daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Transport, Urban Planning and Infrastructure

Transport, Urban Planning and Infrastructure Shaping space, urbanity and mobility



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 14th, 2012, 07:27 PM   #1841
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,307

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBadger View Post
The priority of HS2 is Birmingham, Manchester and Heathrow.
Leeds more than Heathrow. Heh, even Liverpool or Newcastle more than Heathrow - especially if HS2 Ltd manage to persuade the Government that a Heathrow spur is a very very bad idea!

Sheffield and East Midlands will get HS2 stations because they are big and HS2 passes by. The goal of the Eastern branch has always been Leeds, though the long-distance electric ECML trains (Newcastle and Edinburgh) are going to be captured by HS2.

Leicester has 4tph, and journey times around 65-70 minutes - only 5-10 minutes more than Chesham Met Line off-peak (and 2tph more). There's not much need for extra capacity to Leicester, though both Nottingham and Sheffield would want both the lower journey times and faster speeds of HS2 (Derby gets the faster Sheffield services). The 'South Midlands Growth Area' between the Luton and Leicester is the area of the MML in need of better services, and HS2 will mean more stops between Leicester and Luton.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old July 14th, 2012, 11:08 PM   #1842
Tooooon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Likes (Received): 1

The person who suggested quadruple track is right in my opinion.Since there is so much money being spent on the project the section from London to Birmingham and the Birmingham to Manchester section of the next line should be quadruple track so that every major city on the line and further up can get a decent service of 7 to 9 tph and the focus cities(London ,Birmingham and Manchester) can get very high frequencies of service.I think this should be the case as I am guessing this will probably only add about 1/3 to the total cost of those sections.
Tooooon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2012, 11:17 PM   #1843
DBadger
culled
 
DBadger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Wolverhampton, Greater Birmingham
Posts: 7,608
Likes (Received): 1321

We already have the WCML basically providing the two slow lines of that quad.
__________________
THE NORTH/SOUTH DIVIDE
THE MIDLANDS CONQUER

♣ WOLVERHAMPTON, GREATER BIRMINGHAM
DBadger no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2012, 02:13 AM   #1844
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,539
Likes (Received): 74

all four quad tracks would be full speed, but the idea was looked into and rejected, i think on the grounds of cost. what the figure was i forget, but a third more seems a bit low.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2012, 11:10 AM   #1845
Leeds No.1
Registered User
 
Leeds No.1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Leeds, EU
Posts: 25,199
Likes (Received): 722

It seems silly that it was rejected on the grounds of cost. We're only going to have to pay for upgrades in future years when we realise all the capacity has been taken up by Leeds & Manchester services.

Where's the capacity going to come from for potential future extensions on to Scotland?

Then again, I suppose there's always the possibility of building a second leg down to London via Leicester rather than routing Leeds trains via Birmingham.
Leeds No.1 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2012, 12:37 PM   #1846
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 5,559
Likes (Received): 383

More will be revealed in the autumn of course, but it is a bit disappointing that paths already seem to be running out even at the planning stage. It's quite likely Sheffield and Nottingham will not have dedicated central services and only through trains calling at Parkway stations.
__________________
My Shanghai photos - Nanjing Road, People's Square, The Bund, Xintiandi and more!
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2012, 01:17 PM   #1847
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,539
Likes (Received): 74

sheffield will be on a parkway station because nothing else is cost effective, but said station will be well served by connections and isnt too far from the city centre. nottingham isnt the purpose of hs2 so i predict it will have thin service, quite rightly in my opinion.

there are other options for nottingham. obviously the mml upgrades and electrification will help, but theres also the possibility of electrifying grantham to nottingham in the future and using the ecml.

hs2 will not attempt to replace nottinghams existing serivces, as it cant, and doesnt need to.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2012, 01:22 PM   #1848
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 5,559
Likes (Received): 383

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
sheffield will be on a parkway station because nothing else is cost effective, but said station will be well served by connections and isnt too far from the city centre. nottingham isnt the purpose of hs2 so i predict it will have thin service, quite rightly in my opinion.

there are other options for nottingham. obviously the mml upgrades and electrification will help, but theres also the possibility of electrifying grantham to nottingham in the future and using the ecml.

hs2 will not attempt to replace nottinghams existing serivces, as it cant, and doesnt need to.
Somewhere in Meadowhall for Sheffield is probably going to be the best compromise.

The quoted 10-minute time saving from electrification of the MML is slightly disappointing though, or will there be more time saving from line-speed improvements? It'll be interesting to see the details when they get published, though that's for the other thread ...
__________________
My Shanghai photos - Nanjing Road, People's Square, The Bund, Xintiandi and more!
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2012, 02:08 PM   #1849
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,539
Likes (Received): 74

The MML improvements announced a few years ago will save 8 minutes, but this is still assuming diesel power. I imagine electrification could save another 8 or so. Much of that saving would also apply to Nottingham services, as alignment-wise the section south of Leicester is likely to benefit more from electric acceleration. Leicester - East Mids Pkwy and Derby - Sheffield are better built straighter higher performance alignments anyway.

Meadowhall is the only location in my opinion - I settled for it in my own hobby-plans more than 5 years ago!
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2012, 02:27 PM   #1850
Vulcan's Finest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: None these days.
Posts: 3,488
Likes (Received): 335

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tooooon View Post
The person who suggested quadruple track is right in my opinion.Since there is so much money being spent on the project the section from London to Birmingham and the Birmingham to Manchester section of the next line should be quadruple track so that every major city on the line and further up can get a decent service of 7 to 9 tph and the focus cities(London ,Birmingham and Manchester) can get very high frequencies of service.I think this should be the case as I am guessing this will probably only add about 1/3 to the total cost of those sections.
I suspect it would be a lot higher than a third - cuttings and embankments would need to be 50% wider on average, four track tunnels would need twice as many TBMs as two tracks. It also begs the point where the trains would terminate - Euston is planned to have 12 platforms for 18TPH, it couldn't handle many more. Plus of course Park-Royal - Northolt uses the old GWR alignment - four tracking would mean large scale property destruction or a new tunnel.

There is one possibility for the MML post 2033 IF the East Midlands stop is indeed located at the current Parkway station. Run pairs of 200m long 'classic' gauge units from Euston on HS2, then split them at EMP. One goes to Nottingham, the other to Derby. Journey time should be about an hour. The Derby one could be extended to Chesterfield and Sheffield Midland if required.
Vulcan's Finest no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2012, 02:34 PM   #1851
Vulcan's Finest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: None these days.
Posts: 3,488
Likes (Received): 335

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
Somewhere in Meadowhall for Sheffield is probably going to be the best compromise.

The quoted 10-minute time saving from electrification of the MML is slightly disappointing though, or will there be more time saving from line-speed improvements? It'll be interesting to see the details when they get published, though that's for the other thread ...
In the 1950s/60s electrification used to mean big journey time cuts because diesel trains used to have much lower installed power, meaning much slower acceleration and poor hill climbing. That isn't the case anymore, the 222 diesel Meridians used by East Midlands Trains already have a very high power/weight ratio. So electric trains will only be marginally faster once the line speed improvements are made. The biggest factor is the twisty track curves bequethed to us by the Midland Railway. Indeed this is one line where tilt would make a big difference.

Leeds no1 wrote: "Then again, I suppose there's always the possibility of building a second leg down to London via Leicester rather than routing Leeds trains via Birmingham".

I think that is exactly what will happen, another HS line North from London the 115 miles to EM Parkway, situated between the MML and ECML. It would cut at least 15 minutes off the journey time To Leeds etc. compared to HS2.
__________________
Vulcan's Finest no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2012, 03:00 PM   #1852
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 5,559
Likes (Received): 383

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan's Finest View Post
Leeds no1 wrote: "Then again, I suppose there's always the possibility of building a second leg down to London via Leicester rather than routing Leeds trains via Birmingham".

I think that is exactly what will happen, another HS line North from London the 115 miles to EM Parkway, situated between the MML and ECML. It would cut at least 15 minutes off the journey time To Leeds etc. compared to HS2.
I think the business case will stack up eventually as more train paths are needed. The big question is what alignment to use and where to terminate the new line. Extending King's Cross won't be impossible but will probably be tricky, as the throat looks like it'll need to be heavily remodelled. I also wonder whether the King's Cross redevelopment plans include any safeguards for potential King's Cross extension. IIRC some reports touted Liverpool Street as a potential eastern high-speed terminus but space is even more of a problem there.
__________________
My Shanghai photos - Nanjing Road, People's Square, The Bund, Xintiandi and more!
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2012, 04:00 PM   #1853
Jon10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,253
Likes (Received): 386

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
I think the business case will stack up eventually as more train paths are needed. The big question is what alignment to use and where to terminate the new line. Extending King's Cross won't be impossible but will probably be tricky, as the throat looks like it'll need to be heavily remodelled. I also wonder whether the King's Cross redevelopment plans include any safeguards for potential King's Cross extension. IIRC some reports touted Liverpool Street as a potential eastern high-speed terminus but space is even more of a problem there.
Kings Cross could be converted, perhaps totally, into a high-speed station, opening up the tunnels if greater length was needed.

Thameslink and an expanded Moorgate line might handle some displaced traffic, especially if many current Moorgate trains move over to Crossrail 2. Then, if Smithfield survives as a wholesale market for another decade or so, that could be the site of the main replacement, perhaps extended into Barts hospital land, depending on how it all fitted in.

This would all be prime development land, and the source of a lot of planning gain money from developers.

Such a "Farringdon Main Line" would be directly linked to the Underground (although not tubes) and to Thameslink, and be built above the platforms of Farringdon Crossrail.

(Blue-sky thinking there, about, I expect, to be shot down...)



Could it be done with just two new tracks south-east from the Kings Cross area?
Tracks and platforms at a lower level than the Metropolitan Line, and above Crossrail??


.

Last edited by Jon10; July 15th, 2012 at 09:59 PM.
Jon10 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2012, 06:27 PM   #1854
Trances
, , and , Fade to Black.
 
Trances's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Living in London
Posts: 7,875
Likes (Received): 19

The market looks like train station in that shot!
__________________
"Are we ready to go farther or have we already gone to far?"
“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”
Trances no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2012, 06:57 PM   #1855
Glom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 918
Likes (Received): 96

Okay, the Denham NIMBYs have really lost it now. There's been a poster on a fence by the junction of the A40 Oxford Road and the A412 protesting the project. It gets changed occasionally, which is a nice idea. But the latest one quotes Churchill to describe their fight against HS2.

That's right. The Denham NIMBYs are likening their fight against a railway line to the fight against Hitler. I must therefore conclude that by the associated practices of Godwin's Law, that the Denham NIMBY's have now lost the argument and the line can go ahead unimpeded.
Glom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2012, 09:22 PM   #1856
Vulcan's Finest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: None these days.
Posts: 3,488
Likes (Received): 335

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
I think the business case will stack up eventually as more train paths are needed. The big question is what alignment to use and where to terminate the new line. Extending King's Cross won't be impossible but will probably be tricky, as the throat looks like it'll need to be heavily remodelled. I also wonder whether the King's Cross redevelopment plans include any safeguards for potential King's Cross extension. IIRC some reports touted Liverpool Street as a potential eastern high-speed terminus but space is even more of a problem there.
A while back I envisaged four new platforms built to the North West of St. Pancras, which with the 4 lengthened MML platforms could allow at least 12 TPH - although it would be difficult to accommodate 400m long trains like HS2. What ever route is chosen it will need long tunnels bored under the North London suburbs.

Others have also suggested Kings Cross, with Gasworks tunnel opened up to allow much longer trains. Indeed there is space to fit 400m long trains in the existing trainshed and station throat. The difficult issue though is that the regent canal is in the wrong place in terms of height! If you look at the line where it enters Gasworks tunnel, it dips sharply downwards to squeeze under the canal. This is where the extended station throat would have to be. I suspect locks could raise the canal height enough, but also getting it under York Way looks nigh-on impossible without major road alterations. Or some kind of boat lift!
Vulcan's Finest no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2012, 09:35 PM   #1857
zfreeman
Registered User
 
zfreeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cork City, formally SY,UK/LDN,UK and CT,SA
Posts: 763
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
Somewhere in Meadowhall for Sheffield is probably going to be the best compromise.

The quoted 10-minute time saving from electrification of the MML is slightly disappointing though, or will there be more time saving from line-speed improvements? It'll be interesting to see the details when they get published, though that's for the other thread ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
It's quite likely Sheffield and Nottingham will not have dedicated central services and only through trains calling at Parkway stations.
[QUOTE=makita09;93289633]sheffield will be on a parkway station because nothing else is cost effective, but said station will be well served by connections and isnt too far from the city centre.

I thought the idea for Sheffield has always been out by Meadowhall if not AT Meadowhall itself.

The old Victoria Station is on the wrong alignment for heading off towards Leeds, and there just isn't room at the existing city centre station in Sheffield.

Meadowhall Station could easily be expanded to serve additional platforms alongside the existing Penistone and Hallam Line platforms (the Hallam Line being the existing 'slow' stopping service to Leeds) with very little in the way of retooling the existing layout. That is working on a two platform high speed service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
nottingham isnt the purpose of hs2 so i predict it will have thin service, quite rightly in my opinion.

there are other options for nottingham. obviously the mml upgrades and electrification will help, but theres also the possibility of electrifying grantham to nottingham in the future and using the ecml.

hs2 will not attempt to replace nottinghams existing serivces, as it cant, and doesnt need to.
Agreed. An upgraded and electrified MML could easily serve Nottingham. With current plans seeing a rebuild of the station and an improved line layout could see journey times to London cut by 15 minutes, and potentially an improvement from 2 tph to 3 from London and improve connections to Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham.

An improved MML and HS2 could see Sheffield/Meadowhall become a more important rail hub, in the leagues on Manchester Piccadilly and Birmingham New Street rather than a comparative 'backwater' rail station.
zfreeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2012, 10:12 PM   #1858
Vulcan's Finest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: None these days.
Posts: 3,488
Likes (Received): 335

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan's Finest View Post
Others have also suggested Kings Cross, with Gasworks tunnel opened up to allow much longer trains. Indeed there is space to fit 400m long trains in the existing trainshed and station throat. The difficult issue though is that the regent canal is in the wrong place in terms of height! If you look at the line where it enters Gasworks tunnel, it dips sharply downwards to squeeze under the canal. This is where the extended station throat would have to be. I suspect locks could raise the canal height enough, but also getting it under York Way looks nigh-on impossible without major road alterations. Or some kind of boat lift!
On reflection I suppose it would also be possible to drop the track level in Kings Cross station by perhaps 10ft to ensure that the station throat could easily go under the canal. We are talking major engineering though to support Cubitt's trainshed while digging huge holes and keeping the railway running - not to mention building a huge concrete box for the throat under Goods way and the canal. Closing the canal for a few years would impact far fewer people and probably cost much less.
Vulcan's Finest no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2012, 12:25 PM   #1859
DeepThought
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 85
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glom View Post
That's right. The Denham NIMBYs are likening their fight against a railway line to the fight against Hitler. I must therefore conclude that by the associated practices of Godwin's Law, that the Denham NIMBY's have now lost the argument and the line can go ahead unimpeded.
Unfortunately I doubt many NIMBYs are acquainted with Godwin's Law. The world might be a better place if they were. On a BBC piece about Kensington council trying to redevelop an estate near Earl's Court last week an old man compared the council paying them to move out to Nazi-style social cleansing...
DeepThought no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2012, 11:56 AM   #1860
Dobbo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 34

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeds No.1 View Post
Then again, I suppose there's always the possibility of building a second leg down to London via Leicester rather than routing Leeds trains via Birmingham.
I think i agree with you - i suspect it may be best placed on a new London "through line" to the Chunnel.

Perhaps part of phase 3 to Scotland?
Dobbo no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
high speed rail, hs2, rail, railways

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu