Random Transport Chatter

Take a break from playing the game and chat here about real-world transportation issues!
dol422
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 114
Joined: 29 Dec 2015 20:06
Location: Scunthorpe

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by dol422 » 31 Jul 2019 18:08

It wouldn't be so bad if the government listened to what the people wanted instead of sorting out their own agenda that suits them.
Lambrini and coke is the way to go
I think I may need a mental institution
Take a look at: http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=74993

User avatar
Pilot
General Forums Moderator
General Forums Moderator
Posts: 7513
Joined: 04 Aug 2010 15:48
Location: Manchester

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by Pilot » 31 Jul 2019 19:06

dol422 wrote:
31 Jul 2019 18:08
It wouldn't be so bad if the government listened to what the people wanted instead of sorting out their own agenda that suits them.
See I'm the other way when it comes to HS2. Half the problems are caused too much by listening to what the people want, rather than actually getting the job done for the benefit of the people.

Huge Costs have been incurred by listening to the people. The 10 mile long tunnel under the Chiltern's is a massive example of this, as is the fact that HS2 takes a circuitous route on the Manchester branch, around the bulk of the Conservative (and former Chancellor, George Osboure's former) constituency of Tatton. Whilst I'm sure some tunneling would be required through the Chiltern's I have doubts over whether a full 10 mile long tunnel is needed, especially as it's intended to be Cut and Cover in the first place! But hey, can't spoil the views of those rural country folk with a train now can we?
Tatton Diversion.PNG
Tatton Diversion.PNG (771.27 KiB) Viewed 651 times
I also feel it is being marketed wrong. High Speed 2 is not about speed, that's just the benefit of a modern Intercity railway. HS2 is about Capacity. The West Coast Mainline, particularly on the south end, is full to bursting, whilst the East Coast Mainline has a huge pinch point at Welwyn Viaduct and North Tunnel. Upgrades to both of these would be costly, time consuming, hugely disruptive to the every day passenger, and not provide anywhere near as much additional capacity as High Speed 2.

User avatar
Redirect Left
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 6564
Joined: 22 Jan 2005 19:31
Location: Wakefield, West Yorkshire

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by Redirect Left » 31 Jul 2019 20:07

Pilot wrote:
31 Jul 2019 19:06
Upgrades to both of these would be costly, time consuming, hugely disruptive to the every day passenger, and not provide anywhere near as much additional capacity as High Speed 2.
I'm not sure if those people noted would be able to spread the load anyway, i imagine HS2 to be more expensive than an equivelant route on not the HS2 network.
Image
Worst Behaved IRC Member of 2008, 2009 & 2010 - Go Me!

User avatar
Pilot
General Forums Moderator
General Forums Moderator
Posts: 7513
Joined: 04 Aug 2010 15:48
Location: Manchester

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by Pilot » 31 Jul 2019 22:12

Redirect Left wrote:
31 Jul 2019 20:07
Pilot wrote:
31 Jul 2019 19:06
Upgrades to both of these would be costly, time consuming, hugely disruptive to the every day passenger, and not provide anywhere near as much additional capacity as High Speed 2.
I'm not sure if those people noted would be able to spread the load anyway, i imagine HS2 to be more expensive than an equivelant route on not the HS2 network.
I feel you're failing to see the fact that HS2 will likely see twice as many users as the equivalent conventional routes today, as an example, Virgin Trains West Coast currently carry 40 million passengers across all routes in a year. HS2 is expected to carry more than twice that per year. So, whilst the running costs in general may be higher, by carrying two (and potentially three) times as many passengers as the conventional routes today, you are halving (or more) the costs per passenger. As such, I imagine it is likely the fares will remain at a similar level as the conventional service.

High Speed 2 could also see fares on commuter routes in/out of Euston, with a lesser impact on St Pancras and Kings Cross too, reduced. This is because more commuter trains would be able to run in place of the bulk of the Intercity services that currently run on the route (an Intercity service would likely remain on the traditional routes for places such as Milton Keynes, but it would be greatly reduced).

User avatar
Redirect Left
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 6564
Joined: 22 Jan 2005 19:31
Location: Wakefield, West Yorkshire

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by Redirect Left » 31 Jul 2019 23:19

Pilot wrote:
31 Jul 2019 22:12
High Speed 2 could also see fares on commuter routes in/out of Euston, with a lesser impact on St Pancras and Kings Cross too, reduced. This is because more commuter trains would be able to run in place of the bulk of the Intercity services that currently run on the route (an Intercity service would likely remain on the traditional routes for places such as Milton Keynes, but it would be greatly reduced).
I really fail to see the Government, or TOCs reducing any fares, even if things do work out cheaper :p
Image
Worst Behaved IRC Member of 2008, 2009 & 2010 - Go Me!

User avatar
Geo Ghost
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6272
Joined: 25 Oct 2004 10:06
Location: Hertfordshire
Contact:

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by Geo Ghost » 31 Jul 2019 23:34

Pilot wrote:
31 Jul 2019 19:06
whilst the East Coast Mainline has a huge pinch point at Welwyn Viaduct and North Tunnel.
I cannot describe my level of irritation and hatred for that bloody bit of line!

Right Time from Kings cross and either R/T or early all the way till Welwyn Garden, R/T departure from there.... and Welwyn North 4-6 minutes late.
EVERY. DAMN. TIME.


The whole 10-mile tunnel under the Chilterns I honestly thought was an Alan Fry type joke when I first heard about it...

User avatar
YNM
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 3542
Joined: 22 Mar 2012 11:10
Location: West Java

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by YNM » 01 Aug 2019 00:11

Pilot wrote:
31 Jul 2019 19:06
I also feel it is being marketed wrong. High Speed 2 is not about speed, that's just the benefit of a modern Intercity railway. HS2 is about Capacity.
Why was the route designed for 400 kph / 250 mph then ?

You would get more capacity if you made more tracks - reopening GCR with express and slow lines would make up to it. You don't need to free up as many lands, there'd be less environmental impact (as the whole thing was a railway anyway), local communities would fall in support of it since they get local railways.

Plus, being faster past a certain point means less capacity - London Underground manages 36 tph by going nearly at a snail's pace and is pretty much on the peak of capacity, but you probably wouldn't do 36 tph in one HS2 track since you need more space between trains. Same applies to roads and everything.
YNM = yoursNotMine - Don't get it ?
「ヨーッスノットマイン」も合うでしょう。

User avatar
Pilot
General Forums Moderator
General Forums Moderator
Posts: 7513
Joined: 04 Aug 2010 15:48
Location: Manchester

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by Pilot » 01 Aug 2019 10:48

YNM wrote:
01 Aug 2019 00:11
Why was the route designed for 400 kph / 250 mph then ?
Because, you can attract more customers from other forms of transport with increased speed. Domestic Airtravel is still a thing in the UK. HS2 will help reduce London-Manchester journey times to an hour and 10 mins (from 2 hours and 8 mins now), and London-Glasgow to 3 and a half hours (from 4.5). This reduces the need for the Domestic Shuttle flights, as the speed argument becomes less and less. (I believe JamieLei did something which showed just how close the Air vs. Train speed was for London-Glasgow atm, HS2 gives the train the edge).
YNM wrote:
01 Aug 2019 00:11
You would get more capacity if you made more tracks - reopening GCR with express and slow lines would make up to it. You don't need to free up as many lands, there'd be less environmental impact (as the whole thing was a railway anyway), local communities would fall in support of it since they get local railways.
Except it wouldn't. As soon as the GCR hits Aylesbury, you're back on the current routes. One of these is shared with, and owned by, the London Underground from Amersham, and thus doesn't have huge amounts of spare capacity. The other is a single track line to Risborough, then along the busy Chiltern Mainline from there. The GCR also does not connect very nicely with Birmingham or Manchester, the second and third largest cities in the UK, which are some of the biggest areas needing the additional capacity that HS2 offers. The GCR also wasn't designed as a four track railway, which would require significant works to adapt the old alignment for a four track railway. As for local railways, they too are being re-opened, see East-West Rail as an example.
YNM wrote:
01 Aug 2019 00:11
Plus, being faster past a certain point means less capacity - London Underground manages 36 tph by going nearly at a snail's pace and is pretty much on the peak of capacity, but you probably wouldn't do 36 tph in one HS2 track since you need more space between trains. Same applies to roads and everything.
You wouldn't need 36tph on HS2 either. The plan is for 15tph leaving Euston, which is more than the 10tph Intercity services that currently leave Euston in the evening peak. That's 5 more trains per hour from the outset, and a large number of HS2 trains will be able to be double decked, running solely on the High Speed Network.

Additionally, because all trains are able to do the same speed, it increases capacity as a fast train isn't having to slow down from catching up to a slower train in front of it. This currently happens on a daily basis on the West Coast Mainline, where a 125mph Virgin service will catch up to a 110mph LNWR Regional Express style service on the Fast lines. Most of these have to run on the Fast lines until north of Tring, as there isn't spare capacity on the slows to run these with the commuter trains that terminate at Tring as well. I believe someone on these forums did a brilliant break down of how the Virgin and LNWR services worked on the fast lines out of Euston. If I remember correctly, each LNWR service needed somewhere in the region of an 8 minute gap behind to reduce the chance of a Virgin service catching up to it, whilst two Virgin services can be as close as 3 minutes behind each other leaving Euston (increasing to a 4 minute gap between them not far out of London).
Geo Ghost wrote:
31 Jul 2019 23:34
Pilot wrote:
31 Jul 2019 19:06
whilst the East Coast Mainline has a huge pinch point at Welwyn Viaduct and North Tunnel.
I cannot describe my level of irritation and hatred for that bloody bit of line!

Right Time from Kings cross and either R/T or early all the way till Welwyn Garden, R/T departure from there.... and Welwyn North 4-6 minutes late.
EVERY. DAMN. TIME.
Yep, doesn't surprise me! Something really needs doing with that stretch, although what can be done, I'm not too sure.
Geo Ghost wrote:
31 Jul 2019 23:34
The whole 10-mile tunnel under the Chilterns I honestly thought was an Alan Fry type joke when I first heard about it...
Ha! If only that were the truth!

User avatar
YNM
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 3542
Joined: 22 Mar 2012 11:10
Location: West Java

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by YNM » 01 Aug 2019 13:37

Pilot wrote:
01 Aug 2019 10:48
... You can attract more customers from other forms of transport with increased speed. Domestic Airtravel is still a thing in the UK.
Yeah, but you don't need 400 kph / 250 mph for it.

In fact, HS2 is planned to run at 330 kph. On a 400 kph-designed alignment.

The Japanese managed to run 285 kph on a track originally designed for 210 kph. Heck, their minimum curve standard are tighter than what Network Rail would give, I tried them myself.
Pilot wrote:
01 Aug 2019 10:48
As soon as the GCR hits Aylesbury, you're back on the current routes. One of these is shared with, and owned by, the London Underground from Amersham, and thus doesn't have huge amounts of spare capacity. The other is a single track line to Risborough, then along the busy Chiltern Mainline from there.
Well, they tunneled under WCML, why not under GCML ? You can make the route straighter while at it. Plus the dual-tracked section can be quadruple-tracked while at it. GCR did plan for the entirety of their London Extension to be quadruple-tracked.
Pilot wrote:
01 Aug 2019 10:48
The GCR also does not connect very nicely with Birmingham or Manchester, the second and third largest cities in the UK, which are some of the biggest areas needing the additional capacity that HS2 offers. The GCR also wasn't designed as a four track railway, which would require significant works to adapt the old alignment for a four track railway.
You think HS2 is going to feature trains through Birmingham city center when it's completed ? No it wouldn't - most of the trains are going to just stop at the interchange station, then they're going to have to board a shuttle train.

GCR did plan their London Extension trackage to be quadruple-tracked. And back in the day, they ran among the fastest service between Manchester and London.

I am well aware however that the tunnels that GCR had underneath the Pennines woild have to be rebuild... but where's Northern Powerhouse when you need them ?
Pilot wrote:
01 Aug 2019 10:48
The plan is for 15tph leaving Euston, which is more than the 10tph Intercity services that currently leave Euston in the evening peak. That's 5 more trains per hour from the outset, and a large number of HS2 trains will be able to be double decked, running solely on the High Speed Network.
Service are initially projected to be 4tph peak-time and 3tph peak time. And you would still not have local train service for the populace around the line.

GCR was designed to continental european structure gauge. HS2 in the meanwhile will still have to run it's train on the conventional network while Phase 2A and 2B is being constructed. Not to say this wouldn't happen for the gradual reopening of GCR, but given you need more works to be done preparing things from scratch, it's better to try and reuse something.

We haven't even mentioned the Trans-Pennine HSR. Reopening GCR would give an immediate answer in a single step, since they had branches to both sides which connects to each other.
Pilot wrote:
01 Aug 2019 10:48
Additionally, because all trains are able to do the same speed, it increases capacity as a fast train isn't having to slow down from catching up to a slower train in front of it. This currently happens on a daily basis on the West Coast Mainline, where a 125mph Virgin service will catch up to a 110mph LNWR Regional Express style service on the Fast lines. Most of these have to run on the Fast lines until north of Tring, as there isn't spare capacity on the slows to run these with the commuter trains that terminate at Tring as well.
Well... maybe this one is more to the franchising and rolling stock allocation. What if, say, all of the 110 mph or 100 mph trains be replaced with 125 mph ones ? The Intercity Express Programme is still running, you know.

I'm still glad for the East-West rail and such schemes. But honestly, given what HS2 entails in it's entirety, and the fact that an equivalent has existed since the 1900s, it's a bit tingling not to try to think of simply reopening and improving an existing alignment.

________

Geo Ghost wrote:
31 Jul 2019 23:34
Pilot wrote:
31 Jul 2019 19:06
whilst the East Coast Mainline has a huge pinch point at Welwyn Viaduct and North Tunnel.
I cannot describe my level of irritation and hatred for that bloody bit of line!

Right Time from Kings cross and either R/T or early all the way till Welwyn Garden, R/T departure from there.... and Welwyn North 4-6 minutes late.
EVERY. DAMN. TIME.
Yep, doesn't surprise me! Something really needs doing with that stretch, although what can be done, I'm not too sure.[/quote]
Maybe a new alignment ? Kind of what they did between Purley and Redhill.
YNM = yoursNotMine - Don't get it ?
「ヨーッスノットマイン」も合うでしょう。

User avatar
Pilot
General Forums Moderator
General Forums Moderator
Posts: 7513
Joined: 04 Aug 2010 15:48
Location: Manchester

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by Pilot » 01 Aug 2019 14:28

YNM wrote:
01 Aug 2019 13:37
Pilot wrote:
01 Aug 2019 10:48
As soon as the GCR hits Aylesbury, you're back on the current routes. One of these is shared with, and owned by, the London Underground from Amersham, and thus doesn't have huge amounts of spare capacity. The other is a single track line to Risborough, then along the busy Chiltern Mainline from there.
Well, they tunneled under WCML, why not under GCML ? You can make the route straighter while at it. Plus the dual-tracked section can be quadruple-tracked while at it.
And where is your capacity for trains terminating in London? Marylebone is too full as it is, and Paddington is busy too. Euston is the only place with spare capacity. As for tunnelling under the WCML, there are no current mainline tunnels under it for any significant length, whilst HS2 will not remain under the WCML for long. Such a tunnel under the current GC route would also be significantly longer than the proposed HS2 tunnel out of London (Aylesbury is 36 miles from London as the crow flies), the two proposed long tunnels on HS2 are only 18 miles combined, and only required to be wide enough for two tracks rather than the four your propose for a GCML one.
YNM wrote:
01 Aug 2019 13:37
HS2 is planned to run at 330 kph. On a 400 kph-designed alignment.
Future-proofing is good. It's cheaper in the long term to spend the money in the original project than do it at a later point.
YNM wrote:
01 Aug 2019 13:37
You think HS2 is going to feature trains through Birmingham city center when it's completed ? No it wouldn't - most of the trains are going to just stop at the interchange station, then they're going to have to board a shuttle train.
Trains for Birmingham will run to the City Centre at Curzon Street, whilst those for further north (Manchester, Leeds, etc.) will pass by and stop at the Interchange station. Much like today where trains for Manchester, Liverpool and the Scottish Expresses, don't go into Birmingham and pass on the Trent Valley lines.
YNM wrote:
01 Aug 2019 13:37
Service are initially projected to be 4tph peak-time and 3tph peak time. And you would still not have local train service for the populace around the line.
That's the service purely for Birmingham Curzon Street for Phase One. By comparison, current numbers for the express service today are two 9-11 car trains (one continuing to Scotland) and one 5-car train which continues to Shrewsbury. As such, HS2 offers a capacity increase on the current service, especially when the HS2 trains will be double deck. And again, you mention local trains - one thing I would suggest is looking at the area HS2 passes through. There is no major population centre near the line in the area HS2 passes through, and increased local services on current lines will be more than capable to handle the displaced passengers from the Intercity Trains that are moved to HS2. As for local trains on the GCR, one of the main reasons they built the route through the areas they did was also due to a lack of major population centres to the south of Rugby. It's part of the reason the GCML was closed. Because it was only an express route, with limited benefit to local people. Brackley was the biggest town between Rugby and Aylesbury. It's a town of just 13,000 people today.
YNM wrote:
01 Aug 2019 13:37
GCR was designed to continental european structure gauge. HS2 in the meanwhile will still have to run it's train on the conventional network while Phase 2A and 2B is being constructed. Not to say this wouldn't happen for the gradual reopening of GCR, but given you need more works to be done preparing things from scratch, it's better to try and reuse something.
GCR route trains would only be able to be of a Continental Loading Gauge between London and Sheffield. The Woodhead route was not built for Continental Gauge. As such, you would have even more of a problem reopening the GCR. And yet again, you are ignoring the fact that the GCR alignment doesn't run to, or even very near to, Birmingham, the UKs Second City, which needs huge capacity increases. The closest it gets is Rugby. Additionally, the narrower loading gauge trains would likely be re-deployed to a greater service level offered on the Classic Compatible routes, whilst another batch of larger loading gauge trains would be used to run the Manchester and Leeds services. It's worth noting that some of the GCR alignment is being used, because for that section, it makes sense to use the old GCR alignment. It doesn't for the entirety of the GCR route however because of some of the reasons highlighted above.
YNM wrote:
01 Aug 2019 13:37
We haven't even mentioned the Trans-Pennine HSR. Reopening GCR would give an immediate answer in a single step, since they had branches to both sides which connects to each other.
Except it wouldn't - The GCML ended at Sheffield. That isn't Manchester or Leeds, the two places proposed for a Transpennine High Speed route to link between. And you don't want to route every single High Speed service between Manchester and Leeds via Sheffield either. HS2 would itself have two branches, that HS3 would connect the two ends of.
YNM wrote:
01 Aug 2019 13:37
Well... maybe this one is more to the franchising and rolling stock allocation. What if, say, all of the 110 mph or 100 mph trains be replaced with 125 mph ones ? The Intercity Express Programme is still running, you know.
Lol, you're now seriously proposing replacing 350s, which have high passenger throughput and are perfect for the work that they do, with IETs. That's such an Alan Fry-esque comment. Horses for Courses. 350s are the horses required for the courses they run. IETs would have increased dwell times, and at the smaller stations the LNWR services call at, would just not work.
YNM wrote:
01 Aug 2019 13:37
I'm still glad for the East-West rail and such schemes. But honestly, given what HS2 entails in it's entirety, and the fact that an equivalent has existed since the 1900s, it's a bit tingling not to try to think of simply reopening and improving an existing alignment.
The GCR isn't even close to being HS2s Equivalent. It's a poor solution to a major problem. It doesn't serve three of main destinations of HS2 directly, and has even been built over in many places (see Nottingham Victoria as an example). We need a new build route, not a half arsed attempt at re-opening an old one, which would be far, far worse. HS2 isn't about getting from the North to the South quickly. It's about relieving pressure on the West Coast Mainline. As such, it needs to go to the main population centres served by the WCML (i.e. Birmingham and Manchester). The Great Central route does not do that properly, which is why a new route is required. Additionally, HS2 will allow pressure to be relieved on the stupidly busy CrossCountry services, by servicing Birmingham - Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds routes, something again that the GCR route wouldn't be able to do.

User avatar
YNM
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 3542
Joined: 22 Mar 2012 11:10
Location: West Java

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by YNM » 01 Aug 2019 15:46

Pilot wrote:
01 Aug 2019 14:28
And where is your capacity for trains terminating in London?
Well, GCML does have tracks to WCML... I'm not saying we don't need bigger terminus.
Pilot wrote:
01 Aug 2019 14:28
Future-proofing is good. It's cheaper in the long term to spend the money in the original project than do it at a later point.
True, but why not 4-tracks HS2 then ?
Pilot wrote:
01 Aug 2019 14:28
Trains for Birmingham will run to the City Centre at Curzon Street, whilst those for further north (Manchester, Leeds, etc.) will pass by and stop at the Interchange station.
Yeah, but the numbers for trains to Birmingham will still be less than the trains to Manchester. So you have a 50-50 chance of transferring.
Pilot wrote:
01 Aug 2019 14:28
And again, you mention local trains - one thing I would suggest is looking at the area HS2 passes through.

As for local trains on the GCR, one of the main reasons they built the route through the areas they did was also due to a lack of major population centres to the south of Rugby.
Well, why destroy more houses ? I know there are some considerable number of houses (and I think some whole village) that it passes through. I also know that the preliminary route so far for Phase 2A and Phase 2B would require major realignment of some busy motorways...
Pilot wrote:
01 Aug 2019 14:28
GCR route trains would only be able to be of a Continental Loading Gauge between London and Sheffield. The Woodhead route was not built for Continental Gauge. As such, you would have even more of a problem reopening the GCR. And yet again, you are ignoring the fact that the GCR alignment doesn't run to, or even very near to, Birmingham, the UKs Second City, which needs huge capacity increases.
Well, if we divert the Manchester trains to a reopened GCML, maybe WCML would be emptier ? Just saying.

And yeah it would mean upgrading some existing lines to the larger gauge. A bit of PITA I guess given how Network Rail is already panting to just even put up OHLEs.
Pilot wrote:
01 Aug 2019 14:28
The GCML ended at Sheffield.
Well, MS&LR route then. Yeah it'd need new tunnels through the Pennines.
Pilot wrote:
01 Aug 2019 14:28
replacing 350s
Ah, I see. I thought they'd be as "long distance", they're more like "terribly extended commuters".
Pilot wrote:
01 Aug 2019 14:28
We need a new build route, not a half arsed attempt at re-opening an old one, which would be far, far worse.
I'd agree actually. I'm just saying they could've picked better lines, ones that doesn't have to dig a new 40 m deep cutting, or relocate major motorways.
Pilot wrote:
01 Aug 2019 14:28
Additionally, HS2 will allow pressure to be relieved on the stupidly busy CrossCountry services, by servicing Birmingham - Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds routes, something again that the GCR route wouldn't be able to do.
They'd be able to do that if there's a new tunnel through the Pennines. HS3 would probably have one.

I'm all for having more railways, but at least I'd want it to be decent. HS2 as it stands is a bit weird. Same stuff with the Jakarta - Bandung HSR, which will be quite obscene for the valleys. Maybe you should've tried contacting the japanese, they just, like, tunnel through everything and hides it all away. The dutch also tunneled under a plain that they know is fertile and productive.
YNM = yoursNotMine - Don't get it ?
「ヨーッスノットマイン」も合うでしょう。

User avatar
Geo Ghost
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6272
Joined: 25 Oct 2004 10:06
Location: Hertfordshire
Contact:

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by Geo Ghost » 05 Aug 2019 19:32

Pilot wrote:
01 Aug 2019 10:48
Yep, doesn't surprise me! Something really needs doing with that stretch, although what can be done, I'm not too sure.
To my knowledge, I think everything has been considered.

* Stack another two lines on top of the other
Bridge I believe cannot be altered, and it's doubtful if it'll take the weight.

* Dropping down, going under.
Theoretically possible, but would need the track to start dropping down quite far back either side, of course increasing the cost and disruption whilst building to obscene amounts.

* Building another bridge to the East side
Hahahaha. Have you seen the sizes of the houses there? Good luck buying those out!

*Building another bridge to the West side.
Cheaper than above, but then the issue of buying land, view of the viaduct becomes obscured, losing a number of houses, digging a new bore, extending the station. The only real possible option for 4-track all the way, but highly unlikely.

However another option is to leave Digswell viaduct as it is and instead have 4-tracks into Welwyn North station. Then down to two over the flyover. This then means that stopping services will never hold up the mainline whilst in the station and can flow onto/off the fasts with ease. Although again, that means two new tunnel bores, probably removing some houses, rebuilding Welwyn North station, etc

So yeah in conclusion... gewd knows how they'd do it! :lol:

User avatar
Ameecher
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 11907
Joined: 12 Aug 2006 15:39
Location: MK UK
Contact:

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by Ameecher » 06 Aug 2019 20:40

Geo Ghost wrote:
31 Jul 2019 11:43
HS2 just gets more and more ridiculous.
When the plan originally was being thrown around, I was all for it and quite excited by the prospect. But since then, it's become something of a joke.

I still believe at the moment that we'd benefit more upgrading other small lines, mainlines, reopening some old closed lines to improve cross-country connections (such as the Oxford-Cambridge line that was being thrown around).
Hell, even ERTMS upgrade to mainlines would be a huge benefit in the long run.
ERTMS/ETCS is a sticking plaster until you can build more track, you're getting it on the ECML anyway soon.
Ultimately HS2 is eye-wateringly expensive, but ultimately you get a hell of a lot more bang for your buck than cocking about on the existing network. What I'm not advocating is building HS2 and sacking off development of the ECML, MML & WCML, but we should be tailoring those lines for their new uses post HS2 and that might be taking tilt off the WCML or 4 tracking more of the MML (and finishing electrifying it!)
Image

User avatar
Dave
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 17203
Joined: 26 Dec 2005 20:19
Location: Harringay, North London
Contact:

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by Dave » 06 Aug 2019 21:17

Rebuild the GCR!

Why?

Expensive, lumbering, circuitous. The northern bits that formed the construction to build it in 1901 may have a continental loading gauge, but between London and Aylesbury, and quite a bit beyond, the gauge is nothing of the sort.

GCR is not the answer.
Official TT-Dave Fan Club

Dave's Screenshot Thread! - Albion: A fictional Britain
Flickr


Why be a song when you can be a symphony? r is a...

User avatar
Geo Ghost
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6272
Joined: 25 Oct 2004 10:06
Location: Hertfordshire
Contact:

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by Geo Ghost » 09 Aug 2019 17:46

Well, the ECML is well and truly stuffed this evening.

That National Grid power 'blip' has seemingly knocked out practically every 700 and 717. Completely.
Trains are stranded everywhere!

User avatar
Ameecher
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 11907
Joined: 12 Aug 2006 15:39
Location: MK UK
Contact:

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by Ameecher » 10 Aug 2019 16:29

Dave wrote:
06 Aug 2019 21:17
Rebuild the GCR!

Why?

Expensive, lumbering, circuitous. The northern bits that formed the construction to build it in 1901 may have a continental loading gauge, but between London and Aylesbury, and quite a bit beyond, the gauge is nothing of the sort.

GCR is not the answer.
Not least because at the south end the bits of it that are left are full as well.
Image

User avatar
Kevo00
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5621
Joined: 07 Feb 2004 01:51
Location: East Coast MainLine

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by Kevo00 » 15 Aug 2019 00:49

I believe the whole thing about the GCR having a continental loading gauge is an urban myth, no?

HS2 is already suffering from the typical problems of a megaproject - going over budget and having new objectives loaded onto it. I'd still say it's the best hope we have of sorting out capacity problems on the routes north from London though.

User avatar
YNM
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 3542
Joined: 22 Mar 2012 11:10
Location: West Java

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by YNM » 16 Aug 2019 19:24

I question they'd still maintain the loading gauge today, and if anything the current continental gauge is probably larger than what it used to be.


I do agree that in any case that the UK does need serious upgrades to it's railway network - even new lines entirely. But I'm just saying that they could've taken a different approach to the alignments.
Last edited by YNM on 17 Aug 2019 11:13, edited 1 time in total.
YNM = yoursNotMine - Don't get it ?
「ヨーッスノットマイン」も合うでしょう。

User avatar
Geo Ghost
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6272
Joined: 25 Oct 2004 10:06
Location: Hertfordshire
Contact:

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by Geo Ghost » 16 Aug 2019 20:03

Gentlemen, gentlemen...

We're of course missing the obvious of what should be done instead of HS2...
Replace all trains with Pendolinos.
TAFE.png
TAFE.png (407.51 KiB) Viewed 106 times
Those who were there... will remember. The mighty battle of the Fry.

User avatar
Pilot
General Forums Moderator
General Forums Moderator
Posts: 7513
Joined: 04 Aug 2010 15:48
Location: Manchester

Re: Random Transport Chatter

Post by Pilot » 16 Aug 2019 20:35

Geo Ghost wrote:
16 Aug 2019 20:03
Replace all trains with Pendolinos.
Don't forget the cannon so as to allow Royal Mail to fire parcels to Orkney from Wick!

Post Reply

Return to “Real-World Transport Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests