Shapps "promised to scrap HS2 Golborne spur"

[BayPaul]

sorry we are at cross purposes; I meant the old tunnels, not the base tunnels. We certainly didn’t do 200kph (or anything near it!) up to or through the original Lötschberg tunnel last time I used it. More like 50kph (it was raining and the loco was slipping badly).



Many freights are planned to be looped, often 2 or 3 times on the trip between Preston and Motherwell.
It’s slightly more difficult for the longer trains, where loop options are more limited. Sometimes the looping is for crew purposes as well as to allow a passenger service past.

My point is that the time taken to stop and attach a loco, and of course detach the other end (possibly not necessary if being banked), would almost certainly take longer than the time gain from having higher speed up the relevant grade - the grades aren’t that difficult.

If the freights are being looped anyway, could a banking loco be attached and removed at these loops. Obviously these longer periods of being banked would take more locos and cost more, but presumably much less than an infrastructure based solution?

 

[Shrop]

I suspect that many on this site are indeed aware of it but unfortunately the "powers that be" have almost no interest in spending public funds on the sort of infrastructure improvements (additional trackage, grade separated junctions, etc) that would allow for more efficient rail traffic management. It doesn't help that the Transport Minister's position is seen as simply a small stepping stone on a path to bigger posts and is rarely filled by anyone with sufficient interest or talent to grasp the significance of the problems and how they constrain the economy. If only we could be more like the Dutch.

Very well said, you've hit the nail on the head in all of this. My own interest and career was in road traffic, but it took me far too long to realise what a futile interest this was, because Government simply have neither interest nor capability in it.
Road accidents are one of the UK's biggest avoidable killers, bad driving habits are one of the biggest avoidable causes of congestion (lost £billions to the economy), and pollution. Much could be done to address all of these things, and although all none of these issues can be completely eradicated, they could all be massively reduced if only the interest was there because the possibilities (eg. technology, information and legislation options) exist in abundance, and all could be done without the politically awkward big brother element.
But just as with the railways, a transport position in Government is not only seen as a (small) political stepping stone at best, it is more likely to be seen by MPs as a position to be avoided at all costs - just as Sir Humphrey observed in Yes Minister 40, yes FORTY, years ago.
Very sad, but it goes a long way towards explaining why a good few other countries seem to have a lot less difficulty with their transport advancements than we do.

 

[Bald Rick]

If the freights are being looped anyway, could a banking loco be attached and removed at these loops. Obviously these longer periods of being banked would take more locos and cost more, but presumably much less than an infrastructure based solution?

at some places, yes, but then you are into the logistics of the quite varied places trains are looped at, and finding paths for the locos (and drivers) to get to and from where they are needed.

By far the simplest option is a loco drawing 25kV!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

With government in chaos after Boris Johnson was forced out, there is speculation about future policy as the candidates for PM emerge.
This from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-that-could-fail-under-a-lame-duck-government

HS2 in the north​

The high-speed rail network has always been opposed by a majority of Conservative voters and particularly among the Brexit wing. Johnson likes big infrastructure projects and backed it. Nonetheless, in his leadership campaign, he whipped up votes by promising to review it – even if, once elected, he handed that review to a former chairman of HS2.
Too much work has surely been done on the first leg from London to Birmingham to go back now without colossal waste, and phase 2a to Crewe has passed through parliament. But a new leader could still choose to scrap the rest.

Rishi Sunak is probably committed to the IRP (HS2 and NPR) and its famous £96 billion budget that he recently agreed.
But a new PM and Chancellor might view the whole thing differently.
We'll know soon enough.

 

[Austriantrain]

My point is that the time taken to stop and attach a loco, and of course detach the other end (possibly not necessary if being banked), would almost certainly take longer than the time gain from having higher speed up the relevant grade - the grades aren’t that difficult.

That is certainly true and from end-to-end, the freights might also be slightly slower. However, on electric or with more power (I would go for electric, of course), they will, once „on the road“, get out of the way of passengers faster, increasing total capacity.

Of course, loops will almost certainly have to be resited. That costs money, but depending on the required output, it could still be the cheapest option (no doubt, the French would build a LGV instead, when their classic double track route has train numbers where the Swiss would ask „should we partially double-track our single line“ - I am exaggerating of course).

 

[Bald Rick]

With government in chaos after Boris Johnson was forced out, there is speculation about future policy as the candidates for PM emerge.
This from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-that-could-fail-under-a-lame-duck-government


Rishi Sunak is probably committed to the IRP (HS2 and NPR) and its famous £96 billion budget that he recently agreed.
But a new PM and Chancellor might view the whole thing differently.
We'll know soon enough.

it would be a very ‘courageous’ move to do anything with IRP now, before the big money is spent. It would play right into Labours hands in the run up to the next GE.

 

[HSTEd]

. Nevertheless, as far as I am aware, the fact only 10 new AC locomotives (88s) have entered service since privatisation and various BR electrics have been withdrawn, the system does seem to have bent to the will of FOCs and allowing them to keep diesel paths. Certainly we've seen this sentiment play out on other threads.

Also telling that at least so far, the only electric locomotives to actually enter service have been purchased by the state, through DRS

 

[Agent_Squash]

And passenger workings in the Lancaster area. The number of flat junctions as well as the long headways required for the limited stop Edinburgh/Glasgow to London services are really detrimental to capacity and will probably prevent an increase in frequency on Lancaster to Morecambe, Barrow, Windermere and Leeds services.

Really those limited stop services ought to bypass Lancaster and Carnforth.

There are no limited stop services at Carnforth, and it would be insanity to remove Lancaster's London services.

Lancaster to London is a far more important flow than to Morecambe (which most people use the bus) and Leeds. I suspect there will become a point where both Barrow and Windermere justify 1tph each (with potentially 2tph on Barrow eventually) but those services partially do well as they connect well with the London services.

 

[javelin]

With government in chaos after Boris Johnson was forced out, there is speculation about future policy as the candidates for PM emerge.
This from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-that-could-fail-under-a-lame-duck-government


Rishi Sunak is probably committed to the IRP (HS2 and NPR) and its famous £96 billion budget that he recently agreed.
But a new PM and Chancellor might view the whole thing differently.
We'll know soon enough.

Sunak is IMO the most likely candidate to cancel the whole lot.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Also telling that at least so far, the only electric locomotives to actually enter service have been purchased by the state, through DRS

Well, bi-mode actually and, given that their predecessors were things like Classes 20 and 37, replacement could hardly be delayed much longer. Given the amount of DRS mileage under the wires it would have been foolish to procure anything else.

But getting back to the northern WCML, whilst one would always have liked to have seen more, plenty of 'public' money has gone into better layouts at Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, through the Trent Valley generally, Norton Bridge, Hartford and Euxton. These have benefitted a wide range of passenger and freight services.

Loosely equivalent investments have been made on the ECML and even some on the Midland Main Line.

The problem with Shap and Beattock is that hundreds of millions could be spent on dynamic loops, 'crawler lanes', reinstating the Carlisle Avoiding Line or whatever for a relatively modest and uncertain passenger advantage. Whilst freight would undoubtedly benefit it has always been in a very weak position to pay more when the market with road (and even sea) for mainly intermodal Anglo-Scottish traffic is so heavily contested.

I am far from convinced that an infrastructure solution is justifiable. I'm with @Bald Rick , that an electric traction 'solution' is the best approach right now.

 

[Sonik]

Also telling that at least so far, the only electric locomotives to actually enter service have been purchased by the state, through DRS

There's quite a few on order though, GBRF have 30 class 99 for a start

one would always have liked to have seen more, plenty of 'public' money has gone into better layouts at Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, through the Trent Valley generally, Norton Bridge, Hartford and Euxton. These have benefitted a wide range of passenger and freight services.

We still got HS2 for the southern section despite these improvements. Golbourn is the missing piece. Whether Golbourne (or something similar) gets built or not, the problems north of Crewe aren't going away.

I am far from convinced that an infrastructure solution is justifiable. I'm with @Bald Rick , that an electric traction 'solution' is the best approach right now.

Looks like this will happen anyway regardless.

The problem with Shap and Beattock is that hundreds of millions could be spent on dynamic loops, 'crawler lanes', reinstating the Carlisle Avoiding Line or whatever for a relatively modest and uncertain passenger advantage. Whilst freight would undoubtedly benefit it has always been in a very weak position to pay more when the market with road (and even sea) for mainly intermodal Anglo-Scottish traffic is so heavily contested.

That depends if the government are serious about net-zero commitments or not. Passenger traffic to Scotland has a very strong advantage in terms of modal shift from air, which is why quicker journeys are targeted. It's also the destination with already (by far) the largest domestic intermodal flow. NR own forecasts show that this traffic could easily double or treble if unconstrained, without any subsidy for FOCs.

It's rather ironic that we are arguing over the merits of (relatively) modest investments in a route where arguably rail offers some of the best net benefits for both passenger and freight.

 

[Watershed]

But how would banker locos join the trains? I guess you'd have to stop the underpowered trains in loops, thereby possibly having to bring them to rest from say 60mph and then get them going again on the adverse gradient? That's a lot of extra fuel / energy compared to just running them slowly ...

Whilst it would quite possibly extend the journey times of freights (though probably not for the heaviest and slowest services, which would be sped up by being looped less), from a holistic viewpoint it allows much more efficient utilisation of capacity. You could probably fit twice as many freight trains down this part of the WCML with such improvements.

Whilst having powerful bimode locos is the easy solution in one sense, it would require significant power supply upgrades if lots of FOCs were to jump on the bandwagon.

 

[Halish Railway]

There are no limited stop services at Carnforth, and it would be insanity to remove Lancaster's London services.

Lancaster to London is a far more important flow than to Morecambe (which most people use the bus) and Leeds. I suspect there will become a point where both Barrow and Windermere justify 1tph each (with potentially 2tph on Barrow eventually) but those services partially do well as they connect well with the London services.

Lancaster is planned to be served by its own service which will also stop at Preston, Wigan, Warrington, Crewe and maybe Birmingham Interchange, whereas the 2tph London to Edinburgh/Glasgow service are of no use to Lancaster and the surrounding area but still eat into the area’s rail capacity.

Building a diversion (Not necessarily a high speed one) around Lancaster and Carnforth that could be used by both Passenger and freight trains can cut journey times for the super-fast Scotland to London services and improve capacity and frequency of trains serving Lancaster without making any infrastructure changes to the existing route. There’s also the safety benefit of having less high speed and freight trains crossing the level crossings at Hest Bank and Bolton-le-Sands.

 

[hexagon789]

Perhaps someone like @hexagon789 could even tell us what the proportions of electric versus diesel hauled freight was 30 years ago compared with today on the North WCML.

Possibly higher, BR did like to switch modes where possible rather than run diesel under the wires, but plenty of freight did run diesel under the OLE though in BR days, so it's not exactly clear cut.

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps someone like @hexagon789 could even tell us what the proportions of electric versus diesel hauled freight was 30 years ago compared with today on the North WCML.

30 years ago there was a much higher proportion of electric freight, and 40 years ago I guess it was nearly 100%. However it is not proportion that is the issue, but quantity.

It's also the destination with already (by far) the largest domestic intermodal flow.

where the boxes start / conclude their loaded journey is irrelevant, it is where the intermodal trains operate that is the issue.

NR own forecasts show that this traffic could easily double or treble if unconstrained, without any subsidy for FOCs.

There is a significant indirect subsidy for the FOCs, as they do not pay towards any of the fixed cost of the network.

Whilst it would quite possibly extend the journey times of freights (though probably not for the heaviest and slowest services, which would be sped up by being looped less), from a holistic viewpoint it allows much more efficient utilisation of capacity. You could probably fit twice as many freight trains down this part of the WCML with such improvements.

if you mean banking, I’m not sure it would lead to a more efficient use of capacity. Remember that banking requires lots of light engines to return back down the hill, and two crossing Movements to do so.

Whilst having powerful bimode locos is the easy solution in one sense, it would require significant power supply upgrades if lots of FOCs were to jump on the bandwagon.

I’m not sure it would be that significant, although it does need looking at. If the 99s are going to be able to regenerate into the 25kV, then it may well actually help balance the power considerably.

 

[Sonik]

it is where the intermodal trains operate that is the issue.

I don't disagree, but due to network effects, traffic, and the distribution systems that use it, will naturally concentrate around the routes that pass/reach the most useful endpoints. This is a mater of economics and geography irrespective of policy.

Less direct routes may be possible but generally speaking that makes rail less competitive (because it increases costs) and particularly for domestic intermodal which is more time sensitive than other flows. Tesco put their main distribution facilities directly on WCML in the west midlands simply because it allows to reach the most areas of population quickly. Others including Sainsburys, ASDA and the Post Office are following suit.

Unsurprisingly, therefore NR's Freight Forecast shows the greatest growth potential (by far) on WCML, creating a stronger business case for any upgrades to facilitate that.

There is a significant indirect subsidy for the FOCs, as they do not pay towards any of the fixed cost of the network

FOCs do though pay TACs and receive negligible direct subsidy compared to passenger services; it's also worth noting that road freight gets even more effective subsidy, as demonstrated by the modal shift revenue support scheme - which explicitly aims to re-balance the disparity.

So the basic point I was attempting to allude to, is that rail is often simply cheaper (even accounting for subsidies) because it's more efficient, which is presumably why Tesco and others are increasingly all over it.

 

[Watershed]

if you mean banking, I’m not sure it would lead to a more efficient use of capacity. Remember that banking requires lots of light engines to return back down the hill, and two crossing Movements to do so.

Not if the loops are turnbacks, as they are at Blackwell for instance.

Obviously some infrastructure work would be needed to make that happen, but it's by no means impossible or overly expensive.

 

[The Planner]

Not if the loops are turnbacks, as they are at Blackwell for instance.

Obviously some infrastructure work would be needed to make that happen, but it's by no means impossible or overly expensive.

Anything that needs signal alterations is overly expensive until we break signalling contractor monopolies.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Anything that needs signal alterations is overly expensive until we break signalling contractor monopolies.

Maybe the answer is ETCS then (as long as we don't have UK exceptionalism features to make it proprietary).

 

[The Planner]

Maybe the answer is ETCS then (as long as we don't have UK exceptionalism features to make it proprietary).

Not sure it would make any difference, its who is designing and delivering it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are no limited stop services at Carnforth, and it would be insanity to remove Lancaster's London services.

Lancaster to London is a far more important flow than to Morecambe (which most people use the bus) and Leeds. I suspect there will become a point where both Barrow and Windermere justify 1tph each (with potentially 2tph on Barrow eventually) but those services partially do well as they connect well with the London services.

HS2 with Golborne would have brought a separate Lancaster starter.

 

[snowball]

As the thread on the HS2 Crewe-Manchester bill has been closed, I'll use this one.

In the original HS2 design, a northbound HS2 train which called at Crewe could not then rejoin HS2, and a southbound train calling at Crewe could not use HS2 until after Crewe.

Then the design was altered to provide a northern Crewe link so that an HS2 train can call at Crewe and rejoin HS2.

The powers to build this northern link are included in the HS2 Crewe-Manchester bill.

I've just read the article by Jim Steer in the current RAIL (#963) and he makes a point which I hadn't noticed, though it may be well known to others.

Though legal powers for the northern link are in the Bill, it isn't funded as part of HS2, and will only be built if there are funds for it as part of NPR.

 

[Starmill]

As the thread on the HS2 Crewe-Manchester bill has been closed, I'll use this one.

In the original HS2 design, a northbound HS2 train which called at Crewe could not then rejoin HS2, and a southbound train calling at Crewe could not use HS2 until after Crewe.

Then the design was altered to provide a northern Crewe link so that an HS2 train can call at Crewe and rejoin HS2.

The powers to build this northern link are included in the HS2 Crewe-Manchester bill.

I've just read the article by Jim Steer in the current RAIL (#963) and he makes a point which I hadn't noticed, though it may be well known to others.

Though legal powers for the northern link are in the Bill, it isn't funded as part of HS2, and will only be built if there are funds for it as part of NPR.

There has been an attempt to get the benefits of the Crewe North Connection into the business case for NPR without the costs. Suffice to say that is going nowhere!