Re: Why is a North-south railway not being built now?

Tony Polson <tp@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> "Dave" <d@xxxxx> wrote:
>
> >I'm glad we both want this, but I'm sorry you are so
> >cynical about the chances of it happening
>
>
> I'm sorry you are so unrealistically optimistic about the costs of
> constructing high speed lines, and wilfully blind to the cost of
> access into the cities. As any permanent way or signalling engineer
> will tell you, conventional lines and stations would need massively
> expensive reconstruction in order to accept long, double deck high
> speed trains.
>
That's a claim we hear a lot (at least regarding double decker trains)
but how true is it? There have been at least two proposals for railway
tunnels across London big enough to carry double decker trains, on the
grounds that most of the cost of increasing the loading gauge would be
the cost of modifying the London terminus. I can't see how that claim
could possibly be valid - surely just cutting back and refacing the
platforms would be relatively cheap?

I accept that latform length and aligning for speed are likely to be
more of a problem.

> Alternatively, there is a need for new urban stations and routes to
> them, which would also be massively expensive to build.
>
> One or the other. You choose.
>
Which option is better usually depends on two things: the cost of
building and upgrading the lines, the potential time savings, and the
capacity. For most lines I'd expect the former to be the better option,
but for Birmingham International to Birmingham New Street {mentioned in
another subthread as a stretch of conventional line that these new
supertrains could run on, presumably by someone unaware that it only has
two tracks} a new straight tunnel seems like the best option to me.
At the Birmingham end, rather than a new high speed station in tunnel,
it may be better to surface and run into an upgraded BNS and put all the
Birmingham suburban lines underground instead.

> But because you are basically yet another uk.railway dreamer, I
> suppose you will continue to deny the need for either, because the
> massive cost would ruin your little dream.
>
That's a good point, but the reverse situation is potentially even worse
- high costs should not automatically be seen as a reason to quit! If
costs get out of control, it is crucial that they be brought back under
control and the reason for their escalation identified and dealt with.
That was part of the reason for the creation of my website.

> I hope the Government isn't fooled into spending many, many billions
> of pounds of taxpayers money on the basis of dreams.

If everyone knew at the start how much the WCML upgrading was going to
cost, a new high speed line would probably have been deemed the better
option. Does anyone have the plans of any of the HSL that were rejected
as "too expensive" back in the days before privatization when nearly
everything was much cheaper?

Now all that money has been sunk into the WCML, building another high
speed line seems like wasteful duplication. There is one exception: as
the Virgin plan showed, the upgrading the ECML for very high speeds is
possible in stages (which is very important, as it means priority can be
given to the parts of the line which would benefit the most passengers).
Despite the plan's rejection, providing high speed alternatives to busy
sections of existing line is likely to be the way of the future.

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk
.

Relevant Pages
Loading