|
|
| Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail (489053) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Tue Sep 11 09:09:58 2007, in response to Re: Phila Inquirer: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail, posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 11 04:37:09 2007. You're still not adopting the TGV/Shinkansen concept of a brand new line for high-speed rail, you're still thinking about improving the existing network in the UK.Well, the TGV at least uses parts of existing lines. I got castigated on this board before for doing that - I wastold that we Brits were being unambitious, etc. I think new London - Liverpool and Liverpool - Leeds lines are quite ambitious and are actually all that is needed in terms on longish distance new lines at the moment. So I took your 'Impossible Ideal' map and tried to see what we could do by putting brand new lines alongside motorways. Your alleged capacity problem between London and Watford Gap Junction, for example, would be avoided because the new line would be designed from the start with sufficient capacity to carry trains to both the northwest and he northeast. Well, let's think about the numbers. I would say that this would be a fairly minimalistic arrangement of West Coast HSR trains: 4tph - London - Birmingham 2tph - Continent - Birmingham 2tph - South Coast - Birmingham 2tph - London - Liverpool 2tph - London - Manchester 2tph - London - Lancaster/Blackpool 1tph - London - Glasgow 1tph - London - Edinburgh 16tph TOTAL Already, we're getting quite close to the capacity of an HSL track. Then add the predictable East Coast stuff: 2tph - London - Newcastle/Edinburgh 2tph - London - Leeds/Bradford 2tph - London - Hull/Middlesbrough 2tph - London - Nottingham probably several other things I haven't thought of There's another 8tph for starters, and AIUI no TGV track in France operates more than 20tph, as the stopping distances at TGV speeds are such that the signal system cannot allow more capacity than this. So a line with adequate capacity to the railway version of M1 J19 would have four tracks. Alternatively, two tracks could go on an optimal alignment for the West Coast and two for the East. Similarly, you are still not embracing the TGV idea (also adopted by Amtrak, actually!) of having out-of-town stations that behave more like airports. I think it's actually an idea of extremely limited utility in the context of England, and that going to central stations is one of the big advantages of rail. And besides, you could drive to certain stations easily enough anyway: Watford Junction's just off the M25, Birmingham International is on the M42, and Stoke-on-Trent is on the A500. The only station I would want to make more accessible from out of town is Warrington Bank Quay, as Warrington is annoyingly surrounded by motorways on all sides except the useful one! I admit my Manchester/Liverpool Parkway idea was a bit extreme, but I did only offer it as an alternative. However, if carefully placed in relation to the road network, it could serve most of greater Liverpool (except the Wirral bit) and the whole west side of greater Manchester quite well as a park-and-ride station. Do we really want to be attracting people off existing rail services onto the roads? |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|