Stuck in the Past

[duggs95]

Does anyone else feel that a lot of people in Britain are stuck in the past when in comes to public transport? They object to the building of high speed rail network (TGV-like) in the UK stating that "the old HST 125 are good enough". THEY'RE NOT.

We desperately need a complete overhaul of our rail network which would involve new, fast, modern high speed trains for Britain - just like those that exist in France, Italy and Germany. It is the future of rail travel and we need to embrace it.

 

[ainsworth74]

Does anyone else feel that a lot of people in Britain are stuck in the past when in comes to public transport? They object to the building of high speed rail network (TGV-like) in the UK stating that "the old HST 125 are good enough". THEY'RE NOT.

Well it's not exactly a network seeing as currently it is only going to extend as far as London to the Channel and London to Birmingham with optional extensions to the North and Scotland.

But for me the reason not to spend billions on a dedicated high speed route is simply the money would be better spend on upgrading line speeds elsewhere where there is already stock that could take advantage of it. For example most modern stock can manage 100mph (Pacers and some Sprinters excepted) yet many many lines in UK have lower speed limits than that. Another example would be the Midland Main Line all the Inter-City stock there can manage 125mph highest line speeds I think are 110mph less for most of it. Better to spend the money on enabling existing rolling stock to take full advantage of its capabilities than building a new line and new stock. Or instead of that large scale electrification coupled with EMU purchases to allow replacement or cascading of older trains, improving capacity for far more people than HS2 will. For me a High Speed 'network' is something that would be nice to have, not a necessity.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

HS isn't for Britain - the recent Birmingham headliner did Bhm-Eus sub-1h10. We could improve our current system, using a fraction of the cost of HS2.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree with Ainsworth 74. I think High Speed may be very useful in future, however, we've entered a period in which railway spending will be heavily squeezed, and for me maintaining and improving the current network should be far and away the greater priority.

This is because the network in it's entirety is far more important to the economy and society as a whole than just a high speed inter-city network alone.

 

[jimrbrobinson]

I also agree with Ainsworth 74 on this. Definitely the first order of business should be to improve the network as a whole to maximise the speed of existing stock, and to be honest 90-100mph is probably adequate for many services if they are able to run up to that speed. The London-Channel Tunnel high-speed is primarily to allow some compatability for the continent, and is in my view a special case and should be considered outside of the general UK rail network in this case. I can see a point for higher speeds and shorter journey times for such as the ECML London-Edinburgh route and the WCML London-Glasgow routes, to provide a viable alternative to flying for the future, and perhaps one or two other 'maximum distance - limited stopping' routes. Frequent stopping routes will pretty much negate the advantage of faster stock anyway.

 

[Greenback]

Ainsworth74 is spot on,. It's not a case of living in the past. I think that MML and GWML electrification would be better than a high speed line from London to Birmingham at the moment. Obviously, those schemes would lead to HST's being replaced by modern electric trains.

I find it rather strange that you quote people as being against HS2 in order to retain the HST's. I don't think I've ever heard or read that given as a reason not to build the high speed line. Most of the reasons given not to build HS2 at the moment revolve around the other parts of the netwrok that need upgrading instead, particularly given that the WCML has just been upgraded!

 

[LE Greys]

As for HS2, we only need that if it can be plugged firmly into the network at multiple points and accept through-working by various intercity operators. Pathing a 125mph Voyager through 200mph HS trains (IC325 perhaps) might be a bit tricky, but it's possible. Tickets would have to be valid on both high-speed and classic lines, and track access charges would have to be reasonably competitive. If we don't have that, we will end up trying to overlay a new system on top of an old one, which will just breed problems.

 

[37401]

It's personal choice, some prefer a 125 others a TGV/373 thingy, at the end of the day it's all about the number of digits, any more than 5.....

 

[At_traction]

For me a High Speed 'network' is something that would be nice to have, not a necessity.

I totally agree. A dedicated, "ground up" high-speed network is of course something that is a bonus, but the priority should be one making the current high-speed connections to properly live up to their moniker, combined with a general improvement of other branch lines.

And although I don't generally "like" the sight of a forest of OH power infrastructure, that's what should nevertheless be spread and combined with the other improvements. Especially as the diesel-driven HS loco/rolling stock is with us for only so long despite engine updates. The first refitted 43s were MTUed in 2005 and will be retired in the foreseeable future. :cry:

As for the title's statement, I agree. There is very much that is stuck in the yesteryear , but as for rail travel itself, there's nothing that can't be brought to somewhat on par with (almost) anything abroad with money. "In the fullness of time", to paraphrase Yes Minister. I don't doubt the will to do that.

 

[9K43]

Bring back Mallard for passengers, and a shed load of
Austerity 2-8-0's and BV's for freight and a link to the
Isle of Sodor.(joke)

 

[sprinterguy]

I think it’s important that HS2 is being planned now, due to the long lead times involved in development before any construction work can begin. Most of the money being spent on HS2 at the moment is consultancy fees from the DfT, which would be of no use to upgrading the current rail network anyway. By the time preliminary construction starts on HS2, 2015 at the earliest, I can only hope that the economy will have recovered a bit so that the drain on funds that the construction process will inevitably be will not be so apparent.

Whilst I too agree that upgrading the current rail network is the more pressing matter, and that the various electrification schemes currently proposed will bring great benefits at a fraction of the cost of HS2, it is important that HS2 is being developed now as by the mid 2020s, the earliest date that the line could be operational, Britains’ railways will very likely be facing a completely different set of challenges to what they are now, and the introduction of a high speed rail service to take fast express trains off the classic routes and release capacity may be a more pressing concern.

There is a need to be proactive with a scheme as big as HS2, not reactive, by which time it would be too late.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bring back Mallard for passengers, and a shed load of
Austerity 2-8-0's and BV's for freight and a link to the
Isle of Sodor.(joke)

There already is a link to the Island of Sodor; if you recall one of the stories, Thomas made it to the NRM at York running via Carnforth by rail all the way: And Gordon’s express was a through service from London (He ended up at St. Pancras once and was very confused that “London wasn’t Kings Cross”)

On a related topic to your comment, I do think that the BR Standard steam types should have been retained beyond 1968 to work alongside the new diesels. Fewer non-standard and unreliable diesel designs would have been introduced at great expense if the standards had been retained to share the workload. The large freight locos, such as the 9Fs, would have been replaced by the class 56s and 58s, and the express passenger types would have gone when the HSTs were introduced in 1976. Of course, a lot of the smaller standard steam types for branch line operation would have been scrapped in the same way as actually occurred, as the lines were either closed under Beeching, and the introduction of DMUs would still have taken place in the same manner as it did. Just a bit of harmless digression!

 

[jon0844]

I agree. Planning should be carried out now, as we surely do need more routes as we get more growth (and eventually, people can't afford to drive or fly).

 

[LE Greys]

I totally agree. A dedicated, "ground up" high-speed network is of course something that is a bonus, but the priority should be one making the current high-speed connections to properly live up to their moniker, combined with a general improvement of other branch lines.

And although I don't generally "like" the sight of a forest of OH power infrastructure, that's what should nevertheless be spread and combined with the other improvements. Especially as the diesel-driven HS loco/rolling stock is with us for only so long despite engine updates. The first refitted 43s were MTUed in 2005 and will be retired in the foreseeable future. :cry:

As for the title's statement, I agree. There is very much that is stuck in the yesteryear , but as for rail travel itself, there's nothing that can't be brought to somewhat on par with (almost) anything abroad with money. "In the fullness of time", to paraphrase Yes Minister. I don't doubt the will to do that.

It'll be a pity to lose the HSTs, but I'm sure people probably said the same about the C1 Atlantics in the 1920s. The difference there is that the A1s were better, faster and more powerful, whereas most proposed HST replacements have been designed as like-for-like or smaller and lighter. What we really need is something better (which means more comfortable inside as well as faster, just in case someone who can make a difference is reading this). Still, HSTs are certainly getting on a bit now, even with MTUs, and probably most will be gone in a decade or two.

However, it's the local lines, especially in the north, that seem to be stuck in an eighties timewarp. They had two waves of new stock, Pacers then Sprinters, and suddenly stopped developing. 158s, Turbostars, 175s and now 185s pass them by. What we need there is a new family of local DMUs, with an EMU version as well for Merseyrail etc. That could just mean lightweight Desiros or 172s, but I would prefer to see something designed for the job, along the same lines as the Sprinter/317/455 family. That should be the priority, leaving intercity operators alone for a while, since it would benefit more people more quickly.

As for HS2, we only need that if it can be plugged firmly into the network at multiple points and accept through-working by various intercity operators. Pathing a 125mph Voyager through 200mph HS trains (IC325 perhaps) might be a bit tricky, but it's possible. Tickets would have to be valid on both high-speed and classic lines, and track access charges would have to be reasonably competitive. If we don't have that, we will end up trying to overlay a new system on top of an old one, which will just breed problems.

Don't know what happened to the rest of my post, this was only the last bit. Can't remember what I said now, so I'll just leave it.

 

[9K43]

At the end of steam it was a head long purge to get rid of steamers, same with the Vulcan bombers in the Falklands dispute.
BR shut miles of track, which they are now bringing back.
Sheffield got rid of trams and now they are running again.
The pits are all shut, we cant buy UK made railway waggons, they come from Poland.
Get shut of 56/60's wot do you know, we buy 66's from the Yanks then shut Donny Plant, etc etc etc
This country dashes in and messes it up, the 20+ years later some one has a bright idea, and spend millions of pound opening up pits and lay rails through city centres.
Give me the answer to that.

 

[Oswyntail]

I generally agree with those who say that incremental improvement is the most cost effective at present. But we really need a proper policy on what future provision should be. The only idea that is on the table at present is HS. IMHO this could be a knee-jerk reaction to its success on the continent and elsewhere. But conditions are very different there. Our conurbations are much closer together, and industrialisation and commerce tend to be spread more widely across the island. In other words, the benefits of HS could (and, note, I only say "could") be nullified by the need to include everything. Or risk those areas that are left out simply to enhance the overall benefits of HS becoming depressed backwaters. There could be other options, more suitable to the UK. For instance, off the top of my balding head, a programme of replacement conventional lines to replace the "Victorian Infrastructure", rather than trying to upgrade the present lot. Others could think of other plans. But we must not be fixated on the HS/current set up duality.

 

[Zoe]

Does Birmingham really need another link to London? It already has two motorways and two rail links.

 

[jon0844]

Does Birmingham really need another link to London? It already has two motorways and two rail links.

Some might argue that the existing rail and road routes should be severed.

 

[Geezertronic]

Does Birmingham really need another link to London? It already has two motorways and two rail links.

With respect, that sort of post is typical of someone who in my opinion misses the point. HS2 has never just been about decreasing journey times from London to Birmingham, not under the original Labour plans and not under the little detail the current Government has released...

 

[ainsworth74]

HS2 has never just been about decreasing journey times from London to Birmingham

Indeed it was also about increasing capacity, but how much capacity does one route need? It has two motorways and two rail links, yet now we need a 3rd rail link, at the expense of the rest of the country?

 

[Geezertronic]

Indeed it was also about increasing capacity, but how much capacity does one route need? It has two motorways and two rail links, yet now we need a 3rd rail link, at the expense of the rest of the country?

If you believe what you read, it is the WCML South of Rugby that will be "full" before too long with the extra patronage expected and the existing 8/12 car trains running at close to capacity (or the ones I see anyway) - that excludes any possible increase in freight traffic as well.

The motorway argument is irrelevant in my opinion as I certainly cannot afford to drive into and park in London (including congestion charge) on a daily basis and my company would not reimburse me. Even travelling as I often do on the M1 to St Albans by car is painful at best even with the widening by Luton (and those bloody roadworks close by too).

I don't buy into the "expense of the country" argument either. A decrease in London-Scotland rail journey times would surely be an "improvement for the country"? In my opinion, the Olympics is a better example of your "expense of the country" argument since it is primarily located in the South East of England with very little long term improvements to the "rest of the country"

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't buy into the "expense of the country" argument either. A decrease in London-Scotland rail journey times would surely be an "improvement for the country"? In my opinion, the Olympics is a better example of your "expense of the country" argument since it is primarily located in the South East of England with very little long term improvements to the "rest of the country"

Sure decreasing London-Scotland journey times would be an improvement for the country, if you consider the country to be London and Glasgow with a few lucky stops in-between and then ignore Wales, the North East, East Yorkshire, East Anglia and the South West. And seeing as the first phase of HS2 won't be delivered until sometime in the 2020s and that will only extend to Birmingham when will we actually see High Speed to Scotland? Not before 2030 I would wager. Whereas in that time we could make inroads in large scale electrification throughout the Great Britain which would benefit far more people than just those travelling between London and Scotland.

Agree with what you say about the Olympics.

 

[Zoe]

And seeing as the first phase of HS2 won't be delivered until sometime in the 2020s and that will only extend to Birmingham when will we actually see High Speed to Scotland? Not before 2030 I would wager. Whereas in that time we could make inroads in large scale electrification throughout the Great Britain which would benefit far more people than just those travelling between London and Scotland.

And remember this is the UK where we tend to do things piecemeal, it may well be the intention to extend high speed to Scotland but as with most things in this country the reality may be different.

 

[sTEAM Stewart]

The reason why we've not upgraded to HST........would another reason be because it's not practical in terms of space (and Mainland Britain is a lot smaller geographically than France or Germany too?) -just a thought

 

[ainsworth74]

And remember this is the UK where we tend to do things piecemeal, it may well be the intention to extend high speed to Scotland but as with most things in this country the reality may be different.

Indeed! Which is why I say I don't expect to see HS2 reaching Scotland till at least 2030 probably later and possibly never!

 

[Geezertronic]

Sure decreasing London-Scotland journey times would be an improvement for the country, if you consider the country to be London and Glasgow with a few lucky stops in-between and then ignore Wales, the North East, East Yorkshire, East Anglia and the South West.

Indeed! Which is why I say I don't expect to see HS2 reaching Scotland till at least 2030 probably later and possibly never!

But if a London-Scotland train ran via the London-Birmingham HS2 and saved even 1/2 hour on the jourmey time, that is a considerable improvement on what is on offer via the WCML/ECML currently bearing in mind that under the Labour plans, HS2 linked to the WCML at around Lichfield. Under these plans,
HS2 could effectively be used for any service currently offered by Virgin Trains (including London-Holyhead/Wrexham).

The proposal from the current Government (or the Conservatives at least) is to run HS2 from London-Birmingham-Leeds (apparently). This would free up paths on sections of the WCML & ECML but we'll have to wait for more info to know more (including running via Heathrow etc...).

HS2 all the way to Scotland does not need to occur before any improvements are seen.

 

[ainsworth74]

But if a London-Scotland train ran via the London-Birmingham HS2 and saved even 1/2 hour on the jourmey time, that is a considerable improvement on what is on offer via the WCML/ECML currently

So a saving of 30 minutes for a cost of £20bn (I think or is that Crossrail or in fact something else entirely! )? I still think I would rather be spending money on dealing with overcrowding in the North, Wales and the South West, or spending it on electrification on more mainlines like the MML and GWML than saving 30 minutes on journeys to Scotland.

 

[jon0844]

Besides improving signalling to allow trains to run closer together, how much would it cost to extend stations to allow 16 car trains, as against building a whole new line.

Is that a ridiculous suggestion, or a viable one given we have the line - but want more people to be able to travel.

Obviously extending platforms would cost loads, but it must still be a cheaper option in comparison?

 

[LE Greys]

At the end of steam it was a head long purge to get rid of steamers, same with the Vulcan bombers in the Falklands dispute.
BR shut miles of track, which they are now bringing back.
Sheffield got rid of trams and now they are running again.
The pits are all shut, we cant buy UK made railway waggons, they come from Poland.
Get shut of 56/60's wot do you know, we buy 66's from the Yanks then shut Donny Plant, etc etc etc
This country dashes in and messes it up, the 20+ years later some one has a bright idea, and spend millions of pound opening up pits and lay rails through city centres.
Give me the answer to that.

Politicians think in terms of revolution, not evolution. The problem is that evolution takes time, not something you can afford when you are thinking about the next election. To be honest, this dates back to nationalisation itself. The LNER had ordered a batch of diesels before nationalisation, and I believe that the GWR would have ordered both gas turbines and diesel hydraulics if left alone. It's hard to say what the Big Four would look like if they were still around today, but there would have been no chance of the railways being used as a political football as they have been for the last sixty-two years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Besides improving signalling to allow trains to run closer together, how much would it cost to extend stations to allow 16 car trains, as against building a whole new line.

Is that a ridiculous suggestion, or a viable one given we have the line - but want more people to be able to travel.

Obviously extending platforms would cost loads, but it must still be a cheaper option in comparison?

As an extension of this, how much does it cost to modify a route to W10 loading gauge so that hi-cube containers can use it? As an extension of this, is it possible to build a double-deck EMU that can fit through W10 loading gauge (assuming that you have the lower deck in a well between the bogies)? If it is, will we ever see such stock running into Waterloo? Now this might be a ridiculous idea or a sensible one, but it's worth looking at before lengthening stations (which would involve a lot of signalling modifications).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But if a London-Scotland train ran via the London-Birmingham HS2 and saved even 1/2 hour on the jourmey time, that is a considerable improvement on what is on offer via the WCML/ECML currently

So a saving of 30 minutes for a cost of £20bn (I think or is that Crossrail or in fact something else entirely! )? I still think I would rather be spending money on dealing with overcrowding in the North, Wales and the South West, or spending it on electrification on more mainlines like the MML and GWML than saving 30 minutes on journeys to Scotland.

I'm not even sure that it would save half an hour, considering the extra distance and the saving of twelve seconds a mile flat-out (assuming a top speed of 200mph vs 125mph). That's 150 miles to save 30 minutes. Acceleration and deceleration might also be improved, which might bring it down to 120 miles for 30 minutes, or 45 minutes for the 180-odd miles between York and London. The extra 60-odd miles would wipe out 15 minutes, while the inevitable stops at Leeds, Sheffield and Birmingham would wipe out another 15 minutes, leaving a saving of 15 minutes, or about the same as could be gained by running trains on the ECML at 140mph with tilt. If you allow for trains coming in to a station at Old Oak, as some plans suggest, then you lose the lot in the extended journey time by Crossrail. Therefore, 20,000 million for essentially zero savings. Only a short-cut to King's Cross later on would redress the balance, perhaps saving a full hour on current times. This is almost exactly how the GNR came about in the 1850s, as a short-cut to avoid a massive diversion between York and London (one plan was called the 'Direct North Railway'). I'm not entirely sure of my figures, but I think that's about right.

So, what could we do with that money instead? Electrify the Midlands (not just the MML), the West Riding and Lancashire. As a result, buy a lot more stock for the area, thus replacing a large number of DMUs, allowing them to be cascaded out to other areas. Would that not be of greater benefit to more people?

 

[AeroSpace]

So, what could we do with that money instead? Electrify the Midlands (not just the MML), the West Riding and Lancashire. As a result, buy a lot more stock for the area, thus replacing a large number of DMUs, allowing them to be cascaded out to other areas. Would that not be of greater benefit to more people?

If we're spending £20bn, let's upgrade the MML properly, WCML-style:

- Four-track the whole route
- Improve alignments and install tilt
- Electrify

Then operate a VHF service to Manchester and Leeds, via Sheffield.

This frees up a huge number of paths on the WCML and ECML, solving congestion and leaving enough room for 4hr paths from London to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

St Pancras might need a bit of extension...

 

[9K43]

I have a set of free passes for anywhere in the UK.
16 instances every year till I go on shed no more.
I would not use a free pass to go to London for all the tea in China, and if 125 mph int fast enough, well al stop at ome.
I've spent many years speeding about on the railways at 25 mph, and if I go over 90mph, me breathing stops.
On day one on the railway, I found that a 4 hour shift was the norm, and an old Hillhouse driver told me that NUR means no use rushing, and I always remember that. Rushing about is the quick way of getting no where.
The only time you'll see me rush is to sign off in 4 hours and go home.
The only path am bothered about is the one in my back garden wit weshin on it.