speeding up existing services with a bulldozer

[Killingworth]

There's a number of tunnels where the Victorian engineers failed to allow for W12 and electrification clearance that have lower speed limits than the rest of the line. The Farnworth treatment of filling with concrete and reboring them to modern standards would be my suggestion for Kinghorn and Killiecrankie, and many more. Aberdeen's Woolmanhill and Hutcheon street tunnels could be opened up for double tracking, W12 and electrification, more than for speed.

The OP said "a bit more out of the existing network with a little civils" but we're getting into some very major civils, well beyond a couple of men and a bulldozer!

Tunnels. We need to build three parallel tunnels alongside Totley, Cowburn and Disley to allow electrification to modern widest gauge standards, then reline and rebore the existing tunnels as necessary so both bores would take the fastest and biggest trains likely to use the route - currently restricted to 70 mph with container traffic apparently too big to pass through safely.

Against this, Hope Valley residents and tourists would not like the construction work, or extra freight trains, and cost would be enormous.

However, with the crayons out, costs justified and environmental opposition overcome, how about the new Cross-Pennine twin bore tunnels dead straight at base level from below Manchester Piccadilly to below Sheffield Midland? No gradients, no curves, no bridges, and no weather It could run under Glossop with a possible low level station below the existing station after a slight deviation. About 33 miles. Fast services between the two cities taking under 20 minutes. Now that's a seriously big project.

I concede that 3 new parallel bores alongside the old, or a brand new twin bored base tunnel all the way, would be expensive, and more than a 'little civils.' Sunday after lunch dreams, but would that they could happen.

Levelling up the North indeed. Far more practical than a North Channel tunnel to Northern Ireland.

 

[Bald Rick]

However, with the crayons out, costs justified and environmental opposition overcome, how about the new Cross-Pennine twin bore tunnels dead straight at base level from below Manchester Piccadilly to below Sheffield Midland? No gradients, no curves, no bridges, and no weather

Very unlikely that such a tunnel would be dead straight and level. The tunnel would probably need to twist and turn to avoid certain geological features. The Channel Tunnel is a good example of this, it weaves around all over the place.

 

[Killingworth]

Very unlikely that such a tunnel would be dead straight and level. The tunnel would probably need to twist and turn to avoid certain geological features. The Channel Tunnel is a good example of this, it weaves around all over the place.

My point, however, was that we need much smaller and practical projects that can be completed at much lower cost and a lot quicker. Projects like Werrington might be an example. How long did that take from conception to opening and at what cost?

 

[gingertom]

My point, however, was that we need much smaller and practical projects that can be completed at much lower cost and a lot quicker. Projects like Werrington might be an example. How long did that take from conception to opening and at what cost?

the Newark flat crossing would presumably be within your category, also the Welwyn North tunnel & viaduct. On viaducts, Tay viaduct in Perth could use having some money spent on it, Montrose and Usan single track section doubled- some more viaduct work.

 

[S&CLER]

Would a 3 to 4 km straight line avoiding the sharp curve through Wellingborough be worth a look? My Landranger sheet 152, 1999 edition, suggests there is not much built up on the route that a straight line would take. Of course it may have changed radically since then, and a tunnel might be required.

 

[MattRat]

Fantasy land, but I'd love a bypass of London. Connect the North and South properly without having to cross London most of the time.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Fantasy land, but I'd love a bypass of London. Connect the North and South properly without having to cross London most of the time.

There already is one and it's busy. It goes via Basingstoke, Reading and Oxford.

 

[Meerkat]

There already is one and it's busy. It goes via Basingstoke, Reading and Oxford.

Isnt Thameslink effectively a bypass, or is this yet another example of northerners' (and Kent commuters' TBF) allergy to changing trains?

 

[Ken H]

Isnt Thameslink effectively a bypass, or is this yet another example of northerners' (and Kent commuters' TBF) allergy to changing trains?

its not changing trains that the problem with london. its having to change twice. And a trip down the tube. I remember being taken across London as a kid*. For me it was an eye-opener, but for the adult with us (Sometimes a parent, sometimes grandad) it must have been difficult with 2 primary aged school kids. (Neither my parents or my grandparents drove)

Leeds to Folkestone.

 

[Senex]

Would a 3 to 4 km straight line avoiding the sharp curve through Wellingborough be worth a look? My Landranger sheet 152, 1999 edition, suggests there is not much built up on the route that a straight line would take. Of course it may have changed radically since then, and a tunnel might be required.

That was how it was going to be until the worthy citizens of Wellingborough stuck their oar in! (And a much better alignment at Kettering too, as well as at Wigston.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isnt Thameslink effectively a bypass, or is this yet another example of northerners' (and Kent commuters' TBF) allergy to changing trains?

There's also the line via Kensington Olympia (though actually it's a more or less straight line, and the WCML to Euston turns left and actually runs north again for a bit).

To be fair it's not just about "changing trains", it's getting off one train, faffing about a lot crossing a large and potentially unfamiliar city on a crowded underground system, and getting on another. I know of plenty of people who would change at a medium station like MKC, Leicester, Nuneaton or whatever, but wouldn't even consider crossing London alone.

 

[A0wen]

Would a 3 to 4 km straight line avoiding the sharp curve through Wellingborough be worth a look? My Landranger sheet 152, 1999 edition, suggests there is not much built up on the route that a straight line would take. Of course it may have changed radically since then, and a tunnel might be required.

You'd put the station further away from the town and most of the land immediate to the east of the station is currently being developed for housing - https://www.stantoncross.co.uk/map-of-stanton-cross

Fantasy land, but I'd love a bypass of London. Connect the North and South properly without having to cross London most of the time.

Define "the North" and "South" - because "the North" could be Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Preston or Carlisle - and they all arrive in 3 different places in London.

The South could be Dover, Canterbury, Hastings, Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Bournemouth or Weymouth - the latter of those do have direct trains from some places in the North / Midlands.

I know of plenty of people who would change at a medium station like MKC, Leicester, Nuneaton or whatever, but wouldn't even consider crossing London alone.

Such people probably ought not be allowed out on their own.

 

[Ken H]

You'd put the station further away from the town and most of the land immediate to the east of the station is currently being developed for housing - https://www.stantoncross.co.uk/map-of-stanton-cross



Define "the North" and "South" - because "the North" could be Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Preston or Carlisle - and they all arrive in 3 different places in London.

The South could be Dover, Canterbury, Hastings, Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Bournemouth or Weymouth - the latter of those do have direct trains from some places in the North / Midlands.



Such people probably ought not be allowed out on their own.

some people find changing difficult. Walking problems, not being used to a busy city, scared of missing conections because of issues in London etc. And if you have luggage its a problem too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Such people probably ought not be allowed out on their own.

Really? I think you might find it is actually a majority view and particularly prevalent among women.

 

[A0wen]

Really? I think you might find it is actually a majority view and particularly prevalent among women.

Most of the women I've come across are *very* confident travelling across London and using the tube - and I've worked with a good number over 20 + years. Whereas sitting around at somewhere like Nuneaton with few facilities and little shelter would be regarded as much more threatening than using the tube between Euston or St Pancras and Waterloo or Victoria for example.

 

[snowball]

This was my first thought. A chord of around a kilometre in length where the only only obstacle to be crossed is a farm access road, aside from that it's just flat open farmland.

[at Carstairs]
In other words a reopening of the line closed a century ago.

 

[Ken H]

[at Carstairs]
In other words a reopening of the line closed a century ago.

This help?

View map: Ordnance Survey, Lanarkshire XXVI.10 (Carnwath; Carstairs; Pettinain) - Ordnance Survey 25 inch 2nd and later editions, Scotland, 1892-1949

maps.nls.uk

(Link to image of map published 1911, showing a south to east cut off.)

 

[MattRat]

Isnt Thameslink effectively a bypass, or is this yet another example of northerners' (and Kent commuters' TBF) allergy to changing trains?

Do you yourself like changing trains in London? Changing trains is one thing, doing it in London is quite another.

Define "the North" and "South" - because "the North" could be Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Preston or Carlisle - and they all arrive in 3 different places in London.

The South could be Dover, Canterbury, Hastings, Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Bournemouth or Weymouth - the latter of those do have direct trains from some places in the North / Midlands.

Technically, yes, practically, no. The lines aren't as fast as the ones into London, there aren't enough of those services, leading to overcrowding, and places like Liverpool are left out of those routes.

Especially with HS2 on the horizon, it'd be nice to get on a HS2 train, go through London stopping at OOC, and then go through the city to the South coast and then along a new HS line serving all the tourist destinations. But that's get into even more fantasy land.

 

[gg1]

[at Carstairs]
In other words a reopening of the line closed a century ago.

The OP didn't mention re-openings were excluded and circumstances are somewhat different now.

100 years ago the alignment was of no use for England to Edinburgh passenger services as they all called at Carstairs anyway and a tight low speed curve at Carstairs itself wasn't really a problem for the slow unfitted freights of the day.

 

[A0wen]

Do you yourself like changing trains in London? Changing trains is one thing, doing it in London is quite another.

Technically, yes, practically, no. The lines aren't as fast as the ones into London, there aren't enough of those services, leading to overcrowding, and places like Liverpool are left out of those routes.

Especially with HS2 on the horizon, it'd be nice to get on a HS2 train, go through London stopping at OOC, and then go through the city to the South coast and then along a new HS line serving all the tourist destinations. But that's get into even more fantasy land.

Well done for missing the point - when you say you want a "north to south" route - where from and to ? There's a world of difference between a high speed line between Newcastle and Southampton than Manchester to Dover. You've basically said the south whilst ignoring the distance between Dover and Bournemouth is further than London - Manchester.

 

[MattRat]

Well done for missing the point - when you say you want a "north to south" route - where from and to ? There's a world of difference between a high speed line between Newcastle and Southampton than Manchester to Dover. You've basically said the south whilst ignoring the distance between Dover and Bournemouth is further than London - Manchester.

OK, more realisticly, you have lines allowing you to go around or through London without ending up at a terminus, connecting to other lines that go to places like Dover, Brighton, Bournemouth, etc. Although admittedly you'd also need bi/tri modes for when accessing different tracks.

 

[Ken H]

OK, more realisticly, you have lines allowing you to go around or through London without ending up at a terminus, connecting to other lines that go to places like Dover, Brighton, Bournemouth, etc. Although admittedly you'd also need bi/tri modes for when accessing different tracks.

Like the Berlin Aussenring then. Sort of necessary pre-unification. Now largely abandoned except for the s-bahn.

 

[mike57]

My front runner, as mentioned up the thread would be Morpeth, how much 'bulldozing' would you need to do for an improvement to say 75mph, 100mph or 125mph. I wonder where the best £s per mile hour improvement would be in the 75 to 125mph range

 

[Ken H]

My front runner, as mentioned up the thread would be Morpeth, how much 'bulldozing' would you need to do for an improvement to say 75mph, 100mph or 125mph. I wonder where the best £s per mile hour improvement would be in the 75 to 125mph range

There is room to the east to make a bypass.

 

[zwk500]

OK, more realisticly, you have lines allowing you to go around or through London without ending up at a terminus, connecting to other lines that go to places like Dover, Brighton, Bournemouth, etc. Although admittedly you'd also need bi/tri modes for when accessing different tracks.

On a technical point, you can already run a direct train from Dover to Norwich and every radial mainline in between via the West London and North London lines without going into a single London Terminal. If you're after a bit more adventure then you'll also soon have Tonbridge-Redhill-Guildford-Reading-Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford (+Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Norwich) albeit with a reversal at Redhill.

Where does your proposed line fit in between those two options?

 

[Meerkat]

Do you yourself like changing trains in London? Changing trains is one thing, doing it in London is quite another.

I don't (I usually walk to avoid the tube), but that's why I roll my eyes when Northerners demand a direct train to everywhere rather than a simple single change at a decent station. My point was that Thameslink is that bypass for a lot of routes, and HS2+Crossrail+Thamelinks even more. Anything further out would be far too many variations at both ends - you are going to end up changing twice anyway more often than not.

 

[Killingworth]

My front runner, as mentioned up the thread would be Morpeth, how much 'bulldozing' would you need to do for an improvement to say 75mph, 100mph or 125mph. I wonder where the best £s per mile hour improvement would be in the 75 to 125mph range

There's a closed thread about eliminating the Morpeth curve.

It was generally accepted to be desirable, but impractical at reasonable cost. https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/morpeth-curve.179566/

 

[gg1]

I don't (I usually walk to avoid the tube), but that's why I roll my eyes when Northerners demand a direct train to everywhere rather than a simple single change at a decent station. My point was that Thameslink is that bypass for a lot of routes, and HS2+Crossrail+Thamelinks even more. Anything further out would be far too many variations at both ends - you are going to end up changing twice anyway more often than not.

For many long distance journeys which involve travel across London 'a simple single change at a decent station' is not an option, the reality is 2 or 3 changes on and off a frequently crowded tube, usually involving multiple flights of stairs/escalators.

 

[A0wen]

For many long distance journeys which involve travel across London 'a simple single change at a decent station' is not an option, the reality is 2 or 3 changes on and off a frequently crowded tube, usually involving multiple flights of stairs/escalators.

If you're travelling with luggage, there are those big, black things of which there are plenty about in London, loads of them at all the major stations and they'll take you to another major station. Taxis I think they're called ?

OK, more realisticly, you have lines allowing you to go around or through London without ending up at a terminus, connecting to other lines that go to places like Dover, Brighton, Bournemouth, etc. Although admittedly you'd also need bi/tri modes for when accessing different tracks.

Well if you're looking at anywhere west of Brighton you wouldn't build a line through London in any case - you'd head somewhere to the west.

 

[gg1]

If you're travelling with luggage, there are those big, black things of which there are plenty about in London, loads of them at all the major stations and they'll take you to another major station. Taxis I think they're called ?

My point stands, that's clearly not a 'simple single change', and also comes with an additional cost over and above your tickets.