Railways running alongside trunk roads

[southern442]

Now, obviously demand for rail travel is increasing, however several lines (the WCML and the BML to name two) are pretty much full up, with many more expected to join them soon. I would argue at this point railway reopenings are not enough and we need completely new railway lines from scratch to 'double up' certain trunk routes. A big problem is actually finding viable routes with minimal costs, close enough to places whilst also avoiding visual and sound-based pollutions. My idea is simply to build new lines that run alongside or very close to the paths of motorways and dual carriageways. There are several different ways this could be achieved, from as mundane as just building it next to the road, to having some sort of solution in the central reservation (high-speed monorail, anyone?) or maybe even taking up some of the road space if enough car users can be persuaded to switch to the train.

Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, most lines built in this way would not serve many large towns all too well. However, there is a way to overcome this. Assume we build a mainline that closely follows the route of the M1. It would be unable to serve central Milton Keynes, BUT one could put a main station in Newport Pagnell, for example, and have complimentary bus/tram connections (perhaps with an integrated fares system), as well as park & ride facilities, to get elsewhere in the town. This is something not unfamiliar to travelling, as it happens with Airports all the time. These new railway lines could exploit the slightly-less-direct routes that they take by offering cheaper fares than existing main lines, and this would also help to spread out demand across railway lines (I personally would be willing to travel to just outside a city and then get a bus or tram in if it meant a cheaper, coach-level fare).

These new lines may also be able to assist other railway reopenings. For example, the WCML may not be able to fit in new services on a re-opened Daventry line, but a branch from an M1-parallel line would.

Of course this is all money-permitting, so it would take a miracle to have any of this seriously proposed by anyone important. However I believe that this would perhaps be the way forward if we need to duplicate or create more space on main lines, without causing as many problems as, say, HS2 would.

 

[Ken H]

I think they could take a fair bit of bendy WCML out by building a new railway alongside the M6 from Tebay to Penrith. I bet that would allow 125mph non tilt running.

The M1 has a fair chunk of Great Central main line alongside it round Lutterworth ready for re-use.

 

[swt_passenger]

Very few trunk roads or even motorways are straight and level enough for a decent railway alongside. And you’d have expensive problems every few miles at the existing motorway junctions.

Building a railway alongside the M1 (or even in the general vicinity of it) was ruled out of the HS2 options very early on.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Some countries do seem to run new lines alongside roads, to save opening up new corridors. Eg the new faster line in Denmark from Copenhagen to Ringsted has the majority of its route paralleling a main road - right alongside it in places. But then Denmark is reasonably flat...

 

[Ianno87]

Very few trunk roads or even motorways are straight and level enough for a decent railway alongside. And you’d have expensive problems every few miles at the existing motorway junctions.

Building a railway alongside the M1 (or even in the general vicinity of it) was ruled out of the HS2 options very early on.

The other problem you get is you end up with lots of awkward bridges to construct where a new railway alignment has to intersect roads meeting junctions with the M1 (or whatever motorway). So to avoid these, you swing the rail alignment away from the motorway to avoid junctions....and by the time you've done this you might as well just keep away the whole way.

 

[30907]

The other problem you get is you end up with lots of awkward bridges to construct where a new railway alignment has to intersect roads meeting junctions with the M1 (or whatever motorway). So to avoid these, you swing the rail alignment away from the motorway to avoid junctions....and by the time you've done this you might as well just keep away the whole way.

Or occasionally you move the motorway a bit! I am sure I recall roadworks for that along the A1 in France as the LGV Nord was being built - there is certainly a service area where the line tunnels underneath, and I'm sure that was done cut-and-cover.

On the general topic, there are surprisingly few new lines built parallel to motorways - the LGV Nord is the longest, plus bits of the Cologne-Frankfurt route, but I can't think of any more (Italy and Spain?).
There are, of course plenty of new roads parallel to old railways (Watford Gap....); this includes a fair bit of the A5 in France paralleling the LGV Sud-Est, for example.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

On the general topic, there are surprisingly few new lines built parallel to motorways

I think there's a deliberate UK policy not to build motorways in straight lines. When the road is busy, it can look in a straight line as if the traffic ahead is stationary thus causing unnecessary braking and possible phantom jams. When there are subtle curves, you can more easily see that traffic is moving at a regular speed.

High speed lines don't mind gradients, but frequent curves would be a problem.

It was one of the suggestions for the route of HS2 that it parallel the M40.

Here and there are parallel bits. HS1 crosses the Medway alongside the M2 and parallels the A2/M2 for some distance between the Thames and Medway. It then parallels the M20 on its way to Ashford.

 

[Ianno87]

Or occasionally you move the motorway a bit! I am sure I recall roadworks for that along the A1 in France as the LGV Nord was being built - there is certainly a service area where the line tunnels underneath, and I'm sure that was done cut-and-cover.

On the general topic, there are surprisingly few new lines built parallel to motorways - the LGV Nord is the longest, plus bits of the Cologne-Frankfurt route, but I can't think of any more (Italy and Spain?).
There are, of course plenty of new roads parallel to old railways (Watford Gap....); this includes a fair bit of the A5 in France paralleling the LGV Sud-Est, for example.

Notice at Watford Gap, it's not parallel to any junctions (though does skirt round the back of Watford Gap services). The nearest junction is for the M45 turnoff...by which point the WCML has diverged and is in Kilsby Tunnel.

 

[coppercapped]

Or occasionally you move the motorway a bit! I am sure I recall roadworks for that along the A1 in France as the LGV Nord was being built - there is certainly a service area where the line tunnels underneath, and I'm sure that was done cut-and-cover.

On the general topic, there are surprisingly few new lines built parallel to motorways - the LGV Nord is the longest, plus bits of the Cologne-Frankfurt route, but I can't think of any more (Italy and Spain?).
There are, of course plenty of new roads parallel to old railways (Watford Gap....); this includes a fair bit of the A5 in France paralleling the LGV Sud-Est, for example.

In Belgium the LGV from Brussels to Liege and Aachen runs right beside the E40 from just south east of Leuven to Kemexhe just west of Liege and again east of Liege from Herve to Walhorn on the approach to Aachen. That's about 50km west of Liege and 20km east.

Interestingly one can drive along the E40 and scarcely see a train - one or two in each direction if one is lucky. I have no idea how the financials stack up with such line occupation!

 

[edwin_m]

On the general topic, there are surprisingly few new lines built parallel to motorways - the LGV Nord is the longest, plus bits of the Cologne-Frankfurt route, but I can't think of any more (Italy and Spain?).

The LGV Nord runs parallel but not immediately alongside the autoroute, it's typically about 50m away. Which means there is a 50m strip of land trapped between the two, which isn't much use to anyone. It also usually gets further away whenever there is a junction. This part of France is very flat and not very populated, so the motorway is pretty straight whereas as mentioned ours tend to be more curvy to avoid hills and built-up areas. I suspect they also planned the motorway and the railway at the same time, even if one was built later, whereas nobody thought about putting a railway along any of our motorways when they were built.

Despite all this, the HS2 eastern leg is planned to follow the M42/A42 for most of its length, then parts of the M1 and M18.

 

[Bald Rick]

Or occasionally you move the motorway a bit! I am sure I recall roadworks for that along the A1 in France as the LGV Nord was being built - there is certainly a service area where the line tunnels underneath, and I'm sure that was done cut-and-cover.

Indeed so, and what a rubbish service station it is.

I think there's a deliberate UK policy not to build motorways in straight lines.

Indeed so (again). Lesson learned with the M1 south of Rugby, which is largely straight lines connected by curves. Motorways built since the early 60s are generally curves connected by (short) straightlines. There’s exceptions of course.

 

[RLBH]

Now, obviously demand for rail travel is increasing, however several lines (the WCML and the BML to name two) are pretty much full up, with many more expected to join them soon. I would argue at this point railway reopenings are not enough and we need completely new railway lines from scratch to 'double up' certain trunk routes. A big problem is actually finding viable routes with minimal costs, close enough to places whilst also avoiding visual and sound-based pollutions. My idea is simply to build new lines that run alongside or very close to the paths of motorways and dual carriageways.

Whilst - for all the reasons which have been identified - I don't think that rail and road corridors need to be directly adjacent, I do think there's the nucleus of a point here. Which is, if a route is sufficiently important to be designated a trunk route, it's probably important enough to justify a railway.

As an opening gambit, I'd suggest that a single-carriageway trunk road ought to be broadly paralleled by a two-track main line, whilst a dual-carriageway trunk road should have a corresponding four-track main line. All electrified, naturally.

 

[PartyOperator]

Whilst - for all the reasons which have been identified - I don't think that rail and road corridors need to be directly adjacent, I do think there's the nucleus of a point here. Which is, if a route is sufficiently important to be designated a trunk route, it's probably important enough to justify a railway.

As an opening gambit, I'd suggest that a single-carriageway trunk road ought to be broadly paralleled by a two-track main line, whilst a dual-carriageway trunk road should have a corresponding four-track main line. All electrified, naturally.

Most of the busiest motorways do have a roughly parallel electrified railway, with many of the busiest parts being quad-track. We could probably do with an M40 equivalent, an M42/A42-to-M1 equivalent and an M62 equivalent - HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail together should do this.

The other obvious difference between a map of motorways and electrified railways is the M5.

 

[RLBH]

Most of the busiest motorways do have a roughly parallel electrified railway, with many of the busiest parts being quad-track. We could probably do with an M40 equivalent, an M42/A42-to-M1 equivalent and an M62 equivalent - HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail together should do this.

The other obvious difference between a map of motorways and electrified railways is the M5.

It doesn't look too bad for the motorway-equivalents - where rail falls well short is the high-quality A-road equivalents. The worst case is the total absence of a parallel route to the A34, and the inadequacy of the A66-equivalent Settle & Carlisle line.

It's also not just a question of electrification, but of capacity and general main line-ness, which road transport seems to do much better. 'Regional' rail - which seems to be defined as any service that doesn't go to London - gets lumped into commuting to the nearest city, or else leisurely cross-country services. Even minor trunk roads (say the A69) are regarded as just as much a 'main road' and designed for through traffic as much as the M1 is, just at reduced capacity.

 

[southern442]

It doesn't look too bad for the motorway-equivalents - where rail falls well short is the high-quality A-road equivalents. The worst case is the total absence of a parallel route to the A34, and the inadequacy of the A66-equivalent Settle & Carlisle line.

It's also not just a question of electrification, but of capacity and general main line-ness, which road transport seems to do much better. 'Regional' rail - which seems to be defined as any service that doesn't go to London - gets lumped into commuting to the nearest city, or else leisurely cross-country services. Even minor trunk roads (say the A69) are regarded as just as much a 'main road' and designed for through traffic as much as the M1 is, just at reduced capacity.

Perhaps another example is the A14, a mainline-style route from Cambridge to Birmingham would probably go down well. Not necessarily specifically travel between those two cities but the potential connections that could be made, and it would set a precedent for having cross-country intercity services at 125mph or more, rather than just another 'regional' slower service.

 

[RLBH]

Perhaps another example is the A14, a mainline-style route from Cambridge to Birmingham would probably go down well. Not necessarily specifically travel between those two cities but the potential connections that could be made, and it would set a precedent for having cross-country intercity services at 125mph or more, rather than just another 'regional' slower service.

In general, and based on road speeds, I'd be looking for something like:

• Primary main lines - 125mph passenger/90mph freight, largely paralleling motorways
• Secondary main lines - 110mph passenger/75mph freight, largely paralleling other trunk roads and non-trunk high-quality dual carriageways.
• All other interurban routes - 90mph passenger/60mph freight

Lower speeds would be expected for intraurban commuter-type services, of course. Obviously this would be a major upgrade for a lot of routes, and getting 90mph freight on the main lines would probably make electric haulage and improved braking mandatory.

 

[southern442]

In general, and based on road speeds, I'd be looking for something like:

• Primary main lines - 125mph passenger/90mph freight, largely paralleling motorways
• Secondary main lines - 110mph passenger/75mph freight, largely paralleling other trunk roads and non-trunk high-quality dual carriageways.
• All other interurban routes - 90mph passenger/60mph freight

Lower speeds would be expected for intraurban commuter-type services, of course. Obviously this would be a major upgrade for a lot of routes, and getting 90mph freight on the main lines would probably make electric haulage and improved braking mandatory.

I suppose for routes that couldn't be upgraded, an alternative line roughly following a trunk road route (but not hugging it, as explained previously) would be necessary. An example would be if one wanted to upgrade the North Wales Coast line to 125mph but couldn't, then a high-speed line alongside the A55 would be provided.

 

[PartyOperator]

I think there's a deliberate UK policy not to build motorways in straight lines. When the road is busy, it can look in a straight line as if the traffic ahead is stationary thus causing unnecessary braking and possible phantom jams. When there are subtle curves, you can more easily see that traffic is moving at a regular speed.

High speed lines don't mind gradients, but frequent curves would be a problem.

It was one of the suggestions for the route of HS2 that it parallel the M40.

Here and there are parallel bits. HS1 crosses the Medway alongside the M2 and parallels the A2/M2 for some distance between the Thames and Medway. It then parallels the M20 on its way to Ashford.

Unlike the road designers of the 1960s, the Romans were clearly thinking ahead when they built their roads. Maybe instead of a line to parallel the M5, we should take advantage of Emperor Claudius's foresight and complete his vision for a high-speed railway from Exeter to Lincoln... It could be called Fosserail, or perhaps the Fosse-Country route.

 

[EssexGonzo]

Fosserail - love it!

 

[Ken H]

how about this for a daft idea. Build the railway above or under the road.

 

[krus_aragon]

I suppose for routes that couldn't be upgraded, an alternative line roughly following a trunk road route (but not hugging it, as explained previously) would be necessary. An example would be if one wanted to upgrade the North Wales Coast line to 125mph but couldn't, then a high-speed line alongside the A55 would be provided.

Ironically, the A55 hugs the NWCL around Colwyn Bay because it was built on part of the railway's alignment. In fact, they're on friendly terms from Abergele to the outskirts of Bangor, and part of Anglesey too.

 

[Emyr]

how about this for a daft idea. Build the railway above or under the road.

Show us your magic money tree then.

 

[Ken H]

Show us your magic money tree then.

less land take...

 

[AlastairFraser]

It doesn't look too bad for the motorway-equivalents - where rail falls well short is the high-quality A-road equivalents. The worst case is the total absence of a parallel route to the A34, and the inadequacy of the A66-equivalent Settle & Carlisle line.

It's also not just a question of electrification, but of capacity and general main line-ness, which road transport seems to do much better. 'Regional' rail - which seems to be defined as any service that doesn't go to London - gets lumped into commuting to the nearest city, or else leisurely cross-country services. Even minor trunk roads (say the A69) are regarded as just as much a 'main road' and designed for through traffic as much as the M1 is, just at reduced capacity.

That's because the A34 stole the D,N and S Railway's alignment for itself. But this is a better omen for its restoration than the alignment being built over than housing or selling it off back to farmers in some cases. The old D,N and S could easily be rebuilt as a 25kv OHLE electrified 2-track freight railway with provision for passenger stations at Harwell Campus, Speen, south of Newbury, Whitchurch,Sutton Scotney at the least. This would have a really good case because it would straighten the Electric Spine project,taking lots of slow freight off the GWML,Reading to Basingstoke and a bigger,busier section of the GWML. Potentially,instead of converting just the smaller section of Winchester to Southampton to 3rd rail or equipping the section with both 3rd rail and OHLE, the freight railway could take a new alignment down the median of the M3,M27 and M271 to the docks,but that would have to be a future,separate project done if the money was available, and that section would not be designed for passenger use.This would provide a very useful and important railway interchange with the West of England Line going north and south and provides rail access again to a large stretch of Hampshire and Berkshire with a reasonable amount of people and projected house building,plus all the passenger through traffic which would immediately see a reasonable journey time cut.(Think extra Cross Country trains from the Midlands taking advantage of the new free capacity on the SWML. The only huge cost barrier would be a flyover at Didcot to separate out the GWML to Oxford line/reopened D,N and S junctions,but that might happen anyway as part of already costed future improvements to the GWML.

 

[Craig2601]

If memory serves me right the high speed line between Milan and Bologna runs alongside the Autostrada for at least part of it.

 

[The Planner]

less land take...

More disruption.

 

[The Planner]

That's because the A34 stole the D,N and S Railway's alignment for itself. But this is a better omen for its restoration than the alignment being built over than housing or selling it off back to farmers in some cases. The old D,N and S could easily be rebuilt as a 25kv OHLE electrified 2-track freight railway with provision for passenger stations at Harwell Campus, Speen, south of Newbury, Whitchurch,Sutton Scotney at the least. This would have a really good case because it would straighten the Electric Spine project,taking lots of slow freight off the GWML,Reading to Basingstoke and a bigger,busier section of the GWML. Potentially,instead of converting just the smaller section of Winchester to Southampton to 3rd rail or equipping the section with both 3rd rail and OHLE, the freight railway could take a new alignment down the median of the M3,M27 and M271 to the docks,but that would have to be a future,separate project done if the money was available, and that section would not be designed for passenger use.This would provide a very useful and important railway interchange with the West of England Line going north and south and provides rail access again to a large stretch of Hampshire and Berkshire with a reasonable amount of people and projected house building,plus all the passenger through traffic which would immediately see a reasonable journey time cut.(Think extra Cross Country trains from the Midlands taking advantage of the new free capacity on the SWML. The only huge cost barrier would be a flyover at Didcot to separate out the GWML to Oxford line/reopened D,N and S junctions,but that might happen anyway as part of already costed future improvements to the GWML.

Where do you start with this one?! Easily rebuilt? Electric Spine is dead and the flyover at Didcot isn't going to be the huge cost barrier.....

 

[Bald Rick]

less land take...

Unfortunately not. If you are building over, you still need to buy the land. And it costs a lot to build long bridges.

If you are building under, you still need to compensate the land owners above, and it costs a lot to build tunnels. A lot, lot more than buying land except when it is residential.

 

[duffield]

Unfortunately not. If you are building over, you still need to buy the land. And it costs a lot to build long bridges.

If you are building under, you still need to compensate the land owners above, and it costs a lot to build tunnels. A lot, lot more than buying land except when it is residential.

I think the 'less land take' reference was in relation to building the railway over publicly owned roads, so presumably compensation does not apply.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think the 'less land take' reference was in relation to building the railway over publicly owned roads, so presumably compensation does not apply.

It does if anything in the roads needs moving, such as utilities etc. And, also, it would be pretty difficult to build directly above most roads without significantly disrupting them. A good way of mitigating this would be to build the supporting pillars outside the road, and that won’t often be public land...

There’s a reason it’s not done, and that’s because it’s very difficult!