|
eightf48544
|
 |
« Reply #90 on: January 20, 2009, 20:16:45 » |
|
I think the gradient up from the main line at Yatton would be much too steep. The airport is quite high up compared with the rail-line.
Agreed on that one, though, John: Yatton is about 8 metres above sea level, while BIA, only some 8 km away, is at least 180!  That's a gradient of the order of 1 in 45. Steep, agreed, but here's an example of a branch to an international arrival / departure point that's 1 in 30: http://www.craigrailpics.fotopic.net/c1628947.htmlThough in practice the line would diverge a mile or so after Nailsea, and would be only 5km long = 1 in 29 average. Also the first stretch would have to be on an viaduct that would get rather high before the line then bored deep into the hillside. So I think we're stuck with the buses. Folkestone is steep but St Pancras Thameslink to Blackfriars is 1:27 which I believe is now the steepest grade on Network Rail. Call for a stop at Coventry to be included (link below.)
Those 9 words sum up the problems of HSR in the UK▸ .
Who next after Coventry? Milton Keynes? Royal Leamington Spa? Coventry is less than an hour from London already. Does it need a HSL? (Does B'ham? It's only 1.15 at the mo) That's one advantage of the old GC» route North of Alyesbury there's no really no big town until Leicester apart from Rugby. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #91 on: January 20, 2009, 20:48:02 » |
|
That's one advantage of the old GC» route North of Alyesbury there's no really no big town until Leicester apart from Rugby.
Which could be a problem: |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
simonw
|
|
« Reply #92 on: January 20, 2009, 20:53:21 » |
|
Surely Birmingham should be the primary hub for a High Speed Network, not Heathrow?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #93 on: January 20, 2009, 21:14:40 » |
|
I think it is fair to say that Ruth Kelly's announcement implying the GC» route would be used as far as Rugby was totally ridiculed about this time last year. Their were rumours she had completely misunderstood her briefing...
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
willc
|
|
« Reply #95 on: January 22, 2009, 00:22:47 » |
|
What Ruth Kelly actually said was the following (taken from Hansard)
"It is also why we have committed to look in future at whether disused rail lines such as the one between Birmingham and London might be brought back into use."
That was why she was ridiculed, because there is no disused rail line between London and Birmingham. She never said anything about Rugby or the Great Central. But her script was provided by DafT....
While the GC» was well engineered by comparison with many of its Victorian forebears, it still remains a piece of 19th century engineering, built for the trains of its day, not an LGV▸ , and a new alignment towards Birmingham following the M40 before peeling off north-east to serve the airport at Birmingham International and on to the WCML▸ north-east of the city is the way things are most likely to go. You would be using an existing transport corridor much of the way, like High Speed 1 (M2/M20) and LGV Nord (French autoroute A1) so any further disruption is minimised.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #96 on: January 22, 2009, 09:58:16 » |
|
Fair enough. I think that was the general assumption at the time. Here's how Transport Briefing (who have a reputation for knowing their stuff) reported it: Secretary of State for Transport Ruth Kelly has said in Parliament that she is open-minded to the possibility of reopening the Great Central Main Line to provide a new inter-city link to Birmingham (link below.) http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=4650Reopening the line, which until the 1960s provided a route for trains from London Marylebone to Manchester, via Rugby in Warwickshire, is one option being examined following warnings that the West Coast Main Line could run out of capacity as soon as 2015, despite an ^8.6bn upgrade scheduled for completion by the end of 2008 (Transport Briefing 15/06/07). Speaking in the Commons on Wednesday (8 January), Ruth Kelly said: "I retain an open mind whether or not we need, for example, to re-open a disused rail line between London and Birmingham, whether we should have a high speed rail link which links London to Birmingham, or even beyond to Manchester or so forth, or indeed whether other modes of transport should be encouraged such as roads." The former Grand Central Main Line is the only disused rail alignment that could be reopened as part of a new London-Birmingham rail link. Interestingly, the member for Rugby played a prominent part in the debate, but didnt pick up on the possible link... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 22, 2009, 11:18:28 by Lee Fletcher »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
willc
|
|
« Reply #97 on: January 22, 2009, 13:55:38 » |
|
But I think they were just being kind to her.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #98 on: January 22, 2009, 21:22:44 » |
|
The thing about the GC» line, is that it is dead straight!
But I wish they would shelve this "join the WCML▸ at the Trent Valley" idea.
When are the gov going to realise that line speed improvements need to be reduced NORTH of Crewe to get the Anglo - Scottish/ North West England services quicker. We need a 200 mph line all the way if we are building one. All or nothing. Not a cut price option which will benefit few - the B'ham / Manchester times are ok at the moment and they are the only ones which would see a large % reduction.
And the other reason for HSL all the way is that it needs to be European gauge all the way - so double decker goods trains (and TGV▸ style passenger stock) can operate.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
willc
|
|
« Reply #99 on: January 23, 2009, 01:27:51 » |
|
a. To call the GC» dead straight gives a whole new meaning to straight. Long sweeping curves perhaps, but nothing new in that, even in the 1890s. Brunel did it just as well in the 1830s, and with picks, shovels and wheelbarrows, rather than steam excavators. b. Even if an initial bit of HSL only got to the Trent Valley, it would still take 30-45 minutes off London-Glasgow and Edinburgh timings, down to about 3hrs 45mins - not to be sniffed at for 330-odd miles and getting into the time territory (below four hours) where rail really starts to hurt planes. c. The government has, on the quiet, set up companies called High Speed 3-6, as well as High Speed 2, hinting that there could be much more to come. See http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article5537004.eced. You can't operate double-decker goods trains (I'm assuming you mean something like the far more generous North American double-stack container gauge) on any of the UIC loading gauges. For more on gauges, see http://www.btinternet.com/~joyce.whitchurch/gauges/text.htm. A double-deck passenger train, like the latest generation of TGV▸ , needs far less headroom than two containers. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #100 on: January 23, 2009, 18:24:28 » |
|
A- the gc line is pretty straight btw ayles and rugby.
B- what about other journeys? Not everyone goes to London.
D- on European guage lines you can operate goods with 2 containers on top of each other.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
willc
|
|
« Reply #101 on: January 24, 2009, 12:21:31 » |
|
Well show me a picture of a double-stack container train in Europe please. You won't be able to, because they do not operate in Europe.
A google search of "double-stack container trains" reveals references only to North America (no problems with electric catenary in the land of the big diesel) and India, where they have been looking at trying it out with specially-installed catenary, at a height of 6.8m-7.5m (22ft 3in-24ft 7in) above the rails - which one depends on whether you load the containers into well wagons or on flat-beds.
European standard height for contact wires is about 5m (16ft) - I'm sure electric train can confirm this - so you simply cannot fit two stacked standard 9ft 6in shipping containers underneath.
PS: Without the traffic to and from London, Virgin and NXEC▸ wouldn't have a business. Why do you think all LGVs▸ go to Paris and Italy's Diretissima lines go to Rome? Not all the German lines go to Berlin, but that's because the country is bigger and developed differently, due to the East-West split, and because the regions are far stronger, politically and economically, than they are in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #102 on: January 24, 2009, 18:07:06 » |
|
I must be mistaken.....  I am sure that there was a campaign to restore the GC» line so double deck goods could be run. I was talking about large traffic flows like B'ham and Manchester to Glasgow (a lot of people fly/ drive). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #103 on: January 24, 2009, 21:17:36 » |
|
I must be mistaken..... I am sure that there was a campaign to restore the GC» line so double deck goods could be run. I think that the 'Great Central' freight proposal was for gauge clearance to allow carriage of lorries piggy back style, ie more like the Eurotunnel shuttles, but on completely open flat wagons. However,the GC was only built to whatever 'continental gauge' was when it was built, not necessarily the latest UIC gauge as now defined, and the proposals included an enhanced gauge route round SE and S London, and from Sheffield (ish) to the NW, so I think a good proportion of the route needed a lot of work anyway. Paul |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #104 on: January 25, 2009, 12:37:36 » |
|
I must be mistaken..... I am sure that there was a campaign to restore the GC» line so double deck goods could be run. I think that the 'Great Central' freight proposal was for gauge clearance to allow carriage of lorries piggy back style, ie more like the Eurotunnel shuttles, but on completely open flat wagons. However,the GC was only built to whatever 'continental gauge' was when it was built, not necessarily the latest UIC gauge as now defined, and the proposals included an enhanced gauge route round SE and S London, and from Sheffield (ish) to the NW, so I think a good proportion of the route needed a lot of work anyway. Paul Yeah, I think Btline is getting confused. Further information on what was planned is here: http://www.crowsnest.co.uk/gauge.htm |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
