a primary advantage of HS2 - escaping our appalling loading gauge, be abandoned to save a few pennies on the cost.

 

[edwin_m]

As I understand it, HS2's desire for a bespoke 1.2m platform height is because the faster you go the larger the wheel diameter needs to be. Having larger wheels means a higher floor level over those bogies, so to avoid a slope down into the seating area a higher floor level throughout is desirable.

I'm not sure whether wheel diameter is a critical factor, but 1.2m is a typical floor height for high speed sets. For high speed sets the entrances are probably at the end of the vehicles, near if not above the bogies, so making them lower than the floor over the bogies would probably need a step not just a ramp.

 

[CW2]

It does bug me that Greengauge 21 have such a poor track record. Individually they are nice intelligent well-meaning people, but it seems that if you put them in a room together they reach critical mass and start spouting nuclear-grade drivel - of which this report is merely the latest in a long line. I don't dobt they mean well, but I wish they would put there energy, resources and undoubted talents to better use.
What was the last Greengauge 21 report that produced anything useful?
Apologies in advance if I'm coming across as a bit grumpy.

 

[squizzler]

It does bug me that Greengauge 21 have such a poor track record.

Only if you think that successfully lobbying government into an infrastructure programme that rivals the motorway building of the last century is somewhat 'meh'.

 

[si404]

start spouting nuclear-grade drivel - of which this report is merely the latest in a long line.

Nah, that's way too harsh. The Manchester report, perhaps. But this one isn't that bad as long as you ignore the bad master plan, and the terrible idea of downgrading the eastern leg that is central to that master plan.

Only if you think that successfully lobbying government into an infrastructure programme that rivals the motorway building of the last century is somewhat 'meh'.

Indeed, but that was some time ago. I know we'd talk about every crazy crayon scheme here, even if it's mostly to laugh. But Greengauge still (rightly) carry some weight - I wouldn't have bothered spending effort pointing out flaws if they were just a joke outfit with neither credibility or clout.

 

[CW2]

Nah, that's way too harsh. The Manchester report, perhaps. But this one isn't that bad as long as you ignore the bad master plan, and the terrible idea of downgrading the eastern leg that is central to that master plan.
Indeed, but that was some time ago. I know we'd talk about every crazy crayon scheme here, even if it's mostly to laugh. But Greengauge still (rightly) carry some weight - I wouldn't have bothered spending effort pointing out flaws if they were just a joke outfit with neither credibility or clout.

It's precisely because they seem to carry some clout and influence that I get so annoyed by their reports. Somebody needs to take their crayons away.