SkyscraperCity Forum banner
41 - 57 of 57 Posts
G

·
nearly half the cost of this plan is to allow the line to serve Heathrow via a big expensive tunnel under West London. It's about £8billion without it, though isn't really the best scheme, though the fundamental concept is excellent - a line to bypass the overcrowded southern ends of lines to start with, reducing times from further north.

With regards to the Maglev - is it going to go into city centres, as that would involve costly tunnelling? or is it that you'd have to change at parkway stations? In which case, you have to compare with a London-Birmingham LGV going between the M25 and the M42, which will further reduce the price of the LGV.
You also have to consider the other benefits of this proposed section of LGV.

The Greengauge proposal for example has a link from it's Heathrow loop connecting onto the GWML just West of the airport. With a connection from the HSR onto the six track approach to Paddington that's a bit of extra capacity for Great Western services chucked in.

The Maglev proposals seem to focus on outer urban stations, in which case you have to add on the time it takes from city centres to these stations to the overall journey. While LGV's also rely on outer urban stations aswell they still have city centre to city centre services aswell.

In all reality we are probably only going to get a full north HSR in sections so get this done first and then work on extending it to Manchester and so on.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
Hence why there is a great desire to press ahead with High Speed 2.

An LGV (we'll call it that for sake of simplicity)will free up extra capacity to the current network. I've never understood UK Ultraspeeds or whoevers argument that it won't.

The heavily congested southern sections of the relevant mainline will have inter city trains switched onto the LGV so there's more capacity for a start. As for city approaches, well Greengauge answers that concern perfectly in it's presentation. Many of our cities have unused trackbeds which are just crying out to be re-used.

Tell me, what is the maximum amount of passengers a maglev system would be able to carry each way per hour?
No what I meant about the web of rails was to do with international travel not about any domestic network. We have one cross border link unlike many continental countries where many connections may exist. Therefore it is not as important to us to use a technology on domestic routes that is compatable with those of other countries since few services regularly cross borders.

It won't add much extra capacity if it uses existing tracks into city centres which is one of the only ways it can claim the cost and convenience advantage over maglev. If they use existing tracks in these areas then you still have bottlenecks which may not affect priority TGV services but must have an impact somewhere as traffic comes to a point. Signalling and performance on rail also means it provides less capacity on a given route than would a maglev.

==

For a rail proposal this one isn't at all bad though!
 
G

·
It won't add much extra capacity if it uses existing tracks into city centres which is one of the only ways it can claim the cost and convenience advantage over maglev. If they use existing tracks in these areas then you still have bottlenecks which may not affect priority TGV services but must have an impact somewhere as traffic comes to a point. Signalling and performance on rail also means it provides less capacity on a given route than would a maglev.
But old track beds have been identified leading into Birmingham alongside the Chiltern line. Reinstating tracks is not the greatest cost in the world and other things such as signalling and junction upgrades will have to happen anyway.

I'm still waiting for an answer as to how many seats per direction per hour a maglev would provide btw.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,488 Posts
You also have to consider the other benefits of this proposed section of LGV.
I removed these, due to thinking them as unnecessary to prove my point that the maglev is cheaper argument is bunk! With these benefits, my point is strengthened.
The Greengauge proposal for example has a link from it's Heathrow loop connecting onto the GWML just West of the airport.
no it won't - what is proposed is a link from near Northolt tube station, via a tunnel, to Heathrow. The HSL link to Heathrow will not interact with the GWML (other than maybe a link to the existing Airport Spur), except in the North Acton/Willesden area (where the original GWR Birmingham line joins the GWML). Also this isn't an advantage of the Greengauge proposal - it's a silly way to do it, and is costing as much as the London-Birmingham section of the line, and the maglev was going to serve Heathrow (but not the GWML corridor) anyway.
With a connection from the HSR onto the six track approach to Paddington that's a bit of extra capacity for Great Western services chucked in.
though of course, it's captured some of the GWML (though all it'll do is move the 6-4 down bottleneck further in). Then again, from what I gather, it'll soon be off again (hardly worth joining the GWML) to go and move the 4 into 2 WCML slow/DC up bottleneck further out (though another link across the Willesden railway lands would mean that 2 of the 6 WCML tracks can go into Paddington) Bingo - no expensive tunnelling or much demolition and you are right in to the centre of London, rather than on the outskirts. A direct replacement for the current services, but an improvement too.
 
G

·
no it won't - what is proposed is a link from near Northolt tube station, via a tunnel, to Heathrow. The HSL link to Heathrow will not interact with the GWML (other than maybe a link to the existing Airport Spur), except in the North Acton/Willesden area (where the original GWR Birmingham line joins the GWML).
On the pdf document I've got a map of their proposal has a loop serving Heathrow and a branch from Heathrow onto the GWML. Infact they even explain it before hand on another page.
 
G

·
Then again, from what I gather, it'll soon be off again (hardly worth joining the GWML) to go and move the 4 into 2 WCML slow/DC up bottleneck further out (though another link across the Willesden railway lands would mean that 2 of the 6 WCML tracks can go into Paddington) Bingo - no expensive tunnelling or much demolition and you are right in to the centre of London, rather than on the outskirts. A direct replacement for the current services, but an improvement too.
Sorry but I'm not sure I understand this bit?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,488 Posts
On the pdf document I've got a map of their proposal has a loop serving Heathrow and a branch from Heathrow onto the GWML. Infact they even explain it before hand on another page.
ah found it - a chord at Airport junction would be more useful

They also don't seem to want to use it - the other figures show a really long route via Oxford and possibly Aylesbury as well for west-Heathrow - by the time it reaches HS2 at Princes Risborough (assuming via Aylesbury) it could have reached Paddington, reversed and on it's way to Heathrow (say), serving both Central London and Heathrow in the time it takes to go the long way round. if it joined HS2 at Bicester then it would still lose time wise compared to a west facing chord at Airport junction.

Looking from the route, it seems that the London side of the Heathrow link is simply the GWML and Airport spur, though that could be poor cartography - it could be due to not wanting to show the HS2 route between London and Heathrow - the text talks about a three way junction at Northolt (London, North & Heathrow), meaning that HS2 Heathrow trains will either go via Northolt, or one side of the junction planned there will be pointless.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,488 Posts
Sorry but I'm not sure I understand this bit?
OK, I'll clarify it.

At the moment the GWML is 6 tracks from Paddington to near North Pole Depot and 5 to where the old Birmingham route splits off. HS2 uses the old Birmingham route and you talk about it using the 6 track bit of the GWML - therefore the bottleneck that currently exists heading down (away from London) as the 6 tracks effectively merge into 4 will be moved towards London. You seemed to get this.

Presently, the slow and DC lines out of Euston start off as 2 tracks and split into 4 just North of Euston. The plan clearly states that HS2 will use two of the WCML tracks, pushing this up bottleneck further out into the country (though not far).

The easiest way to get from the GWML to the WCML is at Willesden, where the two lines nearly touch and the land is cheap railway/ex-railway land. this means that HS2 will barely touch the GWML. Also, as there are these 'extra' tracks going into Paddington, it isn't hard to make a link going the other way, taking two of the WCML tracks at Willesden and sending them to Paddington, thus removing both bottlenecks!

Unlike the maglev idea, we have a cheap route into the city centre that is fairly flexible and also we start pretty much the same place as we did without the new HSL - Euston (or maybe St Pancras, which isn't far) rather than miles away. This means that HS2 will be able to serve most of the journeys catered for by existing WCML intercity services, except Watford, Milton Keynes and Rugby, which would get improved services anyway. A maglev would just create new services, rather than improving what is already there as well.
 
G

·
ah found it - a chord at Airport junction would be more useful

They also don't seem to want to use it - the other figures show a really long route via Oxford and possibly Aylesbury as well for west-Heathrow - by the time it reaches HS2 at Princes Risborough (assuming via Aylesbury) it could have reached Paddington, reversed and on it's way to Heathrow (say), serving both Central London and Heathrow in the time it takes to go the long way round. if it joined HS2 at Bicester then it would still lose time wise compared to a west facing chord at Airport junction.

Looking from the route, it seems that the London side of the Heathrow link is simply the GWML and Airport spur, though that could be poor cartography - it could be due to not wanting to show the HS2 route between London and Heathrow - the text talks about a three way junction at Northolt (London, North & Heathrow), meaning that HS2 Heathrow trains will either go via Northolt, or one side of the junction planned there will be pointless.
I can't see the point in sending trains from the GWML to Oxford and onto HS2 either. Unless they include a new link from Oxford to Swindon to cut off Didcot.

I've always thought a three way junction would be the preferred option for the Heathrow connection. But maybe a loop could work, perhaps it could be a mixed traffic loop taking regional trains aswell?
 
G

·
OK, I'll clarify it.

At the moment the GWML is 6 tracks from Paddington to near North Pole Depot and 5 to where the old Birmingham route splits off. HS2 uses the old Birmingham route and you talk about it using the 6 track bit of the GWML - therefore the bottleneck that currently exists heading down (away from London) as the 6 tracks effectively merge into 4 will be moved towards London. You seemed to get this.

Presently, the slow and DC lines out of Euston start off as 2 tracks and split into 4 just North of Euston. The plan clearly states that HS2 will use two of the WCML tracks, pushing this up bottleneck further out into the country (though not far).

The easiest way to get from the GWML to the WCML is at Willesden, where the two lines nearly touch and the land is cheap railway/ex-railway land. this means that HS2 will barely touch the GWML. Also, as there are these 'extra' tracks going into Paddington, it isn't hard to make a link going the other way, taking two of the WCML tracks at Willesden and sending them to Paddington, thus removing both bottlenecks!

Unlike the maglev idea, we have a cheap route into the city centre that is fairly flexible and also we start pretty much the same place as we did without the new HSL - Euston (or maybe St Pancras, which isn't far) rather than miles away. This means that HS2 will be able to serve most of the journeys catered for by existing WCML intercity services, except Watford, Milton Keynes and Rugby, which would get improved services anyway. A maglev would just create new services, rather than improving what is already there as well.
That clears it up.

Your suggestion of sending a couple of WCML tracks into Paddington seems to tie in with the Superlink alternative Crossrail proposals to include the WCML suburbans.

So to sum it up:

HS2 would continue from St Pancras junction along a newly four tracked North London Line.

It would then use the existing WCML fast tracks (on the basis that pendolinos would be shifted to the other tracks to improve regional services).

A new link would carry HS2 trains from the WCML across the Willesden Railway lands onto the old Birmingham Great Western route.

And where appropriate the LGV would start.

Also HS2 would have a link into Paddington from the Willesden railway lands along with a regional link from the WCML to the GWML six track section into Paddington.



Personally I think it would be wise to six track the GWML from North Pole depot to a point near Heathrow with two of the tracks going into a new Heathrow 'Central' station and then diverging with two tracks reconnecting with the GWML and the other two following the M25 roughly to reconnect with HS2.

GWML capacity could be increased by sending the London-Oxford trains via HS2.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,488 Posts
the "St Pancras" on the stuff is really Euston for terminating High Speed 2, at least as a major option. It's quite easy to change St Pancras - get rid of the airline stuff on the ground floor - do we really need the worlds longest champagne bar?
 
G

·
the "St Pancras" on the stuff is really Euston for terminating High Speed 2, at least as a major option. It's quite easy to change St Pancras - get rid of the airline stuff on the ground floor - do we really need the worlds longest champagne bar?
You talking about sticking platforms in the undercroft?

Or widening the station?
 
G

·
Sorry to ask again but is there anyway to add more surface level platforms at St Pancras?

Looking at it through Google Earth it seems very limited now.
 
G

·
Knocking out the side of the stations and widening it's base?

If the Kings Cross development doesn't come too close to St Pancras and they arrange it for a further extension to 'blend' in with the new Kings Cross dome concourse I think you could fit in another 6 platforms on the east wing of the station.

Think a hotel is going on the left wing of the station.

I'd have to presume there are plans for further expansion because it would be daft not to have for such a station. 15 tracks is never going to be enough over time.
 
41 - 57 of 57 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top