The next UK HSR (High Speed Rail) project?

[HSTEd]

It's something like 320km to go from Waterloo (for sake of argument) to Exeter via Brighton and the south cost.

Even if we had a train stopping every 20km or so for an ~140km/h average speed, we would get a journey time of ~2hr20. Which is competitive with existing offerings.
With stops every ~30km for ~170km/h the journey time falls to only ~1hr55.

That's before we consider that for the ~110km west of Bournemouth there is precious little in the way of population centres, so that leg would be done rather faster.
20km stop pattern to Bournemouth and then none stop to Exeter would give you something like 90 minutes to Bournemouth (via ~135 minutes today) and about 1hr55 to Exeter, depending on top speed.
30km stop pattern to Bourneouth and the Exeter time shrinks to ~ 1hr40.

And that would be a stopping service.
The railways on Southern Region are so much slower than high speed units that you could shatter existing journey times just by running an all shacks metro at maximum frequency!

If you wanted to run non stop to Exeter you could get there in not much more than an hour!

 

[Meerkat]

I think modern costs have killed off future HS lines in England - to justify the cost you need journeys between big cities that could be speeded up a lot.
Better to go with bypasses and speed ups so that more of the mainlines are at 125-140 (which IMO is fast enough for the distances in England)
Though I could see the justification for a proper high speed line from Edinburgh to Glasgow via the Carstairs area (with the speed really to cover for the long way round) clear the current route for other I7C services and locals, and have a triangle junction so that the HS2 trains can use it (Motherwell wont be happy though...)

However if there is money sloshing about for big infrastructure I would rather build a shuttle gauge freight line from Folkestone to the North and freight lines from Felixstowe/Southampton to Birmingham. Anyone want to start a different thread!

 

[Bald Rick]

Better to go with bypasses and speed ups so that more of the mainlines are at 125-140 (which IMO is fast enough for the distances in England)

The issue with by pass lines is that you then miss stations. And if you are missing stations you could just do that anyway, and save 3-5 minutes a stop. The like for like comparison means that a bypass line would give you relatively little journey time gain, for a lot of cost.

 

[MattRat]

The issue with by pass lines is that you then miss stations. And if you are missing stations you could just do that anyway, and save 3-5 minutes a stop. The like for like comparison means that a bypass line would give you relatively little journey time gain, for a lot of cost.

Also a lot of this stuff was already tried on the WCML, and now here we are with HS2. It's a temporary measure at best.

 

[Meerkat]

The issue with by pass lines is that you then miss stations. And if you are missing stations you could just do that anyway, and save 3-5 minutes a stop. The like for like comparison means that a bypass line would give you relatively little journey time gain, for a lot of cost.

I was thinking more of bypassing slow bits (that may have local stops) - ie a straighter line missing out Cramlington and Morpeth.

 

[HSTEd]

On the south coast line concepts - it appears the only one of the southern termini with a particularly tenable approach for getting into a tunnel fairly rapidly is Victoria - it has tracks at street level for several hundred metres near and south of Battersea Power station, although I'm not sure where the Northern Line tunnels are in that vicinity.

Even if you have to go beyond there you can get into a tunnel long before Clapham Junction, which is better than Waterloo.

Problem is that the lines in question lead from the centre of the Victoria throat - which makes a rebuild to access them an interesting prospect at least.
Phasing the construction work is the real challenge, as Bald Rick as intimated, given that new stations are much easier to build than rebuilding ones.

And the middle of the Victoria throat is about as far as possible from the existing long platforms!

Relatively little demolition and sacrificing the carriage sidings on the west side of the station might allow for the throat to broaden enough for serious platform extensions, but its a major reconstruction programme.


I wonder if you could build the line from the country end so that allows the transfers of traffic to partially occur before the reconstruction of Victoria has to happen........

EDIT:
Anyone know what the building on the site of the old Victoria Central Signal Box is?

 

[The Ham]

On the south coast line concepts - it appears the only one of the southern termini with a particularly tenable approach for getting into a tunnel fairly rapidly is Victoria - it has tracks at street level for several hundred metres near and south of Battersea Power station, although I'm not sure where the Northern Line tunnels are in that vicinity.

Even if you have to go beyond there you can get into a tunnel long before Clapham Junction, which is better than Waterloo.

Problem is that the lines in question lead from the centre of the Victoria throat - which makes a rebuild to access them an interesting prospect at least.
Phasing the construction work is the real challenge, as Bald Rick as intimated, given that new stations are much easier to build than rebuilding ones.

And the middle of the Victoria throat is about as far as possible from the existing long platforms!

Relatively little demolition and sacrificing the carriage sidings on the west side of the station might allow for the throat to broaden enough for serious platform extensions, but its a major reconstruction programme.


I wonder if you could build the line from the country end so that allows the transfers of traffic to partially occur before the reconstruction of Victoria has to happen........

EDIT:
Anyone know what the building on the site of the old Victoria Central Signal Box is?

Presuming that Crossrail 2 is built or about to be built is there all that much to be gained from going to Victoria?

Now there's much to be gained from getting to an underground station, however that could be (say) South Kensington. Which would give you underground connections (a slightly different mix from Victoria), but without the need to do much more than abutt the underground station if getting under it was too difficult.

Alternatively look to see if you can get a line to Old Oak Common (with or without a stop at either Wimbledon or Clapham Junction to connect with Crossrail 2).

 

[MattRat]

Presuming that Crossrail 2 is built or about to be built is there all that much to be gained from going to Victoria?

Now there's much to be gained from getting to an underground station, however that could be (say) South Kensington. Which would give you underground connections (a slightly different mix from Victoria), but without the need to do much more than abutt the underground station if getting under it was too difficult.

Alternatively look to see if you can get a line to Old Oak Common (with or without a stop at either Wimbledon or Clapham Junction to connect with Crossrail 2).

I think Old Oak Common too. Not only could it possibly be made into a Terminus since it's all underground (easier to find extra space), you can also have through services from HS2. Now personally I'd rather those then connected to HS1 to Ebbsfleet before turning off, so Ebbsfleet could then become a true international station to connect to Eurostar, but I'm willing to debate it.

The only real issue you face, sadly, is politics, as politicians would want a proper Terminus in central London to funnel yet more people into the city.

 

[Bald Rick]

Anyone know what the building on the site of the old Victoria Central Signal Box is?

That‘s the National Audit Office. Also a future worksite for Crossrail 2 and safeguarded as such.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2022 ==

Now there's much to be gained from getting to an underground station, however that could be (say) South Kensington.

If South Ken, you would have to rebuild it, extensively, for passenger capacity.

 

[HST43257]

Apart from what is planned in the IRP, this is my ideal new high speed track

East Midlands HS2 Jn, South Kirkby Jn and Ravensthorpe to Ulleskelf
This is simply the finishing off of original HS2 and NPR plans, replacing Bradford with Huddersfield 4 track section and replacing East Midlands Hub with the Parkway spur and services north via South Kirkby Jn.

Darlington to Chester le Street and Newcastle to Glasgow via Edinburgh
This is simply high speed to Scotland as per HSUK plans

Cheltenham to Birmingham Curzon Street
Relieving the Bromsgrove to Birmingham route, especially since the Camp Hill Line could get stoppers soon - and speeding up SW-NE and SW/NW journeys

Manchester Airport to Wigan
Just a chord on the existing plans for HS2 and NPR to relieve Castlefield of some long distance services from Manchester to Lancaster and northwards


And then even more questionable:

Cambridge to Reading via Stansted, Stratford Int, Euston, OOC and Heathrow
Including HS1 through to Reading and relieving the WAML of Stansted Express, as well as speeding up GWML services and relieving Paddington to Reading of many fast services.

 

[BrianW]

If South Ken, you would have to rebuild it, extensively, for passenger capacity.

UnterHydeparkSouthKensingtonPalacegardensInternationalhauptbahnhoff

 

[HSTEd]

That‘s the National Audit Office. Also a future worksite for Crossrail 2 and safeguarded as such.

I managed to find a video of the approach, I think the NAO is the building behind that building, th e one I mean appears to be the "Victoria Maintenance Depot" for Network Rail. It seems the original signal box building still exists although is not a signal box any more.

UnterHydeparkSouthKensingtonPalacegardensInternationalhauptbahnhoff

Wouldn't we just call it London Albertopolis or something.

 

[Gostav]

I think modern costs have killed off future HS lines in England - to justify the cost you need journeys between big cities that could be speeded up a lot.
Better to go with bypasses and speed ups so that more of the mainlines are at 125-140 (which IMO is fast enough for the distances in England)
Though I could see the justification for a proper high speed line from Edinburgh to Glasgow via the Carstairs area (with the speed really to cover for the long way round) clear the current route for other I7C services and locals, and have a triangle junction so that the HS2 trains can use it (Motherwell wont be happy though...)

However if there is money sloshing about for big infrastructure I would rather build a shuttle gauge freight line from Folkestone to the North and freight lines from Felixstowe/Southampton to Birmingham. Anyone want to start a different thread!

I think it makes sense to compare with Chūō Shinkansen being built in Japan (first section is 285.6 km long between Shinagawa–Nagoya), where also have some opposition but mostly from the local government that the line will passes through and have not heard any news about environmental organizations breaking into the construction site or blocking construction vehicles or "eco-warriors" building camps for protect like happened in the UK.

 

[MattRat]

I think it makes sense to compare with Chūō Shinkansen being built in Japan (first section is 285.6 km long between Shinagawa–Nagoya), where also have some opposition but mostly from the local government that the line will passes through and have not heard any news about environmental organizations breaking into the construction site or blocking construction vehicles or "eco-warriors" building camps for protect like happened in the UK.

Also money hasn't disappeared into a bottomless pit in Japan. It's a real shame that we don't seem to have the same commitment to building high speed rail that other places do, when we could really benefit from it, if done properly.

 

[The Ham]

If South Ken, you would have to rebuild it, extensively, for passenger capacity.

However given how busy it can get that's not necessarily a bag thing anyway. Even so it would be significantly cheaper than a major rebuild of something in Central London.

 

[Bald Rick]

However given how busy it can get that's not necessarily a bag thing anyway. Even so it would be significantly cheaper than a major rebuild of something in Central London.

I don’t think it would.

 

[zwk500]

However given how busy it can get that's not necessarily a bag thing anyway. Even so it would be significantly cheaper than a major rebuild of something in Central London.

Rebuilding something under the West End is not going to be appreciably cheaper, especially given how close to major sites the various entrances to South Kensington are.

 

[WideRanger]

Also money hasn't disappeared into a bottomless pit in Japan. It's a real shame that we don't seem to have the same commitment to building high speed rail that other places do, when we could really benefit from it, if done properly.

I think it makes sense to compare with Chūō Shinkansen being built in Japan (first section is 285.6 km long between Shinagawa–Nagoya), where also have some opposition but mostly from the local government that the line will passes through and have not heard any news about environmental organizations breaking into the construction site or blocking construction vehicles or "eco-warriors" building camps for protect like happened in the UK.

We need to be careful about drawing too many comparisons with Japan HSR. Much of the opposition from local authorities is driven by the sense of 'unfairness' that the big shiny line is going to go through the local area (often deep underground) without providing stations. Much of this is driven by the extreme polarisation of those areas that are in the metropolises (or well connected to them), which continue to prosper, compared to rural areas which are suffering rapid depopulation. In that context, a station is an important prize, and so local governments are keen to use any levers they can.

Chuo Shinkansen is funded privately, based on anticipated revenues of both the Chuo Shinkansen and the existing Tokaido Shinkansen (which will be due major refurbishment in the next few decades). Ticket prices are very high, and the motorway network is pretty poor (and expensive to use), largely because of geography.

 

[Meerkat]

It's a real shame that we don't seem to have the same commitment to building high speed rail that other places do, when we could really benefit from it, if done properly.

Could we? AIUI we start from a much better place having had high speed (but not High Speed) mainlines since the 70's so the time gain isn't so dramatic, have a wide spread of destinations, and the distances aren't as great as in France or Spain combined with not having the advantage of those countries of having hundreds of miles of nothing to build them through.

 

[XAM2175]

We need to be careful about drawing too many comparisons with Japan HSR. Much of the opposition from local authorities is driven by the sense of 'unfairness' that the big shiny line is going to go through the local area (often deep underground) without providing stations. Much of this is driven by the extreme polarisation of those areas that are in the metropolises (or well connected to them), which continue to prosper, compared to rural areas which are suffering rapid depopulation. In that context, a station is an important prize, and so local governments are keen to use any levers they can.

Quite. There's the example of the Narita Shinkansen to consider as well.

 

[The Ham]

Rebuilding something under the West End is not going to be appreciably cheaper, especially given how close to major sites the various entrances to South Kensington are.

It depends on what you do.

For instance it could be possible to have the main station box sit South of the station, which would mean only needing to construct pedestrian tunnels under the station itself.

There could then be steps/lifts to the station platforms giving an alternative route off the platforms with then another connection up to the underground walking route (in doing so avoiding the need for significant changes to the existing access point).

By keeping it South could allow the southern entrance to connect with the hospitals in that area.

That's likely to be less access tunnels than would be needed if you were trying to connect with a few underground lines and a significant station.

Whilst there would be a need to avoid basements and other underground infrastructure there would be far fewer than of you were to try at (say) Victoria.

The other thing to note is that there are some green spaces in the area (some with significant areas of grass) which could aid with construction and would likely be an easier access point than trying to gain access around Victoria (unless you used that bit of green space about 800m North of there, which the owner may not be amused by like one of their predecessors!).

 

[zwk500]

It depends on what you do.

For instance it could be possible to have the main station box sit South of the station, which would mean only needing to construct pedestrian tunnels under the station itself.

There could then be steps/lifts to the station platforms giving an alternative route off the platforms with then another connection up to the underground walking route (in doing so avoiding the need for significant changes to the existing access point).

By keeping it South could allow the southern entrance to connect with the hospitals in that area.

That's likely to be less access tunnels than would be needed if you were trying to connect with a few underground lines and a significant station.

Whilst there would be a need to avoid basements and other underground infrastructure there would be far fewer than of you were to try at (say) Victoria.

The other thing to note is that there are some green spaces in the area (some with significant areas of grass) which could aid with construction and would likely be an easier access point than trying to gain access around Victoria (unless you used that bit of green space about 800m North of there, which the owner may not be amused by like one of their predecessors!).

Assuming the station isn't a deep-level bore but closer to the Stratford International setup, I just cannot see sufficient land being acquired for any amount of money the government would be prepared to fund.
You'd need to completely remodel the existing accesses to South Ken, probably build a new entrance a the other end of the station and totally remodel the way pedestrian flows to the museum connections move around the station.

Also, those green spaces are treasured by local residents. they are unlikely to give the railway access without something in return. Also your proposed station box is on the site of a Lamborghini showroom and block of flats, neither of which will be cheap to move/placate.

 

[HSTEd]

What about the Southeastern side carriage sidings south of Victoria?

You could slew the eastern lines around the new station, and that would allow you to cross the river and dive straight into a tunnel from street level near Battersea Power Station.

It's a good site but is unfortunately not a great site for London underground connections.

 

[Bald Rick]

For instance it could be possible to have the main station box sit South of the station, which would mean only needing to construct pedestrian tunnels under the station itself.

Even if this was a deep level bored ‘box’, it would need several entrances to get people up and down, and of course to build the thing. South of S Ken is of course Chelsea, and you know what happened when Crossrail 2 said they wanted to go there. A ‘London High Speed’ station be would be about 4 times bigger. The very best of luck!

What about the Southeastern side carriage sidings south of Victoria?

Nowhere near big enough.

 

[HSTEd]

Nowhere near big enough.

Well there is enough length if you allow the south of the station and throat to extend over the river, but that might spoil the view of the brand new fancy apartments in the power station - and require some pretty sharp turns to get the South Eastern side platforms around it.

It appears any option is going to need much demolition.

Unless ofcourse you can use the shorter journey times from hgih speed operation to justify a shift to metroisation and a consequent increase in platform utilisation.......

Finding space for four or even three platforms is likely a lot easier than eight...... (Fenchurch Street but high speed anyone?)

 

[MattRat]

What about the Southeastern side carriage sidings south of Victoria?

You could slew the eastern lines around the new station, and that would allow you to cross the river and dive straight into a tunnel from street level near Battersea Power Station.

It's a good site but is unfortunately not a great site for London underground connections.

Given the length of high speed projects, you'd probably have time to fit one in before the station opened.

 

[Irascible]

Is there even enough underground estate at South Ken and its neighbours ( what with all the pipework under central London in general ) to fit a station and it's approaches?

 

[The Ham]

Also, those green spaces are treasured by local residents. they are unlikely to give the railway access without something in return. Also your proposed station box is on the site of a Lamborghini showroom and block of flats, neither of which will be cheap to move/placate.

The green spaces would only be borrowed during construction and returned to their original state.

With regards to surface buildings, there isn't a need to relocate them. For example how many buildings were demolished to allow the construction of the stations along the Elizabeth Line?

Is there even enough underground estate at South Ken and its neighbours ( what with all the pipework under central London in general ) to fit a station and it's approaches?

Compare to a Central London location (for example any of the major London Stations) there would be quite a bit more space.

Of course South Kensington is one possible option, my preferred location would be to connect with HS2 at Old Oak Common. I was only using South Kensington as an example of a not quite Central London location which could be used instead by linking at least 2 outer hubs to provide good connectivity to a wider range of Central London locations.

Likewise if we were looking for a northern route (for example to run a HS route to Cambridge) you could run Old Oak Common, West Hampstead and then out of London. As that would give you Overground (possibly with the potential to increase capacity between there and Gospel Oak to widen its connectivity*), Jubilee line and Thameslink interchange.

*Assuming that it'll be tunneled from Gospel Oak. there could be scope to create a new underground line which connected through to stations to the SW of there. For example connecting through to Kilburn Park/Kilburn High Road, Westbourne Park, Shepherds Bush before heading to (say) Clapham Junction and then onto create a line serving South of the river (as a metro service, so off topic from the main thread, however linked as it could be useful in providing extra connectivity to the outer London hubs, not that would be that useful much further south than Clapham Junction, from then on it would be more based on providing underground connections among a new line)

 

[Bald Rick]

The green spaces would only be borrowed during construction and returned to their original state.

Doesn’t matter. It is still a very big deal.

With regards to surface buildings, there isn't a need to relocate them. For example how many buildings were demolished to allow the construction of the stations along the Elizabeth Line?

Hundreds.

 

[zwk500]

The green spaces would only be borrowed during construction and returned to their original state.

You can't put a 100s-years-old tree back in once you've cut it down...

With regards to surface buildings, there isn't a need to relocate them.

Not the buildings, the people and business. A high-speed station box is extremely unlikely to be a deep-level bored tunnel.