The Anonymous Widower

ETCS Tested Successfully On Heathrow Express Class 387s

The title of this post is the same as that of this article on Railway Gazette International.

Once the Class 387 trains can use ETCS on Heathrow Express between Paddington and Heathrow, this must surely allow them to work more intensively with Crossrail’s Class 345 trains, which are also fitted with the same ETCS signalling.

 

April 4, 2020 Posted by | Transport | , , , | Leave a comment

Will The Railway Between Buxton And Matlock Be Reopened?

In Issue 901 of Rail Magazine in an article about reopening the Northern route between Exeter and Plymouth, this is said, about possible rail re-opening of Beeching cuts.

Although not yet confirmed, they are believed by RAIL to include bids to reinstate the former Midland Railway route from Matlock-Buxton, and the line between Lostwithiel and Fowey.

I have found this news story on the Matlock Mercury, which is entitled Quarry Firms And Heritage Operator Consider Peak District Railway Line.

This is the introductory paragraph.

Proposals to revive a disused rail line through the Peak District have moved a step forward, but not the passenger service some have called for.

The reasons for the reinstatement are given in the story.

  • There is an enormous demand for stone from projects like Crossrail 2, High Speed Two and Heathrow Expansion and Derbyshire is a major source.
  • Currently, stone trains between Derbyshire and the South-East take a roundabout route via the congested and unsuitable Hope Valley Line and Sheffield.
  • A route via Matlock would join the Midland Main Line nearly thirty miles further South.

It should be noted that the original track-bed still exists and part is used for the double-track Peak Rail, with much of the rest being used for the cycling and walking route; the Monsal Trail.

Thoughts About The Design Of The Railway

In the June 2017 Edition of Modern Railways, there is an excellent article, which is entitled Connecting The Powerhouses, that was written by Colin Boocock.

I wrote a post with the same name, based on his article, from which a lot of the following thoughts are taken.

Colin Boocock’s Thoughts On The Design

I said this in my previous post.

The track bed of the Peak Main Line is still intact and the author of the article suggests that there could be two ways of rebuilding the railway.

  • As a 75 mph single-track railway sharing the track-bed with the Monsal Trail.
  • As a 90 mph double-track railway, after moving the Monsal Trail to a more picturesque route.

Four or five, reopened or new stations could be built with passing loops to enable the minimum service frequency to be achieved, which the author suggests should be the following in both directions in every hour.

  • One fast passenger train
  • One stopping passenger train.
  • One freight train; full or empty.

But there are possible problems.

  • The A6 has to be crossed.
  • One local landowner didn’t allow consultants access to the line for an inspection.
  • Severn Trent Water are digging a large pipe into the track-bed.
  • Peak Rail have plans to extend their heritage line to Bakewell. Could both groups co-exist?

It sounds to me that everybody should find a good hostelry and thrash out a comprehensive co-operation agreement on the backs of engineering envelopes, fuelled by some excellent real ale.

But various improvements to the route and railway technology in general, in the last few years have probably made the reinstatement less challenging.

Ambergate Station And Junction

Ambergate station and the associated junction is where trains for Matlock station, leave the Midland Main Line and take the Derwent Valley Line.

This article on the BBC is entitled Major Rail Works To Affect Derbyshire Train Services and it describes work done to improve Ambergate Junction.

It is to be hoped, that the updating of the junction is at least well-documented, so that it can be updated easily to accept stone trains to and from the Derwent Valley Line.

Improved Handling Of Freight Trains At Buxton

In £14m Peak District Rail Freight Extension Unveiled, I indicated that the improvements at Buxton had been completed.

  • There are now two long sidings, that can each take a 26 wagon stone train and allow them to reverse.
  • Capacity has increased by 44 %
  • No more trains will be running.

According to this document on the Network Rail web site, the sidings operate on a 24 hour basis and on average, accommodate 6-10 freight trains every 24 hour period.

I’m not sure, but it looks like the sidings also allow all stone trains to access the following.

  • All quarries in the area with a rail connection.
  • The Great Rocks Freight Line to access the Hope Valley Line and Sheffield
  • The proposed reopened rail line to Matlock, Derby and the South.

The track layout at Buxton station would appear to allow trains to go between Manchester and Derby, once the Matlock and Buxton railway is reinstated.

Ambergate Station And Junction

Ambergate station and the associated junction is where trains for Matlock station, leave the Midland Main Line and take the Derwent Valley Line.

This article on the BBC is entitled Major Rail Works To Affect Derbyshire Train Services and it describes work done to improve Ambergate Junction.

It is to be hoped, that the updating of the junction is at least well-documented, so that it can be updated easily to accept stone trains to and from the Derwent Valley Line.

Signalling Improvements

One of Colin Boocock’s options for the route, is a 75 mph single-track railway sharing the track-bed with the Monsal Trail.

Single-track railways running an intense schedule could be a challenging signalling problem in the past, but with in-cab digital signalling, as used on Thameslink and the London Underground, it is much less onerous.

It should be possible to handle Colin Boocock’s desired minimum frequency of three trains per hour (tph) in both directions.

Colin Boocock’s second option of a 90 mph double-track railway, after moving the Monsal Trail to a more picturesque route, would be very much easier to signal to a very high degree of safety.

Electrification

Electrification would surely, be the best way to get heavy freight trains in and out of the area.

But I suspect the line could not be electrified in a traditional manner, as heavy gantries in the Peak District would not go down well!

But what about a design something like this?

I talk about this design in Prototype Overhead Line Structure Revealed.

It does seem to be a good attempt to reduce the clutter of girders, gantries and wires!

Freight Locomotives

If electrification is not possible, which is probably the case, as the locomotives will need access to large amounts of freight sidings, then diesel power will be needed,

The current Class 66 locomotives are not the most environmentally-friendly locomotives, but hopefully in a sensitive area like the Peak District, some more advanced locomotives could be used.

Passenger Trains

Quiet battery-electric or hydrogen-powered trains would be ideal for the route.

How Many Stone Trains Will Use The Route?

With the current lockdown because of COVID-19, it’s a bit difficult to ascertain how many stone trains are currently going into and out of the quarries in an hour.

But from the Network Rail figures, I have found and Colin Boocock’s minimum figure,  it looks like one tph would be a frequency for which to aim.

Could this frequency be handled between Matlock And Buxton?

Even if the route was single-track with passing loops, Colin Boocock’s minimum timetable could be achieved.

Note that the Great Rocks Freight Line will still be capable of handling trains via the Hope Valley Line and Sheffield.

Conclusion

I think that this scheme could be feasible, if engineers used modern signalling and other designs to blend in with the scenery.

 

 

March 29, 2020 Posted by | Transport, Uncategorized | , , , , , | 4 Comments

Partners On Board For In-Cab Signalling Project On East Coast Main Line

The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on Rail Advent.

This is the introductory paragraph.

Network Rail has announced that it has brought Siemens and Atkins on as its partners in a project to introduce in-cab signalling on the southern section of the East Coast Main Line.

It is good, that a start is being made on this significant project, which should increase capacity between Kings Cross and Doncaster.

March 23, 2020 Posted by | Transport | , , , | 1 Comment

Porterbrook Announces New Approach To Fitting New Tech To Electrostar Trains

The title of this post is the same as that of this article on Rail Advent.

This is the introductory paragraph.

Porterbrook, Siemens Mobility and Bombardier have announced that they have agreed on a new approach to the fitment of ETCS technology onto existing Electrostar trains.

So what does it mean?

It appears have already had benefits in the updating of the Class 387 trains for Heathrow Express.

Hopefully, the approach will mean that all existing Bombardier and Siemens trains in the UK will have a full ETCS fit in as short time as possible.

This must open up the possibility for full digital signalling and greater capacity  on lines, that are run exclusively by new trains and recent Bombardier and Siemens products.

February 14, 2020 Posted by | Transport | , , , , | Leave a comment

Does One Of Baldrick’s Descendents Work For Avanti West Coast?

I have been looking at the problems of maximising traffic and reducing journey times on the West Coast Main Line to the North of Crewe.

I think that what Avanti West Coast intend to do has a touch of the Baldricks about it.

Trains that go North from Crewe include the following Avanti West Coast services.

  • Blackpool, which branches off at Preston.
  • Glasgow, which goes up the West Coast Main Line via Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme and Carlisle.
  • Liverpool, which branches off at Weaver Junction, between Crewe and Warrington.
  • Manchester, which branches off at Crewe.

I find it interesting that according to Wikipedia, Avanti West Coast will be running their new Hitachi electric trains to Blackpool and Liverpool, but not Manchester.

Could it be that as these trains will be sharing tracks to the North of Crewe in the future with High Speed Two services to Preston, Carlisle and Scotland, that these trains will be built to have the same operating speed on the West Coast Main Line, as the classic-compatible High Speed Two trains, that will serve the route?

The Manchester Branch is slower, so will remain 125 mph Pendelino territory.

The Number Of Electric Trains Ordered

Doing a rough estimate< I reckon the following.

  • One train per hour (tph) to Liverpool needs five 125 mph Pendelinos.
  • One tph to Blackpool needs six 125 mph Pendelinos.
  • .Two tph to Liverpool needs ten 125 mph Pendelinos.
  • If the new Hitachi trains, are capable of 140 mph, I reckon two tph to Liverpool might need eight 140 mph trains.

The order of new Hitachi trains is not large enough to run both Blackpool and Liverpool services.

Will The New Hitachi Trains Be Used On London and Liverpool?

Consider.

  • It would probably the best policy to run each route with one class of train.
  • A two tph London and Liverpool service is much needed.
  • Running the new Hitachi trains on London and Liverpool, would release extra trains for London and Blackpool and London and Birmingham.
  • Two tph to Liverpool needs eight 125 mph Pendelinos or eight 140 mph Hitachi trains.

But it would also mean installing ERTMS signalling on the London and Liverpool route to enable 140 mph running.

It does appear that ten new Hitachi trains, able to run at 140 mph could service the London and Liverpool route and release five Pendelinos for other routes.

Could The Pendelinos Run At 140 mph?

They were designed for this speed, as were the InterCity 225 trains and only don’t run at this speed because of the lack of digital signalling on the West Coast Main Line.

The Wikipedia entry for the Class 390 Pendelino train says this about the speed of the train.

The Class 390 Pendolino is one of the fastest domestic electric multiple units operating in Britain, with a design speed of 140 mph (225 km/h); however, limitations to track signalling systems restrict the trains to a maximum speed of 125 mph (200 km/h) in service. In September 2006, the Pendolino set a new speed record, completing the 401 mi (645 km) length of the West Coast Main Line from Glasgow Central to London Euston in 3 hours, 55 minutes.

Perhaps it is time to unleash the Pendelinos?

Could the planned refurbishment of the Pendelinos install the required equipment, allow the trains to run using digital signalling at 140 mph?

What Is The Cunning Plan?

These are the possible objectives of adding the extra ten trains.

  • One tph between London and Glasgow in around four hours.
  • Two tph between London and Liverpool in around two hours.

Would this be one possible way to achieve these objectives?

  • Install digital signalling on the West Coast Main Line to allow 140 mph in places, where the track allows.
  • Improve the track of the West Coast Main Line, where necessary.
  • Run new Hitachi trains between London and Liverpool.
  • Release the current Pendelinos to other routes.
  • Upgrade the Pendelinos with digital signalling to allow 140 mph running, where possible.
  • Run 140 mph Pendelinos between London and Blackpool, Edinburgh and Glasgow.

The real plan will probably be a lot better and more comprehensive, but it does show how the two objectives can be met.

Conclusion

To improve services between London and Birmingham, Blackpool, Liverpool and Scotland, appears to need the following.

  • Ten new Hitachi trains.
  • Full digital signalling on the West Coast Main Line.
  • Track improvements on the West Coast Main Line
  • Upgrading of the Pendelinos to allow 140 mph running.

This should reduce London and Glasgow to around four hours and London and Liverpool to around two hours.

 

 

 

December 15, 2019 Posted by | Transport | , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Shape Of Train Services To Come

Today, I went to Lincoln, which as I reported in LNER To Put Lincoln On The Rail Map, is now a city, that has five trains per day to and from London.

It actually appears that from the timetable change on December 15th, 2019, the LNER timetable will be as follows.

  • On Mondays to Saturdays, there will be six trains per day (tpd) in both directions.
  • On Sundays, there will be five tpd in both directions.
  • Services stop at Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham and Newark Northgate.
  • All direct services are under two hours, by at least a couple of minutes.
  • Indirect services with a change at Newark are generally no more than ten minutes over two hours, with some under two hours.
  • All direct trains would appear to be five-car Class 800 trains.

I can’t see any cause for passenger complaint.

On The 10:06 To Lincoln

Today is a Friday and I had expected more people on this direct service to Lincoln Central station.

As this was the first direct Friday service at this time to Lincoln, perhaps the word has been slow to get around?

The train arrived on time in Lincoln, although it had been a few minutes late at Grantham.

I asked several people, including a knowledgeable journalist, if Lincoln had ever had a two-hourly service from London and all said the answer was never!

On The 13:23 From Lincoln

This train was very close to maximum capacity with only a few empty seats.

The only problem was a young Lady, although I hasten to add she didn’t behave like a lady, who was sitting on the other side of the carriage.

She was constantly shouting into her phone and using the F-word to boot.

An elderly gentleman politely asked her to calm it down and it made no difference.

I did say to the very large guy, who looked like a prop forward opposite me, that will you ram her phone down her throat or shall I? All it got was a few laughs all round.

Perhaps her mother, didn’t wash her mouth out with soap often enough?

Catering

The train had a buffet and we had a visit from the trolley on the way to Lincoln.

Coming back, there was no trolley, but the train might have been too busy to get it through.

First Class

Five-car Class 800 trains have forty-five First Class and two hundred and seventy Standard Class seats.

Given that some train companies are reducing the number of First Class seats, I wonder if LNER will follow suit on the service to and from Lincoln and perhaps replace them with Second Class seats.

Performance And Train Times

The journey is effectively in two parts.

  • 120 miles between Kings Cross and Newark, which is electrified.
  • 16 miles between Newark and Lincoln, which is not electrified.

A two hour trip between Kings Cross and Lincoln is an average of around sixty-eight mph.

The current two hour schedule is not a convenient time for an operator running a service. Something more under two hours would make timetabling easier.

Suppose, the train took an hour and forty minutes to do the trip and that twenty minutes were to be allowed for turnround and any short delays of a few minutes. This would enable a two-hourly clockface timetable, with a train both ways every two hours.

This would need an overall average speed of 81 mph, including all the stops.

Would this average speed be possible?

In the next few aub-sections, I’ll discuss various factors.

The Class 800 Trains

Consider.

  • The Class 800 trains have fast acceleration and deceleration.
  • Each stop currently takes about two minutes and probably with better systems and staff training could be improved.
  • Most of the time on the electrified East Coast Main Line, the trains are running at speeds in excess of 110 mph and at times up to 125 mph.
  • The trains can run at 140 mph with in-cab digital signalling, as their cousins; the Class 395 trains do on High Speed One.
  • Between Newark and Lincoln, the trains will be slowed by the maximum linespeed.
  • The trains will be running on diesel between Newark and Lincoln.
  • The next generation of AT300 trains are being designed for the Midland Main Line.

These trains will only get better.

In Thoughts On The Next Generation Of Hitachi High Speed Trains, I laid out my thoughts about how they will develop.

One development will be battery-electric trains and these will use battery power between Newark and Lincoln. This will mean that the trains would only need one diesel engine for emergencies like overhead line failure.

The 140 mph East Coast Main Line

Digital in-cab signalling is planed to be installed on the East Coast Main Line between London and Doncaster.

This will allow the following.

  • Closer control of the trains.
  • 140 mph running, where track and traffic allow.
  • More trains per hour (tph)

It was originally planned to be operational by 2020.

It should be noted that High Speed Two is planned to run at eighteen tph. Surely, the slower East Coast Main Line could allow an increase in frequency.

I estimate that this higher speed running could save upwards of ten minutes between Kings Cross and Newark.

Improvements Between Newark And Lincoln

Wikipedia says this about the line between Newark and Lincoln.

The line between Newark and Lincoln is currently only cleared for 50–70-mile-per-hour (80–100 km/h) speeds. Nottinghamshire County Council has paid for a study into 90-mile-per-hour (140 km/h) running.

From my helicopter, the line looks to be all double-track, fairly straight, in good condition, with signs of recent improvements. But there are also up to a dozen level crossings.

With improvements, I suspect that a 90 mph linespeed will be possible.

Summing Up Performance

My mathematical nous, feels that with the digital signalling and other improvements, that the required four hour round trip would be possible.

If this can be achieved, then just two trains would be needed to run a one train every two hours and between Kings Cross and Lincoln.

Other Services

The Wikipedia entry for LNER, says this about the services to Lincoln and other new destinations in the North.

An expanded service to Lincoln began on 21 October 2019 when four terminating services at Newark Northgate were extended into Lincoln. This is in addition to the sole one train per day service, which in all, now provides five out and back workings to and from London King’s Cross. LNER also plans for December 2019 timetable change that a sixth return service to London from Lincoln will be introduced and 5 extra services on a Saturday will begin from 7 December 2019. From December 2019, LNER will introduce a Harrogate to London service 6 times a day. LNER expects to introduce two-hourly services to Bradford and a daily service to Huddersfield in May 2020 when more Azuma trains have been introduced. The Middlesbrough service is expected to begin in December 2021 after infrastructure work required to run the service is completed.

That looks like a comprehensive increase in service to Bradford, Harrogate, Huddersfield and Middlesbrough

Conclusion

LNER seem to have made a good start on the increased service levels to Lincoln.

Harrogate would appear to be next!

It will be interesting to follow both places, to see if they benefit from an improved train service.

But I can certainly see a day in the not too distant future, when LNER’s or other operator’s Azumas and other 140 mph trains are running to multiple destinations via the East Coast Main Line.

 

 

October 25, 2019 Posted by | Transport | , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

More Frequent Trains And A New Station For The London Overground

The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on IanVisits.

This is said.

In a statement, the government agreed to requests for £80.8 million from the GLA to support transport upgrades so that 14,000 homes can be built along the East London Line.

Upgrades include

  • New Bermondsey station, which was originally to be called Surrey Canal Road, will be built.
  • A second entrance will be built at Surrey Quays station.
  • Frequency between Dalston Junction and Clapham Junction stations will be increased from four trains per hour (tph) to six tph.
  • Frequency between Highbury & Islington and Crystal Palace stations will be increased from four tph to six tph.

The frequency upgrades will mean twenty tph between Dalston Junction and Surrey Quays stations, or a tyrain every three minutes as opposed to the  current three minutes and forty-five seconds.

A few thoughts follow.

Surrey Quays Station Upgrade

Ian’s article says this about the new entrance at Surrey Quays station.

The very cramped Surrey Quays station gets a second entrance, which will run under the main road and be based on the north side, where the shopping centre car park is today. That avoids crossing two busy roads, which can take some time if you’re waiting for the lights to change.

This Google Map shows the station and the car park of the Shopping Centre.

These are my pictures, taken at and around the station.

Traffic is bad and the subway suggested by Ian’s wording will be very welcome.

Collateral Benefits At New Cross Gate

New Cross Gate station will be one of several stations along the East London Line to see benefits in service frequency and quality.

The train frequency on East London Line services will rise from eight tph to ten tph.

But this is not all that should or could happen.

  • The service between Highbury & Islington and West Croydon stations could rise from four tph to six tph.
  • This would mean that New Cross Gate would have a twelve tph service to and from Whitechapel, which in a year or so, will have Crossrail connections to Canary Wharf, Bond Street, Paddington and Heathrow.
  • Southeastern should be getting new higher-capacity, higher-performance and possibly longer trains to replace their elderly trains into London Bridge.
  • Charing Cross station is redeveloped into a higher-capacity, cross-river station, to allow more trains.
  • Digital signalling, as used on Thameslink will be extended to cover all trains through New Cross and New Cross Gate.
  • The Docklands Light Railway to Lewisham will get new and higher-capacity trains.
  • Southeastern Metro services could go to the London Overground.

Could this all mean that the East London Line, Southeastern and Crossrail will more than hold the fort until it is decided to build the Bakerloo Line Extension?

The Bakerloo Line Extension

This map shows the route of the Bakerloo Line Extension.

If and when the Bakerloo Line Extension is built, New Cross Gate will surely become a major transport hub.

If you look at the current and proposed stations on the Southern section of an extended Bakerloo Line, you can say the following.

  • Paddington will get a step-free pedestrian link between Crossrail and the Bakerloo Line.
  • Charing Cross will benefit from more Southeastern Metro services into the main line station.
  • Waterloo will benefit from more Southeastern Metro services through the attached Waterloo East station.
  • Elephant & Castle station will benefit from more Thameslink services through the attached main line station.
  • New Cross Gate will benefit from more Southeastern Metro and East London Line services through the station.
  • Lewisham will benefit from more Southeastern Metro services through the station.

 

But there are no interim benefits for the blue-mauve area, that will be served by the proposed Old Kent Road 1 and Old Kent Road 2 stations.

In addition, is there a need to add capacity between  the New Cross area and Lewishan? Spiutheastern improvements will help, but the Bakerloo Line Extension will do a lot more!

Except for these two stations, is there a reason to build an extension to the Bakerloo Line, as train services between Charing Cross, Waterloo East and New Cross Gate and Lewisham will be significantly increased in frequency, reach and quality?

A Bakerloo Line Extension Redesign

Whatever happens to the Bakerloo Line, the following should be done.

  • New walk-through trains running at a higher-frequency on the current route.
  • Major access improvements and better connection to main line services at Elrphant & Castle, Wterloo East, Charing Cross and Willesden Junction stations.
  • A radical reorganisation North of Queen’s Park station, in conjunction with the Watford DC Line and the proposed West London Orbital Railway.

This would improve the current line, but it would do nothing for those living where the extension will go!

So why not do what is happening to the Northern Line at Battersea and create a short extension to the Bakerloo Line that serves the areas that need it and one that can be extended in the future?

  • You could argue, that the extension to Lewisham is short and it could be extended to Hayes and other places.
  • I also think, that the route goes via New Cross Gate, as that is one of the few sites in the area, from where a large tunnel could be built.

Ideally, what could be needed is a high-capacity public transport link from Elephant & Castle and Greenwich and/or Lewisham via the Old Kent Road, New Cross Gate and New Cross.

The Germans, the Dutch and others wouldn’t mess about and would run trams along the road, but that would go down with the locals like a lead West London Tram.

So it looks like some form of extension of the Bakerloo Line is the only way to go.

Consider.

  • Two-platform terminal stations at Brixton and Walthamstow Central handle up to thirty-six tph on the Victoria Line.
  • New Cross Gate and New Cross stations are about five hundred metres apart.
  • Double-ended stations like Knightsbridge on the Piccadilly Line and Kings Cross on the Victoria Line work very well.

I would look at building a doublr-ended Bakerloo Line station deep underneath New Cross Road.

  • It would be connected by escalators and lifts to the existing stations at New Cross Gate in the West and New Cross in the East.
  • Provision would be made to extend the line further to either Greenwich or Lewisham.
  • New Cross and Lewisham already have a high-frequency connection around four tph.
  • The whole extension could be built from the single tunnelling location on the Sainsbury’s site at New Cross Gate.
  • There would be no necessity for any works at Lewisham station.

It would probably need more services to be run between New Cross and Lewisham.

Extending The East London Line Service South From New Cross

New Cross is served by the only short service on the London Overground; the four tph between Dalston Junction and New Cross stations.

So could this Rast London Line service be extended South to serve Lewisham to increase services between New Cross and Lewisham?

This map from carto.metro.free.fr shows the lines at New Cross station.

Note how the double-track East London Line, shown in orange, arrives from Surrey Quays station arrives in the North-Western corner of the map, becomes a single-track and then goes under the main lines before going into the bay platform D.

This Google Map shows the same area.

The London Overground track is clearly visible.

Could extra track be added, to enable the following?

  • Southbound trains could join the main line and stop in Platform C
  • Northbound trains could leave the main line after stopping in Platform A and go towards Surrey Quays station.

If this is possible, then  it would give a four tph service between Dalston Junction and Lewisham, with an important stop at Whitechapel to connect to Crossrail.

Lewisham doesn’t have the space for a terminal, but there would appear two possible terminals South of Lewisham.

  • Hayes – Journey time to and from Dalston Junction would take around 53 minutes.
  • Orpington – Journey time to and from Dalston Junction would take around 50 minutes.

Both stations would make ideal terminals.

  • They have bay platforms for terminating the trains.
  • Round trips would be a convenient two hours.
  • Eight trains would be needed for the service.
  • New Cross will have the same four tph to and from Dalston Junction as it does now!
  • Lewisham and Dalston Junction would have a four tph service that would take 27 minutes.

The service could even be split with two tph to each terminal.

Will the Extended Services Need To Replace Other Services?

Currently Hayes has these current Off Peak services.

  • Two tph to Cannon Street via London Bridge
  • Two tph to Charing Cross via London Bridge

I would expect that if digital signalling is applied through the area, that the extra services could be added to Hayes and Orpington as decided.

An Improved Hayes Line

Transport for London and various commentators always assume that the Bakerloo Line will eventually take over the Hayes Line.

This will or could mean the following.

  • Passengers used to a full-size train looking out on the countryside and back gardens through big windows, will have to get used to a more restricted view.
  • Platforms on the Hayes Line will need to be rebuilt, so that two different size of train will be step-free between train and platform.
  • The service could be slower.
  • The ability to walk through an increasingly pedestrianised Central London to and from Cannon Street, Charing Cross and London Bridge will be lost.
  • Loss of First Class seats. which will happen anyway!

I think that passengers will want to stick with the current service.

The only reason to allow the Bakerloo Line Extension to take over the Hayes Line, is that it would allow another four tph to run between Lewisham and London Bridge. But digital signalling could give the same benefit!

But what if the Overground muscled in?

The Hayes Line could take up to four tph between Dalston Junction and Hayes, via Lewisham and New Cross, which would give these benefits.

  • Increased capacity on the Hayes Line.
  • An excellent connection to Crossrail, which would give a better connection to the West End, Liverpool Street and Heathrow.
  • Better connection to the Eastern side of the City of London and Canary Wharf.

There would be no mahor changes to the infrastructure, except for the installation of digital signalling, which will happen anyway.

Times To And From Crossrail

Times to and from Whitechapel, with its Crossrail connection are.

  • Lewisham – 17 minutes
  • Hayes – 44 minutes
  • Orpington – 41 minutes

The current service between Orpington and Farrington, which also will connect to Crossrail, takes 52 minutes.

Penge Interchange

Although, this has not been funded, I think that this new interchange could be very much in Transport for London’s plans.

I discuss the possible Penge Interchnge station in Penge Interchange.

It’s certainly something to watch out for, as it could improve connectivity by a large amount.

The View From The Dalston Omnibus

For decades, Dalston had a terrible reputation and then came the Overground, which changed everything.

There are now these combined devices from the two Dalston stations.

  • Eoght tph to Stratford
  • Four tph to Richmond via Willesden Junction
  • Four tph to Clapham Junction via Willesden Junction
  • Four tph to Clapham Junction via Surrey Quays
  • Four tph to Creystal Palace via Surrey Quays
  • Four tph to New Cross via Surrey Quays
  • Four tph to West Croydon via Surrey Quays

There is also a useful eight tph connecting service between Dalston Junction and Highbury & Islington.

In the next couple of years, these developments should happen.

  • Services on the East London Line will be increased with an extra two tph to Clapham Junction and Crystal Palace.
  • Services on the North London Line will be increased to cope with overcrowding. As the Dalston Junction and Highbury & Islington connecting service will be going to ten tph, it would seem logical that the North London Line service should match this frequency.
  • Crossrail will open and Dalston will have a twenty tph connection to its services at Whitechapel.

Dalston needs better connections to either main line terminal stations or their interchanges a  few miles out.

Currently, Dalston has very useful connections to the following main interchanges.

  • Stratford for the Great Eastern Main Line.
  • Clapham Junction for the South Western Railway and Southern services.
  • Richmond for Windsor and Reading services.
  • Whjitechapel will provide a link to Crossrail.
  • In addition the planned update at Norwood Junction will give better connection to services to Gatwick, Brighton and other services to the South of Croydon.

Better interchanges are needed with services to the North and the South East of London.

Extending the Dalston Junction and New Cross service to Hayes or Orpington via Lewisham could greater improve the train service from Dalston, by providing interchange to services fanning out into and beyond South East London.

Conclusion

I am drawn to these two conclusions.

  • The Bakerloo Line should be extended via two new Old Kent Road stations to a double-ended terminal station in New Cross with interchange to both New Cross Gate and New Cross stations.
  • The New Cross branch of the London Overground should be extended through Lewisham to Orpington and/or Hayes.

Coupled with planned increases in frequency, reach and quality of existing services, this would surely help serve the housing development planned for South East London.

September 12, 2019 Posted by | Transport | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Alstom Digital Train Control System Enters Service On Wuppertal Suspension Railway

The title of thiis post is the same as that of this article on Railways Africa.

It describes how Alstom have fitted digital signalling with ETCS to Wuppertal’s Schwebebahn.

 

Surely, if you can fit digital signalling to the city’s weird and wonderful railway, it can be applied to any other railway.

 

September 7, 2019 Posted by | Transport | , , , | Leave a comment

Is There Going To Be Full Electrification Between Leeds And Huddersfield?

This article on Rail Technology Magazine is dated 23/08/19 and is entitled Network Rail Reveals Detailed £2.9bn Upgrade Plans For TransPennine Route and it prompted me to write this post of the same name.

The Rail Technology Magazine article talks about a comprehensive upgrade to the Huddersfield Line is planned that includes.

  • Improvement between Huddersfield and Westtown
  • Grade separation or a tunnel at Ravensthorpe
  • Rebuilding and electrification of eight miles of track.
  • Possible doubling the number of tracks from two to four.
  • Improved stations at Huddersfield, Deighton, Mirfield and Ravensthorpe.

I have now found this document on the Network Rail web site, which is entitled Huddersfield to Westtown (Dewsbury).

This statement is included under proposals.

Electrification of the railway from Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe – and right through to Leeds.

Because there is a dash in the words, has electrification to Leeds, been a recent addition?

It certainly doesn’t fit with the Rail Technology Magazine article.

It also doesn’t fit with this article on the BBC, which is dated 20/08/19 and is entitled Detailed TransPennine £2.9bn Rail Upgrade Plans Unveiled.

Electrification is mentioned in the second paragraph.

Network Rail has also announced it intends to electrify the line between Huddersfield and Dewsbury and double the number of tracks from two to four.

And in the sixth paragraph.

Network Rail said the proposed major overhaul and electrification work would be carried out on an 8-mile (13km) section of the route, with the “first round” of consultations starting with those living closest to the railway.

The two news sites seem to have used the same source.

The BBC also uses this map, that I have copied from the Network Rail document

Note the railway lines shown in red. Are these the ones to be electrified? As they go from Huddersfield to Westtown, I think the answer is probably in the affirmative.

I seems to me, that Rail Technology Magazine and the BBC are using a common source and could it be an earlier version of the Network Rail document.

But the map, I have shown, shows the electrification only going as far as Westtown, despite coming from a document, that states twice that the electrification is going as far as Leeds.

It is certainly sloppy documentation.

Track Layouts

This document on the Digital Railway web site is dated 16/08/18 and is entitled Transpennine Route Upgrade SDO1 ETCS – Analysis.

Significantly, it is written by the Digital Railway – Joint Development Group (JDG), which consists of representatives of Siemens, Hitachi, ARUP and Network Rail.

It is mainly about using digital signalling called ETCS on the Transpennine Route, but it does give these track layouts between Huddersfield and Dewsbury.

This is the current layout.

There is also this full four-track layout, which I assume was the original plan.

It is more complicated and involved the building of bridges in the area of Ravensthorpe station.

There is also a reduced four-track layout, which I assume was developed as the track analysis progressed.

It is not a massive upgrade from the current layout.

As I see it, if the reduced layout can handle the required number of services, it has major advantages over the full scheme.

  • There are no changes to track  layout between Ravensthorpe and Dewsbury stations.
  • Rebuilding Ravensthorpe station should be a smaller project.
  • The current and reduced layout have three tracks between Mirfield and Ravensthorpe stations.
  • There are no expensive new bridges to be built.

To make the scheme work there is a small amount of bi-directional running on the centre track, which is made possible by using digital signalling on the route.

Track Usage

By using bi-directional running on the centre track between Ravensthorpe and Mirfield stations, which is controlled by ETCS, the track layout is simplified, with three tracks instead of four.

  • Slow trains from Huddersfield to Dewsbury will dive under the Brighouse lines and call in/pass Platform 1 at Mirfield station before going straight on to Ravensthorpe and Dewsbury. This is as trains do now.
  • Slow trains from Dewsbury to Huddersfield will use the centre track from East to West and call in/pass Platform 2 at Mirfield station before turning South-West  on to Huddersfield. This is as trains do now.
  • Fast trains from Huddersfield to Dewsbury will call in/pass Platform 3 at Mirfield station and then cross over to the top track and go straight on to Ravensthorpe and Dewsbury.
  • Fast trains from Dewsbury to Huddersfield will use the centre track from East to West and call in/pass Platform 4 at Mirfield station before turning South-West  on to Huddersfield.
  • Trains from Brighouse  to Wakefield will call in/pass Platform 1 at Mirfield station and then cross to the centre track and go straight on to Wakefield. This is as trains do now.
  • Trains from Wakefield to Brighouse will use the centre track from East to West and call in/pass Platform 2 at Mirfield station and go straight on to Brighouse.

Note.

  1. Platforms at Mirfield station are numbered 1 to 4 from the North
  2. The slow lines between Mirfield and Huddersfield are shown in black.
  3. The fast lines between Mirfield and Huddersfield are shown in blue.
  4. Passengers can use Platforms 1/2 as a cross-platform interchange between slow Huddersfield-Leeds and Brighouse-Wakefield services.

I also think it likely, that the proposed layout will improve the timetable.

Does The Reduced Layout Produce A Cost Saving?

In one of the first jobs I did at ICI Plastics Division, I simulated a chemical process on an analogue computer. My mathematics showed they could use much smaller vessels, which meant the height of the plant could be reduced by a few  metres. I remember the engineer in charge of the project being very pleased, when he told me, that height costs money.

  • The reduced layout removes three bridges, which must mean a cost saving.
  • There is probably less track to lay

The negative is that digital signalling with ETCS must be installed through the area. This is going to be installed on the UK network, so it probably needs little more than shuffling the installation order.

On balance, when all things are considered, I suspect if the reduced layout can be used, there will be substantial cost savings on the project.

Problems At Morley Station

Morley station is two stations after Dewsbury station on the route towards Leeds.

Unusually for Wikipedia, the entry for Morley station has a large section entitled Current Problems.

This is the first two paragraphs.

The increase in demand, combined with growth elsewhere on the line, means that overcrowding in the morning peak, particularly for commuters heading towards Leeds, is becoming more of an issue.

Despite this commuter growth little has been done to bring this station into the 21st century. For example, only one platform is accessible for disabled passengers, there is insufficient parking, access routes to and from the station are often overgrown with weeds, and there are frequent drainage problems which all combine to make the station not as pleasant as other stations in West Yorkshire. In 2012 a “Friends of Morley station” group was formed, and is addressing some of these issues. Work to improve the car park and drainage commenced in February 2013.

To make matters worse, the station is 10-15 minutes walk from the centre of Morley with poor bus and taxi connections.

Would the following help the Friends of Morley Station?

  • Longer trains.
  • More frequent trains.
  • Faster trains to Leeds
  • Better bus services.

Electric trains would help solve the first three.

White Rose Station

There are plans to build a new White Rose station in the next couple of years at the White Rose Centre..

This would be between Morley and Cottingley stations.

This station will surely increase the passenger numbers on the Huddersfield Line.

Have Network Rail Designed The Electrification Between Dewsbury And Leeds?

This electrification has been off and on more times, than the lights in an average kitchen, so I suspect there is a workable plan dating from the last century amongst many others.

Would Extending Electrification To Leeds Provide The Power?

Electrification needs a good connection to the National Grid to provide the power needed to run the trains.

The short eight-mile electrification, as originally proposed could probably have been fed from one end; Huddersfield or Dewsbury.

Both locations would need new sub-stations, with Huddersfield possibly needed in the future to power the wires all the way to Manchester.

Leeds is already fully-electrified with electric expresses to Doncaster and London and several electric local services.

So is the easiest and most affordable way to power the eight-mile electrification between Huddersfield and Westtown to run an extension cable between Leeds and Dewsbury?

Network Rail had a similar problem on the Midland Main Line, which I wrote about in Welcome For Extension Of Midland Electrification.

National Grid had provided a power connection near Market Harborough for the Midland Main Line electrification, which was then cancelled North of Kettering North Junction, leaving the electrification to Corby without a power supply.

The problem is being solved, by extending the electrification to Market Harborough and connecting the wires to the power there.

I do wonder, that the most affordable way to power the Huddersfield and Westtown electrified line is to electrify all the way to Leeds and connect to the power there.

Conclusion

Improving services on the Huddersfield Line between Huddersfield and Leeds is going to be very necessary in the next few years, as passenger numbers will surely grow, due to new housing, increased commuting and the opening of White Rose station.

  • New or refurbished four-car electric trains would provide more capacity, increased frequencies and faster services,
  • Digital signalling with ETCS would allow more trains to run smoothly.

It appears to me, that to electrify all of the Huddersfield Line between Huddersfield and Leeds would be a good idea, if the money can be found.

Has that money been found by developing a more affordable track layout for the proposed TransPennine Upgrade between Huddersfield and Westtown?

But also using the power at Leeds and electrifying all the way between Huddersfield and Leeds, seems to be a bloody great tail, that is wagging the dog of electrification.

Further Electrification

Providing a fully-electrified route between Huddersfield and Leeds, would leave just two sections of the main TransPennine route without electrification.

I don’t know about the planning and difficulty of the first route, but from my helicopter the engineering shouldn’t be too difficult, with the exception of the elecxtrification of the Standedge Tunnels, although Wikipedia seems optimistic about the electrifying the main twin-bore tunnel.

During the 2000s, Network Rail proposed reinstating rail traffic through the 1848 and 1871 tunnels to increase capacity on the Leeds-Manchester trans-Pennine route, but after a re-appraisal after the decision to electrify the trans-Pennine line, it was reported in 2012 that reinstatement was unnecessary.

In addition, could it be, that Manchester with lots of electric trains can provide enough power at Stalybridge, where an updated power connection has been recently installed, to power electric trains between Manchester and Huddersfield?

, The second has been planned for years and has a string of advantages.

  • Speed up services between Leeds and Newcastle and Scotland.
  • Allow LNER to run electric trains between London and Scotland via Leeds.
  • Create an electrified route between Neville Hill Depot and York.
  • Create an electrified diversion through Leeds for the East Coast Main Line

This section should be electrified for operational reasons on the East Coast Main Line.

A Final Conclusion

Network Rail’s plans seem to have evolved under analysis to be as follows.

  • Limited four-tracking and updated track between Huddersfield and Westtown.
  • Digital signalling with ETCS between Huddersfield and Leeds.
  • Full electrification between Huddersfield and Leeds
  • Power for the electrification from Leeds.

Could it even cost less than the allocated £2.9billion?

 

 

 

August 31, 2019 Posted by | Transport | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Will HS2 And Northern Powerhouse Rail Go For The Big Bore?

It looks to me that there will be increasing links and merging between High Speed Two (HS2) and Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR).

This report on the Transport for the North web site, is entitled At A Glance – Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Proposals and possibilities include.

  • NPR will have a Western terminal at a new station in Liverpool City Centre.
  • HS2 trains would access Liverpool and Manchester via a junction between HS2 and NPR at High Legh.
  • There will be six trains per hour (tph) between Liverpool and Manchester via Manchester Airport.
  • The route between Manchester and Manchester Airport is planned to be in tunnel.
  • There will be six tph between Manchester and Leeds.

In addition, Boris has made positive noises about a high speed line between Manchester and Leeds being of a high priority.

So will the planners go for the logical solution of a High Speed tunnel between Manchester Airport and Leeds?

  • There could be a theoretical capacity of perhaps 15 tph, which is the design capacity of High Speed Two.
  • Speeds of up to 140 mph should be possible.
  • Stations could be at Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly/Piccadilly Gardens, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds.
  • West of Manchester Airport, the route appears easier and the tunnel would emerge close to the airport.
  • East of Leeds the tunnel would join up with existing routes to Doncaster, Hull, Newcastle and York.

I believe such a tunnel could be built without disrupting existing rail services and passengers. Remember building Crossrail’s tunnels was an almost invisible process.

It would result in two rail systems across Northern England.

  • Upgraded Classic Rail Routes
  • The Big Bore

My thoughts on the two systems follow.

Upgraded Classic Rail Routes

This could include improvements such as these,

  • Extra passing loops.
  • Selective electrification
  • Improved stations
  • Comprehensive in-cab digital signalling
  • More paths for passenger and freight trains.

Which could be applied to routes, such as these.

In addition, there could be the reopening of some closed or freight routes to passenger trains.

This article on Rail Technology Magazine is entitled Network Rail Reveals Detailed £2.9bn Upgrade Plans For TransPennine Route.

It is a comprehensive upgrade that includes.

  • Improvement between Huddersfield and Westtown
  • Grade separation or a tunnel at Ravensthorpe
  • Rebuilding and electrification of eight miles of track.
  • Possible doubling the number of tracks from two to four.
  • Improved stations at Huddersfield, Deighton, Mirfield and Ravensthorpe.

This project would be a major improvement to the Huddersfield Line.

In Sheffield Region Transport Plan 2019 – Hope Valley Line Improvements, I talked about planned improvements to the Hope Valley Line, which should begin in the next couple of years.

These improvements are given in detail under Plans in the Wikipedia entry for the Hope Valley Line.

The Hope Valley Improvements will cost in the region of tens of millions of pounds and Wikipedeia sums up the benefits like this.

These changes to allow three fast trains, a stopping train and freight trains each hour were also supported in a Transport for the North investment report in 2019, together with “further interventions” for the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme.

It seems like good value to me!

So could we see other Multi-million and billion pound projects created to improve the classic routes across the Pennines?

Projects would be fully planned and the costs and benefits would then be assessed and calculated.

Then it would be up to the Project Managers to devise the optimal structure and order in which to carry out all the projects.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see the following techniques used.

  • Discontinuous electrification to avoid bridge reconstruction.
  • Intelligent, hybrid diesel/electric/battery trains from Bombardier, Hitachi or Stadler, capable of 125 mph running and changing mode at speed.
  • Modular digital signalling
  • Factory built stations and step-free bridges.
  • Removal of all level crossings.
  • All stations updated for step-free access between train and platform.

The objectives would be as follows.

  • More paths, where needed.
  • Faster line speed.
  • Less running on diesel.
  • Fast station stops.

Hopefully, the upgrading could be done without too much disruption.

Remember though, that disruption to existing users during a project, is most likely down to bad project management.

The Big Bore

The Central Core tunnel of Crossrail between Royal Oak and East London, was virtually a separate project before Crossrail’s stations and much of other infrastructure was built.

I believe that digging the tunnel first gave a big advantage, in that it could be constructed as an independent project, provided that the logistics of delivering the components and removing the junk was done efficiently.

But it did mean that travellers wouldn’t see any benefits until the project was almost complete.

HS2 and NPR are different in that they also envisage upgrading these routes.

  • The Huddersfield Line
  • The Chat Moss Line
  • The Calder Valley Line
  • The Hope Valley Line
  • The Dearne Valley Line
  • The Selby Line
  • The Midland Main Line North Of Clay Cross

Only the Huddersfield Line is directly affected by the Big Bore.

Effectively, the Big Bore will provide a by-pass route for passenger trains between Leeds and West of Manchester Airport, to take the fast trains of HS2 and NPR underneath the congested classic lines.

In Changes Signalled For HS2 Route In North I said this about a tunnel between Leeds and Manchester.

To get a twenty-five minute time between Leeds and Manchester with a ten minute frequency, which I believe is the minimum service the two cities deserve, would be like passing a whole herd of camels through the eye of a single needle.

The Swiss, who lets face it have higher hills, than we have in Northern England would create a new route mainly in tunnel between the two cities, with perhaps an underground station beneath the current Grade I Listed; Huddersfield station.

The transport for the North report suggests Bradford Low Moor station, as an intermediate station, so why not Bradford Low Moor and Huddersfield stations?

Note that the Gotthard Base Tunnel, which opened a couple of years ago, deep under the Alps, is about the same length as a Leeds and Manchester tunnel, and cost around eight billion pounds.

It would be expensive, but like Crossrail in London, the tunnel would have big advantages.

  • It could be built without disrupting current rail and road networks.
  • It would have a capacity of up to thirty tph in both directions.
  • Unlike Crossrail, it could handle freight trains.
  • It would unlock and join the railway systems to the East and West.

I believe, it would be a massive leap forward for transport in the North of England.

It would be a very big project and probably one of the longest rail tunnels in the world.

Comparison With The Gotthard Base Tunnel

But surely, if a small and rich nation like Switzerland can build the Gotthard Base Tunnel, then we have the resources to build the Big Bore between Manchester Airport and Leeds.

Consider these facts about the Gotthard Base Tunnel.

  • It is two single track bores.
  • Each bore has a track length of around 57 kilometres or 35 miles.
  • The tunnel may be deep, but it is direct and level.
  • The maximum speed is 250 kph or 160 mph.
  • The operational speed for passenger trains is 200 kph or 125 mph.
  • The operational speed for freight is 100 kph or 62 mph.
  • It can take the largest freight trains.

To make numbers even more impressive it is joined to the shorter Ceneri Base Tunnel, to provide an even longer route.

Manchester Airport And Leeds Direct

Now consider Manchester Airport and Leeds.

  • The current rail distance is 56 miles.
  • There are stops at Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Oxford Road, Manchester Victoria and Huddersfield stations.
  • Journey time is eighty minutes.

But the direct distance is only 68 kilometres or forty-three miles.

Surely if the Swiss can blast and dig two 57 km. single-track rail tunnels, we can go eleven kilometres further with all the recent experience of tunnelling around the world.

The lengths of the various legs would be as follows.

  • Manchester Airport and Manchester – 14 km.
  • Manchester and Huddersfield – 35 km.
  • Huddersfield and Bradford – 17 km.
  • Bradford and Leeds – 13 km

Trains running on the various legs at 200 kph, which is the cruising speed of a 1970s-built InterCity 125, could take the following times for the various legs.

  • Manchester Airport and Manchester – 4.2 minutes
  • Manchester and Huddersfield – 10.5 minutes
  • Huddersfield and Bradford – 5.1 minutes
  • Bradford and Leeds – 13 km – 3.9 minutes

Leeds and Manchester Airport would be under thirty minutes apart.

Looking at NPR between Liverpool and Hull, times could be as follows.

  • Liverpool and Manchester – 26 minutes
  • Manchester and Leeds – 20 minutes
  • Leeds and Hull – 38 minutes

Or a Coast-to-Coast time of under ninety minutes.

Train Frequencies

HS2 is being designed to handle fifteen tph, although slower intensive railways in the UK can handle up to twenty-four tph.

At the current time or certainly in a few years time, the theoretical maximum frequency through the Big Bore should be between these two figures. I will assume at least fifteen tph in this post.

The At A Glance – Northern Powerhouse Rail report talks about the following frequencies.

  • Liverpool and Manchester via Manchester Airport – Six tph.
  • Manchester and Leeds – Six tph
  • Leeds and Hull – Two tph

This is all so lacking in ambition. It is like building a new high capacity road and only allowing those with status to use the road.

If Leeds and Manchester Airport can handle fifteen tph, why not use some of it to create an Express Metro under the Pennines?

To me, if the Big Bore is built, nothing short of twelve tph or a train every five minutes is acceptable, at Liverpool, Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds stations.

The extension to Hull could be reduced to perhaps six tph, but with the upgrading of the Hull and Leeds Line to perhaps 140 mph, I’d be bold and create a true TransPennine Express;

Hull and Liverpool every five minutes would be the ultimate Marketing Man’s dream.

The Underground Stations

Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds would all be through stations deep underground.

  • They would be connected to the surface by lifts and escalators.
  • Some entrances to the stations would connect to existing stations and others might emerge in City squares like Manchester’s P:iccadilly Gardens.
  • Most stations would be just two platforms, as all trains would pass through on either side of a large underground concourse.;
  • All stations would have platform edge doors.
  • Passengers would be able to reverse direction by just walking across the concourse.

Stations would build on the lessons learned from Crossrail. But then NPR is closer to Crossrail than a Classic High Speed Line.

The Terminal Stations

The two main terminal stations for NPR and trains running through the Big Bore would be the proposed High Speed station at Liverpool and the existing Hull station.

But one other terminal station is being created; Edinburgh.

I have been going to Edinburgh station to and from England for perhaps thirty years and the capacity of the station has constantly increased.

Recent developments are extended Platforms 5 and 6, that can take the longest LNER trains.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that with the application of digital signalling, that there is capacity for at least eight tph between Edinburgh and Newcastle.

There would certainly be capacity for at least two tph between Liverpool and Edinburgh via Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford, Leeds, York and Newcastle.

In the East the other possibilities for terminals are Doncaster, Newcastle and York.

  • I would discount Newcastle, as it lacks capacity and its location would make it difficult to add more.
  • Doncaster has good connectivity and space, but do Leeds and Hull offer similar connectivity?

So that leaves Hull, Edinburgh and York, as the only Eastern terminals.

In the West, there is probably a need to connect to the Northern section of the West Coast Main Line (WCML).

Glasgow Central is probably the obvious terminal, but it would need an extra connection at the junction of HS2, NPR and WCML at High Legh.

If necessary Preston could be used, as it has space and lots of connectivity.

Integration Of HS2 and NPR

The At A Glance – Northern Powerhouse Rail report is proposing this and it looks that the following HS2 services could be possible between Euston and Manchester.

  • Two tph – Euston and Hull via Old Oak Common, Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds
  • Two tph – Euston and Edinburgh via Old Oak Common, Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford, Leeds, York and Newcastle.

Note.

  1. Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds would all have four tph to and from London, by the Western arm of HS2’s Y.
  2. If in addition there were two tph between Liverpool and Hull and Liverpool and Edinburgh, this would mean four tph from the Big Bore of NPR to both Hull and Edinburgh.
  3. None of these core services need to terminate in the Big Bore.

I very much feel that integrating HS2 and NPR is the way to go.

Could We See A High Speed Northern Metro?

If we assume that the Big Bore could handle the HS2 frequency of at least fifteen tph, then it would be possible to create a service across the Pennines with the following frequencies.

  • Liverpool and Hull – 4 tph
  • Liverpool and Edinburgh – 2 tph
  • Glasgow and Hull – 2 tph
  • London Euston and Hull – 2 tph
  • London Euston and Edinburgh – 2 tph

This would result in the following frequencies

  • Liverpool – 6 tph
  • Glasgow – 2 tph
  • London Euston – 4 tph
  • Manchester Airport – 12 tph
  • Manchester – 12 tph
  • Huddersfield – 12 tph
  • Bradford – 12 tph
  • Leeds – 12 tph
  • Hull – 8 tph
  • York – 4 tph
  • Newcastle – 4 tph
  • Edinburgh – 4 tph

What would these frequencies do for train travel in the North of England?

Freight

The Gotthard Base Tunnel has been designed so that both freight and passenger trains can use the route.

There is a need for extra freight capacity across the country and I wonder if freight trains could use the Big Bore.

I estimate that the Big Bore would be 68 kilometres if bored straight and level between West of Manchester Airport and Leeds.

Lets assume it is seventy kilometres or 43.5 miles.

So times, through the tunnel at various average speeds would be.

  • 125 mph – 21 minutes
  • 110 mph – 23.7 minutes
  • 100 mph – 26.1 minutes
  • 90 mph – 29 minutes
  • 80 mph – 32.6 minutes
  • 62 mph (Gotthard Base Tunnel speed for freight) – 42 minutes.

Could it be mandated that freight trains can use the tunnel, if they could maintain a particular speed?

Consider.

  • A 125 mph train with stops at Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds would probably take thirty minutes to transit the tunnel.
  • A freight train running at 90 mph would take more or less the same time.
  • Fifteen tph would mean a train every four minutes.
  • Automatic control of all trains in the tunnel would be a possibility. It appears to work on the much more complicated Thameslink.

I think with the following conditions, one or even two freight trains per hour, in addition to the passenger trains, can pass through the Big Bore in each direction.

  • The locomotives have the performance of at least the Class 93 locomotive, which is currently being built.
  • Freight trains can be hauled through at a minimum speed, which could be between 90 and 110 mph.
  • The passenger trains and train and platform staff work together to produce very short station dwell times.
  • All passenger trains are identical.
  • Station platforms are designed so that passengers can leave and enter the trains rapidly.

It will be a Big Bore with a capacity to match!

What About Sheffield?

I haven’t forgotten Sheffield, but I think it could be linked across the Penines by another route.

Under the upgrades for Northen Powerhouse Rail, it is proposed that services between Sheffield and Leeds become 4 ton in 25 minutes along the Dearne Valley Line.

Does Boris Know More Than He Lets On?

The headline on the front cover of Issue 885 of Rail Magazine is Boris Backs New Pennine Railway.

There is also a sub-heading of PM commits to Leeds-Machester line.

Boris didn’t apply any substance to the speech, except to say that it will be funded.

I believe that my naive analysis in this post shows that something is possible and I just wonder, if Boris has been briefed about a much better plan?

August 25, 2019 Posted by | Transport | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments