Do we need a high-speed line?

Goingnorth · Post by **Goingnorth** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 11:29 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2188086.stm

Quite franky yes. No real alternative is there? Really what should have happened is lines such as the west coast main line should have been modernised over a period of time rather than 'big bang' schemes that cost Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£.

With the west-coast main line modernisation costing Â£13bn, wouldn't it have been easier just to build a brand new line?

Kevo00 · Post by **Kevo00** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 12:40 pm

Shurely Shome Mishtake? The question should really be "Do we need a High Speed Line", as I wasn't aware that we had any to begin with!

Goingnorth · Post by **Goingnorth** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 12:54 pm

Well we don't....really! Apart from the forthcoming channel tunnel rail link!

Anyway I've changed the title...

TylerDurden · Post by **TylerDurden** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 4:24 pm

How about bringing the other lines up to scratch first, then maybe the rest of the trains will be ontime, and not just the fast ones, lol.

Goingnorth · Post by **Goingnorth** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 5:07 pm

That's what they've been trying to do! Trains will never, ever run on time by the way..it's not possible... We have several main problems:

Capacity
Staff shortages
Trespass and Vandalism
Bridge strikes
Worn out infrastructure
Suicides
Train failures

You can expand the network a bit and ease pinch points...which is costing Â£Â£Â£Â£. Recruit more staff...educate the public, which is being done but I think a TV campaign wouldn't go a miss....really nasty shocking stuff too..Educate lorry drivers, replace old equipment, but that's rather like painting the Forth Bridge, once you get to the other end you need to start again, and try to stop people killing themselves...easier said than done. All these things are being worked on, but a 100% reliable train service is just not possible in my view.

The new N-S LGV would be needed for the following reasons:

Increase transport capacity
Reduce journey times
Encourage business out of the SE
Increase reliability

Remember both the WCML and ECML are running to capacity right now. Projection estimate that transport usage will rise at least 20% across all modes in the next ten years. All motorways will be gridlocked during the day by 2015. So what next?

southcoasttrains · Post by **southcoasttrains** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 5:21 pm

Do we need a High Speed line?

I thought th ECML and the WCML were high speed lines.

Did the GCR go into Marylebone in London?

I read a report in Railnews a few months ago about somthing similar where trains would run between London and Scotland on a 200MPH HSL.

Channel Tunnel Line should be complete between Ashford and London.

TylerDurden · Post by **TylerDurden** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 5:22 pm

So what next?

Thats an easy one

, flying Cars and flying Trains, just like in 'Back To The Future'.

Or use a population control system like China, and reduce the number of imigrants, thus stopping the population from growing too big for the systems that suport it.

:drinking:

blackfour · Post by **blackfour** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 5:27 pm

Hmn, the answer would be a high-speed, overhead, aircraft-engine-propelled monorail, based on the Blennie system. Not only fast, but it can be built at half the cost of a normal railway line! Just up-date the technology, and away we go!
Spearmint

Goingnorth · Post by **Goingnorth** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 5:53 pm

You'll never have flying cars/trains whatever because of safety implications and energy consumption...at least in my life time anyhow. It's actually not very efficient in terms of space usage, and we're running out of that in some places. Usual sc-fi .. I take it you were joking!

As for the monorail...bit 1960s that. Doubt if it's half the cost of traditional steel wheels and rails. Very few sucessful monrails have been built and they are usually far more expensive and can carry far less passengers than a conventional railway.

Nothing wrong with a bit of steel wheel and rail, that's what I say!

BTW...in terms of land usage the Paris-Calias LGV uses 6.5 square km of land...that's compared to the 12 sq km of land that the main Paris Airport uses!

TylerDurden · Post by **TylerDurden** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 6:02 pm

I take it you were joking!

B.I.N.G.O and Bingo was his name'o.

Goingnorth · Post by **Goingnorth** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 6:02 pm

southcoasttrains wrote:
Do we need a High Speed line?
I thought th ECML and the WCML were high speed lines.

Did the GCR go into Marylebone in London?

I read a report in Railnews a few months ago about somthing similar where trains would run between London and Scotland on a 200MPH HSL.

Channel Tunnel Line should be complete between Ashford and London.

High-speed lines are supposed to be defined as lines carrying traffic over conventional speeds - IE 125mph

Yep the GC went from London Marylebone-Northolt (GW joint)-Ashendon Junction near Bicester-Brackley-Daventry area-Rugby-Leicester-Nottingham-Sheffield (then what was the Woodhead route)-Manchester.

It was built at the turn of the 20 century and is extremely well engineered.

Yep, WS Atkins is doing a study for the strategic rail authority at the mo, should be published soon. But we are a very poor relation to the rest of Europe in terms of this sort of thing, really lagging behind.

Kevo00 · Post by **Kevo00** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 6:04 pm

southcoasttrains wrote:I thought th ECML and the WCML were high speed lines.

They are in a UK context but speeds of 125mph and 110mph respectively are far behind what has been achieved on the continent. These lines are also impeded by the fact that other trains not capable of these top speeds(e.g. frieght, DMUs) travel on them as well. A true high speed route would have all trains travelling at a single high speed probably much higher than 125mph, although a considerable speed - up could infact be achieved on a High Speed Line which only carried 125mph trains. However starting again from scratch gives you the advantage of being able to install the very best in signalling and safety systems as well as track designed specifically for the trains, so speeds of up to and over 225mph are quite possible for this system (and maybe even higher in future). At 225mph you would put Leeds within about 1 hour from London Newcastle within about 2 hours of London and Glasgow within 3 - 4 hours of London, which is a big leap forward, especially as those time could be set in stone with fewer conflicts between different types of train (the type that give you a headache when creating activities for lines like GN's GNER route!).

warriorgoku · Post by **warriorgoku** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 12:55 pm

I believe the best thing to do is to do a major upgrade of the ecml and enable it for travel at over 200mph. London to Edinburgh, then round to Glasgow in 3-4hours.

southcoasttrains · Post by **southcoasttrains** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 1:02 pm

Most of GNER's stock is capable of doing 140 MPH, It's 15 MPH faster than the current speed limit.
What don't they build by-pass lines, like they have done in France for the TGV's & Thalys routes. These lines were build in a near straight line and ran for about 100 miles or more, would be usefull in Suburban areas where many trains run.

Goingnorth · Post by **Goingnorth** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 2:16 pm

warriorgoku wrote:I believe the best thing to do is to do a major upgrade of the ecml and enable it for travel at over 200mph. London to Edinburgh, then round to Glasgow in 3-4hours.

You can't really go much faster than 140mph on the ECML because of the curvature...and then only in certain places:

Sandy-Offord
Stoke Bank
Selby diversion
York-Darlington

That won't happen because of capacity - the line is already working at it's maximum thrash. Remember if you raise speeds you reduce capacity!

The MML and WCML are the same. The only real answer is to build a brand new ultra reliable line. It would follow motorway corridors, as the CTRL. Personally I would put something up the middle of the country to serve the maximum population. Problem with the ECML is it serves very little apart from Tyneside and West Yorkshire.