|
|
| Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail (488727) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 10 14:09:09 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 10 08:20:29 2007. 'Impossible Ideal HSR Diagram [of England]'Not totally impossible, just expensive and disruptive to existing land-uses, if you: (a) adopt the system of building it in stages, with links to existing highish speed lines to use in the meanwhile, or indeed forever if you don't wnat to be nice to the Scots; and (b) build the new lines alongside motorways. Well, the bigger problem is probably that it's not desirable in that form. It doesn't pay any attention to existing lines, and Urban Areas have a distinct bias against large compact stand-alone cities (e.g. Leicester (rank: 8), Coventry (9), Hull (10), Cardiff (12), Stoke (13), Plymouth (16), Southampton (17), Reading (18), and Derby (19)) and against major secondary centres of conurbations (e.g. Bradford (11) and Wolverhampton (14)). For instance, could one justify Wolverhampton losing its through service to London on the grounds of HSR to Birmingham? (And Greengauge 21's plan would pose exactly this question). And dare we repeat the BR/GNER "ignore Hull" mistake? Leaving aside the question of where you London terminus should be - the British Library having snaffled the obvious site, alongside the Eurostar terminus - you start off alongside the M1 to Watford Gap. Lay in a connection to the existing WCML where it's alongside the M1 already. Stage 2, you continue from Watford Gap alongside the M6 to Birmingham (new station near Spaghetti Junction somewhere) and Liverpool - *but see below. You also continue a second route from Watford Gap Junction, alongside the M1 to East Midlands Parkway, Sheffield (Meadowhall), Leeds (station location to be decided), and then following the M1 again northeastwards back to the A1 corridor near York. The Y-shaped network idea is tempting, but ultimately it's asking for capacity problems between the junction and London. *Alternatively to running B'ham-Liverpool, run up the M6 to a Manchester/Liverpool Parkway station near where it crosses the M62, and continue to Preston, where you rejoin the existing WCML south of the station, to allow through running to Glasgow. That would lengthen journey times to Liverpool and (especially) Manchester. Stage 3, follow the M4 to Bristol Parkway and South Wales (exact location of the Greater Cardiff station to be determined). In the middle of the proposed Severn Barrage? But seriously, I don't actually think all those lines are necessary. I'd go for something more like this: HS2 - part "a" EUSTON (existing) WATFORD JUNCTION (existing) (existing Fast Lines to a point south of King's Langley) [get under the Chilterns for free] (the old Fast Lines north of this point would merge into the Slow Lines to London) then roughly parallel the A41 to Quainton Road then on the GCR trackbed to Woodford Halse [get under the Watershed of England for free] then north-westwards, utilizing a section of Stratford & Midland Junction past Southam and the Kenilworth - Berkswell Line then parallel the existing London and Birmingham Line line gains extra pair of tracks with access from Coventry and from HS2 South then turning north parallel to the M42 BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL "B" (new) (non-Cov pair of tracks to HS2b / Cov pair continue as HS2a) continue parallel to M42 to J7, then parallel M6 to a point west of Water Orton then parallel Midland Railway tracks to: BIRMINGHAM CURZON STREET (new) (some trains continue to Wolverhampton via Birmingham New Street) HS2 - part "b" (from HS2a - BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL "B") continue parallel to M42 to a point between J8 and J9 curve from Midland Railway Water Orton - Kingsbury curve in Birmingham direction to HS2 north (effectively forming triangular junction) then parallel to M6 Toll to a point south of Lichfield then diagonally to join existing North Staffs line near Hixon (Hixon-Colwich service withdrawn) then on new tracks parallel to existing ones from Stone to Kidsgrove STOKE-ON-TRENT (expanded) Kidsgrove Junction (for Manchester via Macclesfield and Stockport) Then to Weaver Junction (variety of possible routes) (line diverges to Liverpool via Runcorn and Scotland/Lancaster via Warrington) HS2.5 intermediate project assorted simplification/segregation of fast/slow track layouts in the Stockport area HS3 (bit of a misnomer, but a new line is needed) LIVERPOOL LIME STREET (existing) LIVERPOOL SOUTH PARKWAY (existing) Ditton Junction (existing) then via former LNWR line to: WARRINGTON BANK QUAY LOW LEVEL then parallel to the Manchester Ship Canal then a short link in the Eccles/Salford borderlands then parallel to the original Liverpool & Manchester Railway MANCHESTER OXFORD ROAD then quadruple the viaduct (possibly by putting the local services underground) MANCHESTER PICCADILLY flyover the entire formation new tracks on north side of GCR/MSLR various potential routes to Diggle utilize the spare Standedge Tunnels utilize the spare ROW through: HUDDERSFIELD then, after Bradley, run north to reach the M62 at Hartshead Moor then parallel the M62 potential junction near Cleckheaton for HS3 services to Bradford continue to parallel the M62/M621 swing north alongside the GNR to pick up the Farnley Viaduct LEEDS CITY then quadruple (including the viaduct, possibly putting local services underground) to Micklefield Junction HS4 Should do something about the ECML. Who knows what though... Whatever it is will be horrendously expensive. Other things 1) Sort out the level crossings between Birmingham and Bristol, and raise the line-speed. 2) Rebuild the Reading station area. 3) Possibly re-open Ambergate main line platforms, allowing a Derby to Sheffield local service to be overtaken. |
|
|
|