BogiePicker
Member
Thanks.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.
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!
Last edited: