Need for Speed?

Post by **Dave** » 26 Mar 2007 21:40

I have to disagree. You can't change the fact that Britain would need a NETWORK of HSLs, not just a north-south mainline.

beeb375 · Post by **beeb375** » 26 Mar 2007 22:30

Indeed, and you say construction is cheaper than upgrades because there's no disturbance to existing lines, but if you want a station in a big city in a decent location, that's gonna cost a hell of a lot in demolition.

As for the 150% capacity of motorways, sure, but you wouldn't actually get that many people riding on them due to their inflexibility.

Parkey · Post by **Parkey** » 27 Mar 2007 07:02

Indeed, the Atkins study states that the development of HSLs would be a lot like the introduction of the motorway network. It would start with one or two lines but the end goal would be a network, and remember that the HSLs would be there to supplement existing lines, many of which are still quite adequate. The idea isn't to replace a motorway or an existing line, but to take pressure off them by carrying the intercity traffic.

At the moment the North-South route is the most pressing route. Reducing London-Scotland journey times to less than the magic number of 3 hours is a must if rail is to compete with domestic flights.

And yes there is definately going to be some disturbance entering city centres but conventional high speed rail wins over maglev in that it can potentially use sections of existing line and existing stations to do so. These can of course be expanded to cope with the increased traffic, like what's currently happening at St Pancras. There is, of course, always the possibility of tunnelling, as with the CTRL. Frankly if it's possible to build a HSL across south east England and into the centre of London it should be possible to build one anywhere else in the country!

Illegal_Alien · Post by **Illegal_Alien** » 27 Mar 2007 14:16

The TGV POS engines and the 3 Duplexcars with a new livery:

EirikhO · Post by **EirikhO** » 27 Mar 2007 14:34

Illegal_Alien wrote:The TGV POS engines and the 3 Duplexcars with a new livery:

Niiice

Parkey · Post by **Parkey** » 27 Mar 2007 15:21

Very artsey. Presumably the work of the same intoxicated artist who did the new First Great Western livery.

I'm not criticising! I'll have one of what he's having.

Post by **Dave** » 27 Mar 2007 17:12

Disagree again, Parkey.

You can't extend stations such as Birmingham New Street. You certainly can't add to Birmingham Snow Hill and Birmingham Moor Street is out of the question.

Land is at a premium these days so the chances of anything appearing in Birmingham are little to none.

I fancy that any HSL would completely avoid Birmingham. Not the way to treat our second city, is it really?

Ameecher · Post by **Ameecher** » 27 Mar 2007 17:15

Most HSL lines in Europe tunnel under cities or join the normal lines to run into the city centres (not a hope in hell of that happening in Manchester or Birmingham!). When you start tunneling costs spiral massively, not to mention max. speed is reduced by the build up of air pressure as the train travels through the tunnel.

Post by **Dave** » 27 Mar 2007 17:16

You won't be able to use New Street for a few reasons. One being that congestion is already massive (It deals with 200% of the trains it was designed for per day).

Parkey · Post by **Parkey** » 27 Mar 2007 18:10

Unfortunately the Atkins study doesn't go into the specifics such as Birmingham city centre. I know that New Street station handles more trains in a day than Heathrow does aircraft, so expanding it might be difficult or even impossible. Some might argue that the pressure on New Street is an argument in favour of more capacity through HSLs. I do remember a suggestion for a "Birmingham Grand Central" station somewhere, and indeed the idea of building on a different site is probably more plausible.

The thing to remember is that local councils are usually very accommodating when it comes to transport schemes if their area is set to benefit. The regeneration and investment they bring into the area can be huge. I suspect they'd bend over backwards to meet the deal that gives them business real estate 45 minutes from central London or Heathrow airport in their city centre. Heck, I bet even Canary Warf isn't 45 minutes from Heathrow!

Strangely enough the biggest concern the Atkins report had was environmental. Noise, disturbing natural habitats, etc.

Post by **Dave** » 27 Mar 2007 18:36

Curzon Street Station's Grade I listed building remains, and there is space behind it for any sort of railway development, but any such development would be for a terminus station.

andysine · Post by **andysine** » 27 Mar 2007 18:45

Dave Worley wrote:Curzon Street Station's Grade I listed building remains, and there is space behind it for any sort of railway development, but any such development would be for a terminus station.

That's not such a bad idea! If they built such a station to handle some of the cross country services and take some of the strain from New Street they could increase service frequencies. Besides, Curzon Street is ideally placed for Proof House Junction. If there was another site to the south of brum, they could set up a similar system, and cut the number of trains that actually pass through New Street.

Post by **Dave** » 27 Mar 2007 18:59

Great, except nearly all services from the South continue on to the north, except for alternate Pendolinos.

Local services, this might work for, but I'm worried about the current problem we have with accessibility in Birmingham City Centre... And I'm not sure it's THAT well placed for Proof House Junction... It's not easy to navigate at the best of times.

Alas, anything coming in from the London side of Birmingham local wise, would be good.

Ameecher · Post by **Ameecher** » 27 Mar 2007 19:05

Is there not a way that the terminal platforms at Moor Street could be electrified and locals heading south being diverted to there (I think it'd need more track work to be honest but it's an idea).

Post by **orudge** » 27 Mar 2007 19:16

Dave Worley wrote:I fancy that any HSL would completely avoid Birmingham. Not the way to treat our second city, is it really?

I thought Glasgow was the second city? Or Edinburgh? They always seem to change it. Glasgow was the second city of the Empire, at least... Birmingham is most likely the second city of England, at least.

Hmm, seems to shed some light on the subject. Interesting reading.

Post by **Dave** » 27 Mar 2007 19:23

Birmingham has the second largest population of all British cities.

Anyway.

Ameecher: That doesn't really help considering Moor Street's terminating platforms are at a direct right angle to all lines south into New Street. The other way may be an option but it would be extremely costly to bridge the gap.

jonnie47 · Post by **jonnie47** » 27 Mar 2007 19:26

looking at the tgv it looks good i cant see britain ever getting them as ther are to many commuter trains on the same tracks and also the hight of them it looks to tall for most of the britihs tunnels i no of but saying that GNER used the euro stars bet not at top speed though

Post by **orudge** » 27 Mar 2007 21:33

Dave Worley wrote:Birmingham has the second largest population of all British cities.

It wasn't just referring to population. But anyway, the Wikipedia article offers various views, that'll do.

Parkey · Post by **Parkey** » 28 Mar 2007 08:52

Aha! Found it

Birmingham Grand Central

Griff · Post by **Griff** » 28 Mar 2007 12:15

jonnie47 wrote:looking at the tgv it looks good i cant see britain ever getting them as ther are to many commuter trains on the same tracks and also the hight of them it looks to tall for most of the britihs tunnels i no of but saying that GNER used the euro stars bet not at top speed though

Naturally they would not and could not have run at top speed. The maximum line speed anyway in the UK is only 125mph i think..then its not for especially long distances. The track wasnt built to handle such fast trains.

Transport Tycoon Forums

Need for Speed?

Who is online