More Infill Electrification Announced

[whole diary]

[paul7575]

One question about re-opening the GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) though.  Where would all that freight go when it got to the London end?

The 'reopening the GC' bit was basically north west of the M25.  Once within the M25 there was going to be a sharp right turn onto a completely new orbital route hugging the M25 from somewhere near Denham all the way round to the southeast of London, with various tunnels, embankments and cuttings to suit the terrain - mostly in green belt IIRC^▸ ('if I recall/remember/read correctly').   

I suspect the reason it got the thumbs down from the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) was that the headline grabbing 'reopen the GC' was the straightforward bit...

Paul

[onthecushions]

It's true that the easy bit of "re-opening the GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line)" is the stretch from Calvert (or really Aylesbury) to Rugby.

At the Rugby end the GC and WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) cross at right angles, so a new curve would be needed to gain access to the Trent Valley slow lines.

South of Aylesbury there are two routes into London, with disused formation in parts of each. One would deposit freights at OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) W Junction and would presumably need a route onto the N London line and then into Willesden. The other would need a curve at Wembley, again into Willesden.

The idea of paralleling motorways with new rail routes is excellent, except it needs to have been included at the planning stage, when the transport corridor was identified. We pay a lot for politicians' tunnel vision.

Tying up the ends of a new GC would not be simple or cheap, especially in inner London. In my view it's probably needed anyway, even if we do get HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)).

Thoughts,

OTC

[ellendune]

It's true that the easy bit of "re-opening the GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line)" is the stretch from Calvert (or really Aylesbury) to Rugby.

At the Rugby end the GC and WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) cross at right angles, so a new curve would be needed to gain access to the Trent Valley slow lines.

South of Aylesbury there are two routes into London, with disused formation in parts of each. One would deposit freights at OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) W Junction and would presumably need a route onto the N London line and then into Willesden. The other would need a curve at Wembley, again into Willesden.

The idea of paralleling motorways with new rail routes is excellent, except it needs to have been included at the planning stage, when the transport corridor was identified. We pay a lot for politicians' tunnel vision.

Tying up the ends of a new GC would not be simple or cheap, especially in inner London. In my view it's probably needed anyway, even if we do get HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)).

Thoughts,

OTC

But HS2 takes much of the GCR^» (Gloucester - next trains) formation north of Aylesbury doesn't it?

[stebbo]

There used to be a very detailed website for the Great Central project - don't know if it's still accessible. Nearer London I recall the proposal was to try and use the old West Drayton to Ruislip and the existing line south from West Drayton. Don't know if that's still feasible.

Certainly, a fee years back the website had detailed plans and explanations.

[onthecushions]

But HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) takes much of the GCR^» (Gloucester - next trains) formation north of Aylesbury doesn't it?

As HS2 involves a belt of land 75m wide, there is plenty of space for retaining an existing trackbed, even if displaced slightly.

A right-of-way is a precious asset in a crowded island, be it the Icknield Way, Roman road, dried up canal or disused railway. There is even a closed piece of the M4 (the original East to North curve at Maidenhead)!

Happy Christmas,

OtC

 

[paul7575]

But HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) takes much of the GCR^» (Gloucester - next trains) formation north of Aylesbury doesn't it?

Very little, I believe.   The detailed maps on the HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) part of the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s website show a minor coming together for a few miles between Calvert and a few miles north of there.

Maps are here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-revised-line-of-route-maps

Heading north map 12 shows the convergence, 13 and 14 are the sections where the routes are either nearby or close together, (but you'll see the curves are different, HS2 would be much longer radius) and by map 15 they have separated again for good. As a proportion of the overall scheme it is probably less than 5% where the formation is used.

"HS2 uses the GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) route" was an early example of totally misleading politician's spin, I reckon...

Paul

[stebbo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-gilligan/10406562/HS2-now-Labour-look-at-an-alternative-scheme.html

[paul7575]

Two months old article, and a very simplistic analysis IMHO^▸ ('in my humble opinion').   

Doesn't go to Birmingham, doesn't have a feasible London terminus, needs a new route from north of Aylesbury towards London anyway.   Presumably the nimby element would want it in a tunnel, and why not - they've already been offered one for the current plan...

Paul

[Electric train]

By the time all the assessments have been carried on any remaining earthworks, bridges, tunnels etc and then all the remedial work done to them it will be cheaper to build a new route

[ChrisB]

Don't believe anything Gilligan writes.....shame really, used to be a good journalist, but his rail stuff is regularly refuted by the folks in the Rail press