Controversial railway opinions (without a firm foundation in logic..)

[BogiePicker]

Well there isn't really much experience with wider loading gauges than the Shinkansen, and I was chosing to prioritise an uncramped interior in the hopes of speeding boarding and alighting from such a line.
Some recent trains, especially on JR Kyushu, have used 2+2 seating in the wider 3.38m Shinkansen loading gauge in attempt to be more attractive to tourists.
I suggest the BR Class 700 approach of 2+2 seating but wider aisles is the better option, especially as we can still have comfortable seats with the extra width.

As the line has to be segregated from conventional services to be operationally feasible without massive additional infrastructure, there seems little point clinging to the cramped standards used on conventional British and European railways. 3.38m width offers real advantages and I think it would be folish to ignore them.

Cost of such projects is always very hard to determine without a complex study, but it is likely to be somewhat more expensive than HS2 Phase 1. Although the cost would almost entirely be determined by the quality of the project management which is impossible to really know in advance!

The problem with such things is that they introduce extra operational complexity and make it harder to run the core service reliably.
The model here is essentially a metro line that goes 300kph.

Well the connectivity gains between settlements can be estimated by just subtracting the London times from each other.
Brighton to Portsmouth would be something like 25 minutes compared to ~76 today.

Thanks.

The Swedish 'Regina' train runs at 3.6 m, Scandinavian trains are a bit wider. Elsewhere, I think Scandi-German newbuilds are running to allow 3.8, but this is freight. Was tested to 186mph. 3+2 seating would give a 25% capacity increase where applied. They do taper in a bit because they have very low platforms.

in terms of valuing this project, I take it you would be looking at a combination of

1) fare revenue
2) network rationalisation from consolidating intercity services
3) regional economic agglomerative effects

But I'm not sure whether 1) would fully cover costs. Can you please indicate what sort of volume of flows we'd have. Note that Tokaido is between two gigantic poles of Tokyo and Osaka with very big Nagoya in middle, whereas this is unipolar, the London node dominates.

Of course you're right, for a network which is purely linear, you just have to subtract.

P.S. I asked this somewhere else, but with no diversionary routes and the thing acting as a 185mph metro as you said, one would need Japanese levels of operational reliability!

 

[Bletchleyite]

3+2 seating would give a 25% capacity increase where applied.

However 3+2 seating is grim regardless of width (nobody likes a middle seat), and 2+2 in First Class loses its unique selling point of the single seat.

Thus I'd rather make the loading gauge higher than wider so proper double deck (i.e. US style, where you have two decks as spacious as a single deck coach would be) can be done.

 

[BogiePicker]

However 3+2 seating is grim regardless of width (nobody likes a middle seat), and 2+2 in First Class loses its unique selling point of the single seat.

Thus I'd rather make the loading gauge higher than wider so proper double deck (i.e. US style, where you have two decks as spacious as a single deck coach would be) can be done.

There is a surprising amount of academic work specifically on Scandinavian widebody trains. This one found that people don't really care all that much. A 2+2 fully loaded set is a 2+3 with fully empty middle seats! We are talking about a train that is 12ft *wide*, wider than quite a few trains are tall.

Would also add that this would be rather like a 'limited express' service with medium duration intervals. By all means we can have gran class 1 + 2, and 2+ 2 (maybe even 1+ 2 + 1!) but people probably won't mind it for a 20 - 40 min skip and hop.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316527271_Extra_Wide-Body_Passenger_Trains_in_Sweden_-_background_and_introduction

 

[Bletchleyite]

This one found that people don't really care all that much.

Then it was wrong. People do care. Very much so.

On a plane nobody likes a middle and they always go last where free selection is available. It's no different.

Also, Scandinavia isn't the UK.

Edit: having read it it's about what sort of premium people would pay not to have 3+2, which is rather different.

 

[HSTEd]

However 3+2 seating is grim regardless of width (nobody likes a middle seat), and 2+2 in First Class loses its unique selling point of the single seat.

Thus I'd rather make the loading gauge higher than wider so proper double deck (i.e. US style, where you have two decks as spacious as a single deck coach would be) can be done.

The standard Shinkansen cross section is only about 16" shorter than the superliner. 4.93m for the Superliner and ~4.5m for the various double deck Shinkansen vehicles.

It's not far of GC in terms of height, but it is an entirely square cross section, unlike GB or even GC.
Coronavirus did for the last of the Shinkansen double decks though.

I don't suppose it would be too hard to just specify a 5m height for the loading gauge, all the tunnel sizes will be set by aerodynamic concerns anyway.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

On a plane nobody likes a middle and they always go last where free selection is available. It's no different.

Yet it doesn't stop people flying. And the most widely used aircraft around the world have 3+3 seating. So long as the width available in each seat is adequate there should be no issue about middle seats other than snobbery. So the real issue is whether that adequate width is in fact provided.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet it doesn't stop people flying. And the most widely used aircraft around the world have 3+3 seating. So long as the width available in each seat is adequate there should be no issue about middle seats other than snobbery. So the real issue is whether that adequate width is in fact provided.

You can't drive instead of most flights, so that's not a valid comparison.

 

[renegademaster]

Having the middle seat is a hell of a lot better than standing up for 2 hours, even on something cramped like a 455

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

You can't drive instead of most flights, so that's not a valid comparison.

Given we were discussing genuine HSR it's absolutely a valid comparison.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having the middle seat is a hell of a lot better than standing up for 2 hours, even on something cramped like a 455

Not for me it's not. You must be skinny!

Given we were discussing genuine HSR it's absolutely a valid comparison.

From London to Manchester (which is as far as HSR will go in the UK in the foreseeable future) the car is absolutely a viable competitor, and I'd use it over sitting in a 3+2 train (and yes, I've been on a Chinese 3+2 layout high speed train, the middle seat is grim whatever you are in, just like it is on an aircraft). I'd also not upgrade to First Class unless a single seat was available, that's the whole reason I do.

 

[HSTEd]

Having the middle seat is a hell of a lot better than standing up for 2 hours, even on something cramped like a 455

In the specific situation that spawned this discussion the absolute maximum journey time is only ~82 minutes, and is likely substantially less than on average.

I'd honestly be more worried about the effect of 3+2 on boarding and unboarding times as people wrestle past each other.

That extra aisle space could be really useful.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That extra aisle space could be really useful.

Certainly one very good thing that can be offered by a wide-gauge train with 2+2 seating is full wheelchair accessibility throughout.

 

[renegademaster]

You must be skinny!

I wish, me not being skinny is why I'd rather be squished than stand up even on a relatively short journey. I used to do NXG to West Croydon everyday and much preferred the 455s to the overground trains

 

[HSTEd]

Thanks.

The Swedish 'Regina' train runs at 3.6 m, Scandinavian trains are a bit wider. Elsewhere, I think Scandi-German newbuilds are running to allow 3.8, but this is freight. Was tested to 186mph. 3+2 seating would give a 25% capacity increase where applied. They do taper in a bit because they have very low platforms.

I'd be a bit concerned about getting people on and off the trains in the time requried with 3+2, even with the extra width it still means a lot more people having to stand up to let people get out of the inner seats.

In terms of valuing this project, I take it you would be looking at a combination of

1) fare revenue
2) network rationalisation from consolidating intercity services
3) regional economic agglomerative effects

But I'm not sure whether 1) would fully cover costs. Can you please indicate what sort of volume of flows we'd have. Note that Tokaido is between two gigantic poles of Tokyo and Osaka with very big Nagoya in middle, whereas this is unipolar, the London node dominates.

I'm not sure if comparisons with the Tokaido Shinkanen would be quite fair (140m passengers per year), it's a very high bar.
After all the 210km to Bournemouth doesn't even get you from Tokyo to Nagoya!

I'm not sure how much the ridership number would actually be, but there is a lot of traffic to sweep up. Especially on the Brighton Main Line and laterally along the south cost.
I think the primary benefit would be 2, but surely 3 would be significant given that Bournemouth-Southampton, Portsmouth and the whole Brighton-Littlehampton conurbation would be a single economic unit.

Probably wouldn't do Southampton Airport much good of course!

EDIT:
Greater Brighton City Region is ~950,000
South Hampshire built up area is about ~900,000
Bournemouth adds 200,000 on top.

That's potentially a city on the scale of Manchester or Leeds, and its got a history of intensive rail use.

P.S. I asked this somewhere else, but with no diversionary routes and the thing acting as a 185mph metro as you said, one would need Japanese levels of operational reliability!

That would be key.
However it is worth noting that the Tohoku/Joetsu/Nagano(Hokiriku) Shinkansen are all run out of four platforms at Tokyo station with about 15 trains per hour. The track layout that serves them is pretty simple as well by British standards. EDIT: Six point machines total, including four in a diamond crossover!

I think most of the pointwork in this settup is in the depot for the ~40 trainsets required.
Four or five platform terminus in the Waterloo International trainshed and then crossovers at both ends of each station, plus a couple of extra points somewhere for the depot entrance.
Something like sixty two point machines total on the running lines including four for depot entrances, and none of them have to be swingnose or anything like that.

Slab track throughout and very heavyweight overhead wiring, unfortunately conductor bar is only rated for 250kph.

EDIT:
Trying for the new Scandinavian width ~3.8m might be a bit much for the retrofit of the Waterloo International platforms.
Going from 2.81m to 3.38m for Shinkansen is probably doable, especially now the circulating space of Platform 20 can be partially outside the trainshed. Only have to find ~2.5m although the curves might cause the long vehicles issues.

3.8m would be 5m of extra width to find, which is nearly a sixth of the width of the entire trainshed!
Would probably have to launch a significant structural reconstruction of the station for a conversion to four platforms inside the trainshed, which would still be enough to run the envisaged service.

With the Shinkansen width you could shave a bit more than a metre off of Platform 20 since it has the Platform 19 landing to move people along it.
That allows the platform face of 21 to stay in the same place and only requires about half a metre off the width of island of 21/22.

The face of 23 would have to move back half a metre but I'm not sure what the face of 24 would have to do, it would depend on clearance to the trainshed wall. Especially if it ends up with a 25kV installation inside the trainshed.
Obviously going wider than 3.38m will make this even worse!
EDIT #2:
Even at a stretch goal of fifteen trains per hour you are only talking about one load-unload cycle per twenty minutes for each platform.

One cycle every ten minutes per island, so maybe comparatively narrow islands are ok, even with Shinkansen width they should still meet the minimum 4m spec (3m for Pl20). Especially with PED fitted.

If they ever want to push further they can take over platform 19.

 

[Iskra]

The entire concept of a vestibule being first class accommodation is ridiculous and where a partitioning door exists to the saloon, standard passengers should be allowed to stand in these areas if standard is full and standing in order to avoid trains leaving passengers behind.

 

[popeter45]

The entire concept of a vestibule being first class accommodation is ridiculous and where a partitioning door exists to the saloon, standard passengers should be allowed to stand in these areas if standard is full and standing in order to avoid trains leaving passengers behind.

to expand on that
make first declassification automatic if you cant get a seat at all in standard class

 

[Meerkat]

to expand on that
make first declassification automatic if you cant get a seat at all in standard class

Why? That devalues the First class product.
The compromise would be to offer upgrades.