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

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



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 April 8th, 2012, 12:48 AM   #741
JC82
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 36
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by poshbakerloo View Post
I don't think a new runway would be £9 billion. I know there is a lot to be demolished but the 2nd runway at Manchester airport was only a few 100 million. I know less had to be taken down but the houses in Sipson are a lot cheaper than the houses in North East Cheshire etc
I agree, £9bn for one runway would be insane. Also, it would not need to be 3 miles long. at most a new full length runway would be 4000m which is under 2.5 miles. Heathrows current runways are around 3900m and 3650m.
JC82 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 8th, 2012, 09:59 PM   #742
Sopomon
Hideous and malformed
 
Sopomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 153

Quote:
Originally Posted by JC82 View Post
I agree, £9bn for one runway would be insane. Also, it would not need to be 3 miles long. at most a new full length runway would be 4000m which is under 2.5 miles. Heathrows current runways are around 3900m and 3650m.
I've seen the plans for where it's supposed to be built, there would be a LOT of rearranging, demolishing, reallocating of existing homes and infrastructure, so maybe 9bn is a lot, but more 4-5bn is feasable.
__________________
And he kicked so many rosebushes at her that eventually, Sasuke turned into a log.
Sopomon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2012, 01:10 AM   #743
JC82
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 36
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sopomon View Post
I've seen the plans for where it's supposed to be built, there would be a LOT of rearranging, demolishing, reallocating of existing homes and infrastructure, so maybe 9bn is a lot, but more 4-5bn is feasable.
This is one of several similar options from BAA's 2005 interim master plan for Heathrow. I believe that when the previous government approved this, the new runway was to be 2500m long. It will be interesting to see if this changes should the current goverment have a much needed re think...

JC82 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2012, 03:24 PM   #744
IanCleverly
A New Kind of Medicine
 
IanCleverly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Caerphilly, South Wales
Posts: 446
Likes (Received): 230

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Daily Telegraph





The journey time from London to Sheffield will be cut from around two hours and 10 minutes to two hours under Government plans to be announced next week that will see the electrification of the Midland Main Line

However, the estimated cost of the £9bn project may be pased on to the traveller through above inflation fare rises. Network Rail, the company which runs the country’s track infrastructure, and the Governmnet will also help meet the cost.

With demand for rail travel increasing at six per cent a year and reaching levels not seen since the late 1920s, the Treasury is ready to dig deep to invest in the industry. Even rural lines which were scheduled for closure are now being swamped by passengers, with overcrowding rather than underuse being the major problem.

The biggest winners from the new industry blueprint covering 2014-19 will be the North and Midlands who will benefit from more electrification and a series of projects centred on Manchester, known as the Northern Hub.

Trips from Liverpool and Manchester are likely be up to 10 minutes shorter, with the journey time dropping to about 45 minutes. It will take about 45 minutes to go by train from Leeds to Manchester, a reduction of 10 minutes.

Other projects contained in the Northern Hub will see faster rail services enjoyed by Chester, Bradford, Halifax, Hull, Newcastle and other towns in the North-East. Travel time from London to Oxford, Bristol and South Wales will also fall under current upgrades.

Known within the High Level Output Specification – or HLOS – the latest industry five-year plans is intended to help end the north-south divide.

<snip>


Other initiatives which it is believed will be in next week’s package include the line from Oxford and Aylesbury to Milton Keynes. This could herald the eventual reopening of the so-called Varsity Line between London and Cambridge, which was closed down in 1967.
Taken from Here
IanCleverly no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2012, 10:05 PM   #745
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

^ this still isn't really high speed rail though.

Meanwhile the case for HS2 is apparently going to judicial review...

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...2746-31489828/


I do wonder if the government is getting cold feet on this now and the increased programme of electrification is to pre-empt or even undermine the case for HS2.
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2012, 02:09 PM   #746
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

OK it seems not...

http://www.greengauge21.net/news/gre...e-hour-target/

http://www.campaignforhsr.com/new-tr...ng-on-with-hs2

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman...rail-1-2565120

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...l-8204527.html

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/w...5233-32014274/

Last edited by 33Hz; October 13th, 2012 at 11:04 AM.
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2012, 11:14 AM   #747
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

It's interesting that the new Transport Secretary has said he wants to see a Heathrow hub.

IMHO the Arup proposal absolutely should be built.

http://www.arup.com/News/2010_04_Apr...Super_Hub.aspx
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2012, 02:20 PM   #748
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,557

HS2 will fight any spur to Heathrow with logic and reason - it makes little sense. A route from the Chiltern line along the same route would work much better - more so if you turn it into a West London tangential railway from the WCML to the SWML.

Also 3rd runway is dead (it's always been a complete non-starter, like HS2 to Heathrow), Heathrow West (demolishing Poyle, rather than Simpson) and it's 4 runway plan is the new idea that will emerge.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2012, 08:13 PM   #749
mcarling
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,605
Likes (Received): 491

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
3rd runway is dead (it's always been a complete non-starter, like HS2 to Heathrow), Heathrow West (demolishing Poyle, rather than Simpson) and it's 4 runway plan is the new idea that will emerge.
It's Sipson, not Simpson. I'm skeptical about any Heathrow expansion proposal than involves crossing either the M4 or the M25, so I suspect Poyle is quite safe. Demolishing Sipson seems more sensible to me (provided of course that the property owners are well compensated).
mcarling no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2012, 08:35 PM   #750
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Not a spur but a through station. A terminus for Eurostars and an opportunity to make a parkway station for HS1, HS2 and the GWML. The hub option allows for services to go from HS2 to the South Coast.

The HS2 ltd study was far too limited in scope.
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2012, 10:30 PM   #751
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,557

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post
It's Sipson, not Simpson. I'm skeptical about any Heathrow expansion proposal than involves crossing either the M4 or the M25, so I suspect Poyle is quite safe. Demolishing Sipson seems more sensible to me (provided of course that the property owners are well compensated).
Demolishing Sipson (sorry I spelt it wrong - but I'm sure I would be almost ignored if I walked round the village with my crime against them put on a big sign above my head, whereas you would be tarred and feathered if you went there with yours) will never happen if the Government that gets it to construction wants to win votes in West London ever again. And any London Mayor worth their salt would try their hardest to veto it.

Poyle is more likely, while similarly destructive: the benefits of moving the airport slightly further west would get West London and the London Mayor (whether Boris or his successor) to be more behind the project than the third runway plans, there's no listed buildings to demolish, easier to integrate with the existing transport infrastructure and air traffic control, less motorway 'tunnelling' (as 3rd runway plans have to have the M4 roofed over near Heathrow to improve air quality - as it is on the long axis, not the short one of the airport, like the M25, it's a longer tunnel) and opens space for reuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
Not a spur but a through station. A terminus for Eurostars and an opportunity to make a parkway station for HS1, HS2 and the GWML.
Would Parisians, etc want to travel across London and only serve periphery interchange services? Probably more likely to put up a strop than Mancs and Brummies, as those people wouldn't travel across the city, but Mancs and Brummies would prefer to not have a few more minutes added to the vast majority of their journeys by having to go via Heathrow as well.

If stopping HS2 & GWML fast trains there, you won't get away with stopping them at Old Oak. Or rather the other way round - stopping at the better sited (and better connected) station at Old Oak would mean that you won't get away with stopping at Heathrow Hub.
Quote:
The hub option allows for services to go from HS2 to the South Coast.
The HS2 ltd study was far too limited in scope.
While more people would use such services, you are still diverting trains away from London: you have at most 2tph (which would block any expansion of HS2 services to London), which is rather a waste of £3 billion, even if going to Portsmouth or something (assuming another couple of billion spend on a High Speed line to Woking). The Heathrow link can be done by, and it's likely that the Reading shuttles on the GWML would go via Winchester to the South Coast to relieve Waterloo - so a change at Old Oak would perform exactly the same function, other than adding access from the incredibly busy M25 (do you really want to add more traffic heading to Heathrow - this time to get a train north a few minutes quicker?)

A rail link on that sort alignment would work best as a more local link - from the Chiltern line to Staines would go a long way, though Watford-Heathrow-Woking would work well (especially to remove some freight from Reading and Oxford).
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 16th, 2012, 08:08 AM   #752
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Have you actually read the Arup proposal I linked up thread? It deals with all these issues and more. The best thought out document I've seen on the subject.

A high speed line to Woking doesn't come into it
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 16th, 2012, 02:55 PM   #753
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,557

I have read the Arup proposal - several points on it:
1)At times it seems to be on a loop of HS2, other times it's on the mainline.
2)I note it uses a totally different route of HS2 through the Chilterns to the actual one.
3)I also note that GWML services would be able to go to Euston - why is that needed and where are the paths for it?
4)Where on earth is an Old Oak Common Station? Massively needed for Central London distribution to avoid overloading Euston.
5)No discussion of my complaints about such a plan - massive cost, few paths for Heathrow (OK it's a loop, so trains will go to London), little time saving over Old Oak for the few North-Heathrow/Slough/Reading passengers (ie few benefits) and such a time saving added on to those travelling North-London journeys who are much more plentiful (ie all the benefits are outweighed instantly - as I've said it's not worth doing even if it cost no money to build).

The Woking idea was Greengauge's - it's not all about you or the Arup document! That said, I was addressing your point re:Arup - I'll do so here, understanding the proposed scheme better:
What purpose does that serve? other than giving increased trains to Reading, Basingstoke and Southampton (which can be done on the GWML fasts as proposed by Network Rail, using the HEx paths), it is pointless and a waste of paths on the High Speed Rail network. I saw the comment and was expecting HS2 services to Portsmouth/Soton from the North - not London, where they would use next to none of HS2 (and given the lack of paths for such trains, it's not really HS2, so much as extra tracks).

The only way the Arup document could be well thought out was if it was made before the phase 1 route announcement. Even then there's no critical thinking. AFAICS it's either a naive document published before the route announcement, or an advert aimed at politicians who want Heathrow on HS2 and have it in their power to offer consultancy work.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2012, 12:45 AM   #754
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Your points 1-5 and your thinking that we are talking about London-Southampton using part of HS2 show exactly that you've either not read it or forgotten it!
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2012, 02:01 AM   #755
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,557

Point 3 and Southampton HS2 services: there's a diagram on page 7 showing a connection and more importantly, table 4 on page 45, which has
Quote:
Inter Regional high speed trains from M3 corridor - Southampton/ Basingstoke, call Reading 2tph To Euston.
as well as 1tph International services using a GWML to HS2 link.

It does mention Old Oak Common, but only in the context of it not being as good at relief at Euston as Heathrow Hub and therefore should be removed - they don't give a figure to compare with the 20% Arup reckon on Heathrow Hub (most of which seem to be changing onto Crossrail heading into London), but HS2 Ltd reckon on something like 33-40% using Old Oak Common.

Differing route for HS2 (and once again, total ignorance about the lack of paths, unless it is a loop):
Quote:
Originally Posted by page 30
We also propose that a connection between HS2 and the Chiltern line, near to High Wycombe, should be seriously considered. That would enable high speed domestic trains to run via the short section of HS2 to Heathrow Hub, Euston and the Thames Gateway. These proposed regional services would offer significant transport benefits to people living in the Chiltern area, Milton Keynes and south Midlands, providing improved public transport services and reduced journey times into Heathrow.
You could make a link near Wendover/Aylesbury, or near Denham, but neither of these appear in the document, and all the diagrams suggest a via M40-corridor route. You could argue that they didn't know, but they knew about the Old Oak Common station (itself not something known about until the route was published), so I say that they are simply being silly.

To call this document well thought out is either a troll or idiocy. I know I haven't addressed all my points with quotes - frankly I can't be assed.

You say that because I'm talking about London - Southampton services using HS2, I mustn't have read it and that "The hub option allows for services to go from HS2 to the South Coast." and keep on barking on about the Arup study. As the Arup study only talks about one form of HS2 - South Coast service, the London - Heathrow - Reading - Southampton trains must be what we're talking about.

If we're not talking about HS2-South Coast services laid out by Arup, we must be talking about the Greengauge idea that the Heathrow Spur would head south to the SWML near Woking, allowing Birmingham/Manchester to South Coast trains to run, via Heathrow (like the Lille-Lyon services via CDG in France) - but you said we weren't talking about that either.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2012, 09:53 AM   #756
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

The work was done between 2006-9 and published in 2009, so it predates the HS2 ltd route announcement.

I'm not sure where you get this idea of lack of paths.
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2012, 03:15 PM   #757
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,557

From every single HS2 document - there's either room for Heathrow paths / bizarre trains to Southampton or there's room for growth:
Day 1 of Phase 2, the service pattern will be: 4 Birmingham, 3 Manchester, 3 Leeds, 2 Liverpool, 2 Scotland, 2 Newcastle. Originally they reckoned on 14tph and thus such a service pattern was quart in a pint pot - now they reckon they can squeeze 18 paths and hour - with 16tph already, and 1 international path, there's not room for 2 Euston - Southampton paths, or the HS1 - Heathrow shuttle. Likewise with a spur (HS2 Ltd/Greengauge) it becomes a white elephant that carries a small number of half-empty trains at great expense to built and run.

If it's a loop via Heathrow/mainline via Heathrow, then there's paths to serve Heathrow (though not paths for trains to be able to non-stop like Arup have), but you adding on between 5 and 10 minutes for 95% of passengers to save 5 minutes for the remaining 5%. You've also changed the total travelling to Euston, rather than changing to Crossrail from 66% to 80%. Euston won't cope, even with Crossrail 2.

Basically Arup's plans need to be re-thought out in a major way to be compatible with the now existing plans for the rest of the line - stop using that document like it's sensible - it probably was somewhat sensible in 2009, though despite knowing about Old Oak Common doesn't address that alternative other than a quick statement about interchange options with nothing to back it up other than assertion.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2012, 11:44 AM   #758
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Yes there is a path problem - they might squeeze out another two eventually - great. IMO HS2 should be 4 track to Lichfield. I guess we're just gonna have to build HS3/4/5/6/7 and 8.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2012, 03:16 PM   #759
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Seems they need to amalgamate the Scottish trains with Newcastle or Manchester.

They almost certainly would need 4 tracks between HS1 and Heathrow to do this properly. Is that a bad thing?
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2012, 07:40 PM   #760
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

I don't follow...?
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
high speed rail, hs2, railways, scotland, trains

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

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

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

tech management by Sysprosium