TRANSPORT | High Speed Rail

[flange]

New 'Rocket' to Liverpool - in 10 minutes

15/ 3/2008



A HI-TECH rail link whisking passengers from Manchester to Liverpool in 10 minutes is being studied.

Up to 500 passengers a time would be 'levitated' between the cities on 300mph trains if the scheme gets the go-ahead.

A parallel project is for a link from Manchester to Leeds, following the line of the M62.

And long-term proposals include a 50-minute link journey from Manchester to London and a connection between Manchester and Liverpool airports.

The original Manchester-Liverpool route was pioneered by Stephenson's Rocket in 1829 at a then-heady speed of 30mph.

The new links would use magnetic levitation (maglev) trains, now found only in China.

The Liverpool-Manchester business case study is costing £220,000, shared between the Mersey Partnership and London-based UK Ultraspeed.

The company is investing another £250,000 in a study of the trans-Pennine connection.

A Manchester-Liverpool maglev route between Liverpool and Manchester would be a potential first section of a planned route network linking most of Britain's major cities.

Today's maglev lines cost £35m a kilometre to build – compared to almost £57m for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. The technology was once considered to link Manchester and Liverpool airports as an alternative to Manchester's second runway.

The world's first commercial maglev is in daily operation in China, connects Shanghai to its remote Pudong airport in 71/2 seven minutes 23 seconds for a journey that can take an hour by road.

Mersey Partnership board member Jack Stopforth, chief executive of Liverpool chamber of commerce, said: “We are delighted that the north west is leading the UK in looking at what we believe could be the transport system of the future.

“This is not just a transport system but could be the catalyst for a step change in the economic development of the whole of north Britain – linking the north of England with south and central belt of Scotland.”

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...._in_10_minutes

[jrb]

From Crains.

Network Rail to study high speed line from London to North West


Network Rail is to look into the possibility of building a new line to speed up train journeys between Manchester and London.

It said today that it would carry out a strategic review into five new lines which may be needed to cope with rising passenger demand

The proposed high speed lines include the West Coast as well as Chiltern, East Coast, Great Western and Midland Main Line.

If it went ahead it would be the largest track building programme since the 19th century.

“By 2025 many lines will be full-up, especially those running to and from the north and west of London. This will happen even after we have implemented the investment to boost current capacity,” said Network Rail chief executive Iain Coucher.

"With popularity for rail growing, we have to start planning for the medium and long-term future today. We have to see how we can meet the capacity challenge and see what solutions — including potentially, that of new lines — are deliverable and affordable.

"This review, working in partnership with other players in the railway industry, will kick-start this process."

Passenger numbers are up 40 per cent to 1.13 billion journeys a year over the past decade. Network Rail said it had launched a tendering process to appoint a consultancy to assist its new-line study.

[andysimo123]

One question will it work on Saturdays or will there be engineering works?

[jrb]

http://www.crainsmanchesterbusiness.....dll/frontpage

Not high speed, but another proposed rail link/route to London.

Grand Northern Trains is looking to run a train direct from Huddersfield to London Euston, via Stockport, which would rival the existing Virgin Trains direct service from Manchester. The route, which would use the East Coast Main Line, could become live before the end of next year.

[Vince Noir]

Originally Posted by jrb

http://www.crainsmanchesterbusiness.....dll/frontpage

Not high speed, but another proposed rail link/route to London.

Grand Northern Trains is looking to run a train direct from Huddersfield to London Euston, via Stockport, which would rival the existing Virgin Trains direct service from Manchester. The route, which would use the East Coast Main Line, could become live before the end of next year.

(Thankfully) not going to happen for a multitude of reasons.

[Mostly Lurking]

Originally Posted by jrb

http://www.crainsmanchesterbusiness.....dll/frontpage

Not high speed, but another proposed rail link/route to London.

Grand Northern Trains is looking to run a train direct from Huddersfield to London Euston, via Stockport, which would rival the existing Virgin Trains direct service from Manchester. The route, which would use the East Coast Main Line, could become live before the end of next year.

Will not happen.

[Isaac Newell]

You can always tell when we are coming to the end of a Labour government, they suddenly get enthusiastic about public transport, especially in their electoral heartlands. An enthusiasm that has been sadly lacking for the past 11 years.

[jrb]

http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/

Council group proposes high speed north-south rail route
23 July 2008, 13:00


Twenty-one local authorities surrounding Heathrow Airport have teamed up to launch a blueprint to show how a new UK high speed rail network linking London with Edinburgh could reduce the need for domestic and short haul flights.

The High Speed North proposal, published this week by the 2M Group, envisages a new fast link following the M1 from London and serving Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh.

Spurs would reach out to Manchester and Liverpool and Birmingham.

According to the group, the route differs from recent high speed rail plans put forward by Network Rail and Greengauge 21 because it links more UK cities and also provides wide-ranging connections to Heathrow by transforming the existing Heathrow Express system into a regional network focused on the airport. 2M says the current airport expansion transport plans offer only a "hotchpotch of disparate terminating branch lines operating on different power systems" - for example the proposed Airtrack link to Staines will use third rail power and trains will not continue on to the overhead-electrified Heathrow Express.

The full north-south line would be built in phases with the first section running from London to Leicester with a branch to Birmingham; it would connect to both West Coast and Midland Main Lines. The second phase would extend from Leicester along the M1/M18 corridor and connect to the East Coast Main Line in Yorkshire. The third phase could extend from Sheffield to Leeds and follow the disused Woodhead corridor to Manchester. This would require the former rail tunnel here to be re-opened for high speed track. Final stages would extend to Liverpool along the M62 corridor and shadow the East Coast Main Line and M8 corridors to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

High Speed North would include an interchange at Cricklewood to provide connections between the new line following the M1 and Heathrow Airport. An integrated 'super' terminal connecting Euston, St Pancras and King's Cross is envisaged. The new route would also provide direct connections from other parts of the UK to a growing network of European cities including Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Lyon.

The full network would cost £30bn and could be completed by 2030. The 2M Group is an all-party alliance of local authorities concerned at the environmental impact of Heathrow expansion on their communities. The group, which took its name from the two million residents of the original 12 members, now represents 21 authorities with a combined population of 4.5 million people.

[EverythingButABeach]

Any high speed rail link needs to link London, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow together as they are the main centres of population. Why do I want to go to Heathrow airport anyway if I live in Manchester? I'd rather fly direct from where I live to where I want to go to and avoid Heathrow whether by air or rail. This smacks of another scheme to undermine the core cities by having a London to everywhere model rather than a Manc to Birmingham to Glasgow (and Liverpool, Leeds etc) system. A national rail system - Maglev or not needs allow people to travel all over the UK and should not be a London to everywhere else network. I don't give a hoot about getting to London quicker than I can already,but I do care about the rubbish trains between Manchester and Yorkshire,Birmingham, Liverpool, Scotland etc....
Stop expansion of Heathrow and utilise the second runway at Manchester by allowing people across the North and Midlands to get proper rail to Manchester airport and get on Long Haul flights from there. I'm sure this will happen when BA finally does the decent thing and goes bust.

[STUBBY]

High speed lines ala TGV would be a waste of money in the UK and would not be cost effective. Furthermore they will not generate environmental savings as some claim they would.

Far better to improve what we have and concentrate on getting that reliable.

What is suitable for France is not necessarily suitable for the UK and as in all things there would be winners and losers. It isn't a win win situation.

[STUBBY]

Originally Posted by Isaac Newell

You can always tell when we are coming to the end of a Labour government, they suddenly get enthusiastic about public transport, especially in their electoral heartlands. An enthusiasm that has been sadly lacking for the past 11 years.

Are you saying that the fat twat Prescott didn't achieve anything then? Surely not?

[A6 Bypass]

Originally Posted by STUBBY

High speed lines ala TGV would be a waste of money in the UK and would not be cost effective. Furthermore they will not generate environmental savings as some claim they would.

Far better to improve what we have and concentrate on getting that reliable.

What is suitable for France is not necessarily suitable for the UK and as in all things there would be winners and losers. It isn't a win win situation.

Agreed we don't need anything faster than the Manchester London service we have at the moment, but rapid services to mainland Europe is what we do need.
For a birthday treat went Manchester - Paris by rail. Left house at 6 and got to Paris by 12:30. Not earth shattering but when you take into account one and a half hours was spent changing trains in London, direct services start to look attractive.
Main stumbling block would be immigration and security services at the station.

[M€trolink]

Doesn't solve the capacity issue though.

I commute down to London every Wednesday.

A train leaves Manc at 06:35, 06:45, 07:05 and 07:15, i.e. four trains in 40mins.

I come back at 19:35.

All those southbound trains are practically full, the return ones are also, despite being 'off peak'.

There is huge growth in long distance rail travel that needs to be dealt with, we have two options, we either build more train tracks (be they high speed or not) which will be very expensive, or we accept that we use fare structure to persuade people not to travel any more, effectively a congestion charge on the trains.

Funnily, I get the impression that many opposed to the TIF bid, would actually approve a congestion charge on trains.

[nerd]

Originally Posted by M€trolink

Doesn't solve the capacity issue though.

I commute down to London every Wednesday.

A train leaves Manc at 06:35, 06:45, 07:05 and 07:15, i.e. four trains in 40mins.

I come back at 19:35.

All those southbound trains are practically full, the return ones are also, despite being 'off peak'.

There is huge growth in long distance rail travel that needs to be dealt with, we have two options, we either build more train tracks (be they high speed or not) which will be very expensive, or we accept that we use fare structure to persuade people not to travel any more, effectively a congestion charge on the trains.

Funnily, I get the impression that many opposed to the TIF bid, would actually approve a congestion charge on trains.

We can't separate the long distance rail debate from the commuter rail debate.

The reason why North London has a suburban tube system, and South London does not, is that the Rail Companies running services into London from the North wanted to clear commuter trains off their tracks and platforms, as they reckoned to make more money from long distance traffic. There being little long distance traffic into South London, the train companies there blocked the construction of underground lines.

The same factors apply today, if intercity services improve, commuter heavy rail services will remain under-developed. If we extend commuter heavy rail in response to increasing demand, this will greatly restrict the scope for intercity development. It is no co-incidence that the recent growth in commuter rail into Manchester has not happened at all on the Services from the South into Stockport (i.e. the ones that have to compete for track and platform space with the London intercity services)

Investment in tram-train has been proposed as the way forward, taking commuter heavy rail off the main line at the rail termini and points of high congestion. But that will require a lot of money across the whole system, and as yet operators are not convinced that they will generate sufficient traffic growth to justify the investment. Perhaps things will be clearer when the South Yorkshire trial is underway.

[A6 Bypass]

Originally Posted by M€trolink

Doesn't solve the capacity issue though.

I commute down to London every Wednesday.

A train leaves Manc at 06:35, 06:45, 07:05 and 07:15, i.e. four trains in 40mins.

I come back at 19:35.

All those southbound trains are practically full, the return ones are also, despite being 'off peak'.

There is huge growth in long distance rail travel that needs to be dealt with, we have two options, we either build more train tracks (be they high speed or not) which will be very expensive, or we accept that we use fare structure to persuade people not to travel any more, effectively a congestion charge on the trains.

Funnily, I get the impression that many opposed to the TIF bid, would actually approve a congestion charge on trains.

My wife does a similar journey and finds it less stressful than a Crumpsall / University commute.

For capacity we need continental loading gauge so we can have double decker intercitys. Probably as expensive as a new route though.

[Cherguevara]

Originally Posted by A6 Bypass

My wife does a similar journey and finds it less stressful than a Crumpsall / University commute.

For capacity we need continental loading gauge so we can have double decker intercitys. Probably as expensive as a new route though.

A new route would presumably be built at continental loading gauge, killing two birds with one expensive stone.

And no offense, but your wife is a nutcase.

[Blackpool88]

Originally Posted by nerd

The reason why North London has a suburban tube system, and South London does not, is that the Rail Companies running services into London from the North wanted to clear commuter trains off their tracks and platforms, as they reckoned to make more money from long distance traffic. There being little long distance traffic into South London, the train companies there blocked the construction of underground lines.
.

is this true?

[A6 Bypass]

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

A new route would presumably be built at continental loading gauge, killing two birds with one expensive stone.

And no offense, but your wife is a nutcase.

It seemed barking at the time but it's only twice a week and the rest of the time is working at home. She gets up at 6 and is at work for 9. The two hour journey is spent working and although Virgin and Network Rail had a shaky start the service is ok now, providing you've booked a seat.

Another wifely-originated transport-connected anecdote regarding the commute from Crumpsall to Oxford Road: during the petrol tankers drivers' strike her normally 40 minute commute took 20. Buses worked a dream. (Couldn't get on the tram). Get cars of the road - everything fits into place. And petrol shortages aside, only price works.

[Jasper]

Originally Posted by nerd

The reason why North London has a suburban tube system, and South London does not, is that the Rail Companies running services into London from the North wanted to clear commuter trains off their tracks and platforms, as they reckoned to make more money from long distance traffic. There being little long distance traffic into South London, the train companies there blocked the construction of underground lines.

I'm not sure this correctly represents what happened.... When the deep tube system was planned and built, say 1890 to 1935 north London was more heavily built-up than south London: the "city centre" is in the north and most of the rich areas of the city were in the north and west too - Camden, Highgate, Hampstead, Finchley, Knightsbridge, Fulham etc.

In contrast, south London consisted (and still does!) mainly of poorer areas (e.g. Walworth, Peckham) so land in south London was much cheaper than land in north London. So the railway companies wishing to build a commuter railway in north London favoured underground as although it cost more, it linked rich areas with the centre so the punters could afford the fares, and they wouldn't be allowed to knock down rich peoples' houses to build it anyway.

In south London land was cheaper, the rich and powerful didn't live there so the cheapest solution was overground on viaducts. It's interesting that where a commuter railway did go south of the river to a "rich" area it went underground too - Northern Line to Clapham Common (1907). Also where the land was cheap enough, or not built on, underground lines come up above ground (e.g. Piccadilly at Barons Court, Northern at East Finchley).

[nerd]

Originally Posted by Jasper

I'm not sure this correctly represents what happened.... When the deep tube system was planned and built, say 1890 to 1935 north London was more heavily built-up than south London: the "city centre" is in the north and most of the rich areas of the city were in the north and west too - Camden, Highgate, Hampstead, Finchley, Knightsbridge, Fulham etc.

In contrast, south London consisted (and still does!) mainly of poorer areas (e.g. Walworth, Peckham) so land in south London was much cheaper than land in north London. So the railway companies wishing to build a commuter railway in north London favoured underground as although it cost more, it linked rich areas with the centre so the punters could afford the fares, and they wouldn't be allowed to knock down rich peoples' houses to build it anyway.

In south London land was cheaper, the rich and powerful didn't live there so the cheapest solution was overground on viaducts. It's interesting that where a commuter railway did go south of the river to a "rich" area it went underground too - Northern Line to Clapham Common (1907). Also where the land was cheap enough, or not built on, underground lines come up above ground (e.g. Piccadilly at Barons Court, Northern at East Finchley).

very interesting - but not based in fact.

The Tube started as a cut-and-cover system linking the northern and western mainline stations with one another (what we now know as the District, Circle and Central lines). Obviously the technology did not allow services under the river.

Hence, when deep-tunnelling technology became established in the 1880s, the inital rush of proposals concentrated on constructing services from central London into the Southern suburbs - of which one got built, which is now the Northern Line from Bank to Clapham.

The London and Southwestern Railway did everything they could to obstruct proposals to extend the tube into southern suburbs, and accordingly built their own rival underground line from Waterloo to Bank (the Waterloo & City line).

It was only after 1900 that the northern and western suburban services were built, mainly financed from the US but relying on the co-operation of the mainline railway companies in redirecting commuter services underground. In some instances former mainline track was converted. In many cases, the new lines were built into open country, in anticipation of future suburban expansion.

But the Southern Railway continued their hostility, and indeed they and British Rail kept the Waterloo & City line out of London Transport until as recently as 1994.