speeding up existing services with a bulldozer

[gingertom]

A few more dynamic loops between Salisbury and Exeter wouldn't go amiss, with full redoubling the long term aim.

 

[MarkyT]

A few more dynamic loops between Salisbury and Exeter wouldn't go amiss, with full redoubling the long term aim.

Tisbury station is a good candidate, to avoid the double stop in one direction. Another long loop somewhere between Honiton and Pinhoe could allow strengthening of local services, which might permit the withdrawal of some of the more minor stops on Waterloo trains. Small improvements to journey times could result from both schemes, but full doubling wouldn't really do anything more for speed, as the current rolling stock is generally able to run at full speed for most of the route.

 

[gingertom]

Tisbury station is a good candidate, to avoid the double stop in one direction. Another long loop somewhere between Honiton and Pinhoe could allow strengthening of local services, which might permit the withdrawal of some of the more minor stops on Waterloo trains. Small improvements to journey times could result from both schemes, but full doubling wouldn't really do anything more for speed, as the current rolling stock is generally able to run at full speed for most of the route.

are there not regular delays waiting for trains to exit single track sections and enter the loop?

 

[zwk500]

are there not regular delays waiting for trains to exit single track sections and enter the loop?

Dynamic loops would do the lion's share of easing these without the need for full double track. Although I'd be interested to know if full double track would be cheaper to maintain in a normal 30- to 50-year life than dynamic loops because of less pointwork and interlocking requirements.

 

[gingertom]

Dynamic loops would do the lion's share of easing these without the need for full double track. Although I'd be interested to know if full double track would be cheaper to maintain in a normal 30- to 50-year life than dynamic loops because of less pointwork and interlocking requirements.

I'm guessing here, but if it was cheaper to have double track and les pointwork then the lines wouldn't have been singled as a cutback. Of course, things move on and maintenance techniques and standards have moved on since then so well worth revisiting.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

But who would operate it?

TfW to Bidston maybe...merseyrail timed to meet wrexham and coast services? Just build a bridge though. 2 hours to do a 50 minute car journey is ridiculous.

 

[MarkyT]

I'm guessing here, but if it was cheaper to have double track and les pointwork then the lines wouldn't have been singled as a cutback. Of course, things move on and maintenance techniques and standards have moved on since then so well worth revisiting.

Originally, it was a massive simplification, including many station layouts, and there was some singling around Yeovil that was later reversed as it soon proved operationally unworkable. Yeovil Jn signalbox was taken out of use and stripped of all equipment for a while, but luckily wasn't demolished, allowing it to be fully re-equipped with Western Region equipment later. BR singling schemes were often proposed to reduce the costs of major condition-based track and signalling renewals that became due, allowing only one new track to replace two at a time of dwindling service, and there was a grant scheme from the treasury at the time that incentivised removal of track miles, so singling made a lot of sense to management. Another cost factor in reinstating double track now for long sections is the access requirements for a second platform. Originally the dynamic loop for the hourly service introduction west of Salisbury under SWT was planned to be clear of Axminster station to avoid its reconstruction. The TOCs timetable planning work proved that Axminster was in fact the best place for a passing location, however, and that allowed a shorter length of double track too.

 

[MattRat]

TfW to Bidston maybe...merseyrail timed to meet wrexham and coast services? Just build a bridge though. 2 hours to do a 50 minute car journey is ridiculous.

So build a new line parrellel? Because I don't see them playing nice on using each other's tracks. There's been enough problems deciding who will do Bidston to Wrexham, with both having plans for the line.

Much cheaper to just build curves at Shotton anyway, even if the saving isn't as much.

 

[Irascible]

A few more dynamic loops between Salisbury and Exeter wouldn't go amiss, with full redoubling the long term aim.

MarkyT would know for sure, but I suggested Exeter redignalling because I thought from previous discussions that we're bottlenecked at that end - so the benefit would be to Yeovil turnarounds which I thought were ok.

Bundling one in with the other woirks. Bundling a bunch more smaller projects in too ( do srations count here if the line is already open? ) might lead to some flexibility of attack...

 

[plugwash]

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.

And step free access is still poor on the underground.

On the plus side the new HS2 and Crossrail lines in combination with the existing thameslink line should make it possible to do a lot of cross-london journeys without involving the underground. You will still have to change twice, but at least it will be between full size trains at modern stations with step free access.

 

[A0wen]

And step free access is still poor on the underground.

On the plus side the new HS2 and Crossrail lines in combination with the existing thameslink line should make it possible to do a lot of cross-london journeys without involving the underground. You will still have to change twice, but at least it will be between full size trains at modern stations with step free access.

Most (if not all) the major interchange stations on the tube are step free now. Certainly places like Kings Cross, Waterloo etc have had work done on them to provide step free from platform to concourse.

 

[MattRat]

Most (if not all) the major interchange stations on the tube are step free now. Certainly places like Kings Cross, Waterloo etc have had work done on them to provide step free from platform to concourse.

The tube is still a nightmare to travel on. Alternatives are more than welcome.

 

[A0wen]

The tube is still a nightmare to travel on. Alternatives are more than welcome.

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure the statement about step free access was accurate, particularly at the key interchanges which are relevant to the posts.

 

[Halish Railway]

A fact that I find fascinating is that you can get a train all of the way from Warrington to Haymarket or Glasgow Central without going through a tunnel under a natural feature.

So if you wanted a non-tilt HS2 train to match or even exceed the timings of a Pendolino you could always whip out a TBM. There’s a couple of circuitous S-bends on the route that could be cut out, although a lot of these require compulsory purchases rather than a TBM. Fortunately there’s already an existing transport corridor to build alongside of in the form of the M6. The examples shown at Lancaster and Penrith are avoiding lines that avoid long stretches of low linespeeds (75mph at Lancaster and 80mph at Penrith) whilst permitting dynamic overtaking. The Lancaster avoider reduces the number of extremely high priority passenger trains (That in the indicated service pattern don’t serve Lancaster) crossing the flat crossings at Lancaster’s northern throat, Morecambe South Jn, Hest Bank and Carnforth North Jn, as well as providing capacity for more local services that could also serve a reopened Hest Bank station and reopened WCML platforms at Carnforth.

 

[HSTEd]

A fact that I find fascinating is that you can get a train all of the way from Warrington to Haymarket or Glasgow Central without going through a tunnel under a natural feature.

You might want to force image sizes on those pictures. They are messing with my browser's display of the forum.

But once you are going to TBMs I'd argue the more likely option would be a single longer base tunnel than a handful fo short ones.

It's only 32km from Burneside on the Windermere branch to the southern approach to Penrith, although that would require an underground intervention station - such things are build in the Alps. A 70m climb over 30km, assuming you canjust clip the edge of Haweswater. That is far less challenging that what exists at Shap right now! Indeed I imagine the current branch would be retained pretty much only for access to the limestone facility on the summit.

You divert the WCML passenger services through Kendal rather than having to be satisfied with Oxenholme, and the curves on the first section of the Windemere branch aren't bad.

 

[plugwash]

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure the statement about step free access was accurate, particularly at the key interchanges which are relevant to the posts.

I stand by the statement that it is poor and that many key interchanges still lack step free access.

For London mainline terminals (i'm including london bridge because while it's not physically a terminus station, a lot of trains into london do terminate there).

Euston - no step free access from the mainline to the Deep tube, step free access in the westbound direction only on the subsurface lines
Kings Cross/St Pancras - full step free access.
Liverpool street - no step free access to the deep tube, step free access in the easttbound direction only on the subsurface lines
Fenchurch Street - nearest undergound station is tower hill which does appear to have full step free access.
London Bridge - Apparently has step free access to all platforms, BUT you have to use specific entrances depending on your direction of travel.
Cannon Street - Step free access westbound only.
Charing Cross - No step free access.
Waterloo - Step free access to the Jubilee line only
Victoria - Full step free access.
Paddington - No step free access to deep tube, limited step free access to subsurface lines.

So out of the 11 London terminals, 3 have full step free access to all the underground lines serving them (two of which share the same underground station), one has no step free access to the undergronud at all, one has step free access to all lines but you may have to use a specific entrance depending on your direction of travel, one doesn;t have an underground station of it's own but the nearest underground station does have step free acccess and the remaining 5 have step free access but only to a limited selection of lines or directions.

Ok so what about interchanges between underground lines.

Bakerloo/Central - no step free interchange.
Bakerloo/Circle - no step free interchange.
Bakerloo/District - no step free interchange.
Bakerloo/Hammersmith and City - no step free interchange.
Bakerloo/Jubilee - step free interchange northbound to northbound and southbound to southbound possible at baker street but not northbound to southbound.
Bakerloo/Metropolitan - no step free interchange
Bakerloo/Northern - no step free interchange
Bakerloo/Piccadilly - step free interchange northbound to northbound and southbound to southbound possible at oxford circus but not northbound to southbound.
Bakerloo/Victoria - no step free interchange
Bakerloo/Waterloo & City - no step free interchange
Central/Circle - no step free interchange.
Central/District - step free interchange, but only outside the city center at Ealing Broadway or Mile end.
Central/Hammersmith and City - step free interchange, but only outside the city center at Mile end.
Central/Jubilee - step free interchange at bond street.
Central/Metropolitan - no step free interchange
Central/Northern - step free interchange to the Charing cross branch at TottenhamCourt Road, but not the Bank branch.
Central/Piccadilly - no step free interchange
Central/Victoria - no step free interchange
Central/Waterloo & City - no step free interchange
Circle/District - lots of options for step free interchange
Circle/Hammersmith and City - lots of options for step free interchange
Circle/Jubilee - step free interchange on the south side at Westminster, but not on the north side.
Circle/Metropolitan - lots of options for step free interchange
Circle/Northern - step free interchange on the north side of the city to the Bank branch at Kings cross st Pancras, but not to the Charing cross branch.
Circle/Piccadilly - step free interchange on the north side of the city only at Kings cross st Pancras.
Circle/Victoria - step free interchange on both the north and south sides of the city at Victoria and Kings cross St pancras.
Circle/Waterloo & City - no step free interchange
District/Hammersmith and City - westbound to westbound and eastbound to eastbound only at Aldgate east. Step free interchange but requires switching stations at Hammersmith. Full step free interchange at Edgeware road.
District/Jubilee - Full step free interchange at Westminster
District/Metropolitan - No direct interchange (step free or otherwise)
District/Northern - no step free interchange.
District/Piccadilly - no step free interchange.
District/Victoria - step free interchange at Victoria.
District/Waterloo & City - no step free interchange
Hammersmith and City/Jubilee - no step free interchange
Hammersmith and City/Metropolitan - lots of options for step free interchange
Hammersmith and City/Northern - step free interchange to the Bank branch at Kings cross st Pancras, but not to the Charing cross branch.
Hammersmith and City/Piccadilly - step free interchange at Kings cross st Pancras.
Hammersmith and City/Victoria - step free interchange at Kings cross St pancras.
Hammersmith and City/Waterloo & City - No direct interchange (step free or otherwise)
Jubilee/Metropolitan - step free interchange at Finchley road (or Wembly park with some Caveats about traveling in the correct carriage)
Jubilee/Northern - No step free access to the Charing cross branch. For the bank branch London bridge has step free access, but has a warning about having to use the correct entrance depending on direction of travel, so it's not clear to me if you would have to leave and re-enter the station.
Jubilee/Piccadilly - step free interchange at Green park
Jubilee/Victoria - step free interchange at Green park
Jubilee/Waterloo & City - no step free interchange.
Metropolitan/Northern - step free interchange to the Bank branch at Kings cross st Pancras, but not to the Charing cross branch.
Metropolitan/Piccadilly - step free interchange at Kings cross st Pancras.
Metropolitan/Victoria - step free interchange at Kings cross St pancras.
Metropolitan/Waterloo & City - No direct interchange (step free or otherwise)
Northern/Piccadilly - step free interchange at Kings Cross St pancras to the bank branch, no step free interchange to the charing cross branch.
Northern/Victoria - step free interchange at Kings Cross St pancras to the bank branch, no step free interchange in the north to the charing cross branch. Interchange in the south at stockwell northbound to northbound and southbound to southbound only.
Northern/Waterloo & City - no step free interchange
Piccadilly/Victoria - step free interchange at Kings Cross St pancras or Green park.
Piccadilly/Waterloo & City - no direct interchange (step free or otherwise)
Victoria/Waterloo & City - no direct interchange (step free or otherwise)

I count.

5 line pairs with no direct interchange at all
20 line paris with interchange for people who can climb steps no step free interchange
13 line pairs with step free interchange with caveats, such as being outside the city center, only in some directions or only serving some branches.
17 line pairs with proper step free interchange

That is umm better than I expected but still poor.

 

[Meerkat]

A fact that I find fascinating is that you can get a train all of the way from Warrington to Haymarket or Glasgow Central without going through a tunnel under a natural feature.

So if you wanted a non-tilt HS2 train to match or even exceed the timings of a Pendolino you could always whip out a TBM. There’s a couple of circuitous S-bends on the route that could be cut out, although a lot of these require compulsory purchases rather than a TBM. Fortunately there’s already an existing transport corridor to build alongside of in the form of the M6. The examples shown at Lancaster and Penrith are avoiding lines that avoid long stretches of low linespeeds (75mph at Lancaster and 80mph at Penrith) whilst permitting dynamic overtaking. The Lancaster avoider reduces the number of extremely high priority passenger trains (That in the indicated service pattern don’t serve Lancaster) crossing the flat crossings at Lancaster’s northern throat, Morecambe South Jn, Hest Bank and Carnforth North Jn, as well as providing capacity for more local services that could also serve a reopened Hest Bank station and reopened WCML platforms at Carnforth.

View attachment 109076View attachment 109074View attachment 109075View attachment 109077View attachment 109078

Anything above ground will require major engineering, significant environmental mitigation, and will get bogged down in objections.
If you are replacing and closing the old route then you would need to be careful that your shorter route doesn't make the gradient unacceptable, and if you are using the old route as slow lines then you need flying junctions at each end and it gets even more expensive and disruptive.
If anything happens my money would be on minor deviations to ease the worst curves, maybe as part of putting extra, longer, loops in.

 

[Halish Railway]

Anything above ground will require major engineering, significant environmental mitigation, and will get bogged down in objections.

Regarding Lancaster, there’s just been a new bypass built there (A683 Bay Gateway) so surely if that was approved a new railway line running next to the M6 can also be approved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regarding Lancaster, there’s just been a new bypass built there (A683 Bay Gateway) so surely if that was approved a new railway line running next to the M6 can also be approved.

I doubt the Lancaster one would be much of an issue provided you went to the eastern side of the M6 as a lot of housing is basically right next to the motorway (including, bizarrely, the quite desirable area of Hala Hill). On the other hand digging up Shap would be rather strongly opposed.

I'm sure there was opposition to the Bay Gateway, but it wasn't really through an area of outstanding natural beauty, just a bit of extra-urban farmland and an industrial estate. There's similarly room to the west of Lancaster along the old railway for a western bypass and third bridge if one is considered necessary* - again, this isn't exactly an AONB, though the inhabitants of rural-feeling Aldcliffe won't approve.

* The M6 effectively provides a bypass of Lancaster itself, but within the city there's no practical alternative to get from north to south than via the city centre, and traffic, particularly industrial lorries, doing this is a serious blight on Lancaster's historic city centre; moving that traffic out would be of considerable benefit, though getting rid of Marsh industrial estate (the only access to which is via the centre) and putting houses on it instead would also solve most of it. That industrial estate access issue also effectively rules out a ULEZ or ZEZ in Lancaster city centre, with higher emissions traffic to other destinations able to use the motorway but not access to that particular industrial estate.

 

[Killingworth]

A fact that I find fascinating is that you can get a train all of the way from Warrington to Haymarket or Glasgow Central without going through a tunnel under a natural feature.

So if you wanted a non-tilt HS2 train to match or even exceed the timings of a Pendolino you could always whip out a TBM. There’s a couple of circuitous S-bends on the route that could be cut out, although a lot of these require compulsory purchases rather than a TBM. Fortunately there’s already an existing transport corridor to build alongside of in the form of the M6. The examples shown at Lancaster and Penrith are avoiding lines that avoid long stretches of low linespeeds (75mph at Lancaster and 80mph at Penrith) whilst permitting dynamic overtaking. The Lancaster avoider reduces the number of extremely high priority passenger trains (That in the indicated service pattern don’t serve Lancaster) crossing the flat crossings at Lancaster’s northern throat, Morecambe South Jn, Hest Bank and Carnforth North Jn, as well as providing capacity for more local services that could also serve a reopened Hest Bank station and reopened WCML platforms at Carnforth.

View attachment 109076View attachment 109074View attachment 109075View attachment 109077View attachment 109078

I've previously suggested tunnels in other threads, but with little expectation of any happening. Cost. Geology. Disruption. Political will. Fear of water ingress. Ventilation. Views, externally and internally etc.

It's over 200 years since our ancestors were building tunnels over 2 miles long to leg it along narrow canals. Norway is riddled with long tunnels for roads, through hard rock but many going under fjords and the sea. We've a massive web of tunnels beneath London, large parts below sea level and the Thames through very much more challenging ground.

The modern world wants to rewild the countryside and concentrate more people in towns and cities. By putting more railways underground trains can run faster, straighter, and on better gradients than when using surface space and get to city centres with grade separated interchanges.

Dreaming again. Back to 2022, no cash to make a business case, let alone build any. Carry on as before, congested Britain for the conceivable future.

Such projects require a lot more than a few bulldozers.

(I was reminded recently of a trip from Newcastle to York with my father in the 1950s. He pointed out where lines for Middesbrough split off at Northallerton, and had done for a long time. His story was how useful that configuration was during the war and would have been relatively easy to repair in case of bomb damage. It took a long time for Werrington to emulate that flyover junction from over 100 years ago. )

 

[snowball]

Regarding Lancaster, there’s just been a new bypass built there (A683 Bay Gateway)

after decades of struggle and legal battles. And not under any requirement to be straight, as a high-speed railway would be.

 

[Grumpy]

Bulldoze Normanton and rebuild it to full PRM spec with a full track realignment to vastly increase speed, particularly on the Up line.

Indeed
And at the same time sort out Horbury Junction to reflect that traffic passing from the Wakefield direction towards Barnsley and Sheffield is now more important than that towards Mirfield.
Should be able to manage considerably better than the present 20 mph crawl

 

[MattRat]

after decades of struggle and legal battles. And not under any requirement to be straight, as a high-speed railway would be.

It's also a road, which for some reason is easier to get built than railways. The likes of Extinction Rebellion don't even turn up to protest the construction, it's crazy.

 

[A0wen]

It's also a road, which for some reason is easier to get built than railways. The likes of Extinction Rebellion don't even turn up to protest the construction, it's crazy.

That is absolute nonsense. There were protests and obstructions on road building taking place 30 years ago as anyone who remembers either the M3 extension from Winchester or the A34 around Newbury will attest.

And there is no evidence road building is any quicker - they go through a very similar consultation process and have the same challenges in securing funds. The exception is usually when the road improvements are part of a wider a planning application which makes the developer responsible for improvements (usually safety led) such as can be seen at the M1/A45/A508 around Northampton at present where the new, erm, railfreight terminal is being built on the old Courteenhal estate land.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

That is absolute nonsense. There were protests and obstructions on road building taking place 30 years ago as anyone who remembers either the M3 extension from Winchester or the A34 around Newbury will attest.

Being a Londoner, I particularly remember the squatters protesting against the A12 extension from Redbridge to Hackney. (In those days it was misleadingly labelled the M11 Link Road)

 

[swt_passenger]

That is absolute nonsense. There were protests and obstructions on road building taking place 30 years ago as anyone who remembers either the M3 extension from Winchester or the A34 around Newbury will attest.

And there is no evidence road building is any quicker - they go through a very similar consultation process and have the same challenges in securing funds. The exception is usually when the road improvements are part of a wider a planning application which makes the developer responsible for improvements (usually safety led) such as can be seen at the M1/A45/A508 around Northampton at present where the new, erm, railfreight terminal is being built on the old Courteenhal estate land.

I think you probably need to go back to the 60s or maybe 70s to get to a period when there were major schemes proposed with no real objections at all.

 

[A0wen]

I think you probably need to go back to the 60s or maybe 70s to get to a period when there were major schemes proposed with no real objections at all.

Earlier than that - don't forget the protests about the proposed Ringways in London kicked off in the late 60s.

 

[swt_passenger]

Earlier than that - don't forget the protests about the proposed Ringways in London kicked off in the late 60s.

Yes I suppose so. I think I read that the various inner city motorways built in London were only a small part of the original plan. I lived in Newcastle back then, and the Central Motorway that was built was effectively the last straw, further phases were withdrawn, I think there was a sudden realisation of how physically divisive it was.

 

[paul1609]

This is a spin off from the next high speed route. But I think there is room to get a bit more out of the existing network with a little civils to speed things up.

So where would you get the bulldozer out to reduce journey times? New alignments like bypasses, or just easing a bad curve are allowed. or signalling changes. But new rolling stock isnt. UK and abroad.

I am going with a bit of new alignment between Shap and Penrith. I would just put it alongside the M6. Should cut valuable time off, esp for non tilting trains.

The average motorway is nowhere near straight enough for a high speed rail alignment. Have a look at HS1 next to the M20 in Kent junction 8 to 9. A 170 mph hs line required a margin of up to a mile wide to straighten what was a reasonable straight motorway alignment.

 

[zwk500]

Yes I suppose so. I think I read that the various inner city motorways built in London were only a small part of the original plan. I lived in Newcastle back then, and the Central Motorway that was built was effectively the last straw, further phases were withdrawn, I think there was a sudden realisation of how physically divisive it was.

I recommend this site if you're interested in the London Urban motorways plan, it's got some amazing stuff in it: https://www.roads.org.uk/index.php/ringways. It also has great pages on Newcastle and Glasgow.

Back on topic, a 70mph road designed for cars with rubber tyres will need a very different alignment to a 125/140mph railway for trains with steel wheels, and even if the alignment was suitable I believe the preference now is not to have road and rail parallel to avoid an unusable strip of land trapped in the middle.
WCML avoiding tunnels have some merit, but you'd get more benefit by just building HS2 from Crewe to Carstairs.
The place that would benefit most from a relatively minor adjustment is, to me, Eastleigh. Route the Portsmouth line via the south side of the Works, remodel the station and junctions to raise the crossing speed slightly and get 3 or even 4 fully bi-di 12-car platforms with access to all 4 lines. Grade separation is unfeasible but faster crossing speeds would really help reduce the junction margins for traffic coming from Chandler's Ford.