Re: Terminating the London - Birmingham HSL (was London-Birmingham rail link...)

On 2009-08-17 16:34:01 +0100, "Graham Harrison" <edward.harrison1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:


"Michael Bell" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:c6662d8c50.michaelbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In message <SOqdnc6tWL3ojRTXnZ2dnUVZ8hidnZ2d@xxxxxx>
"Graham Harrison" <edward.harrison1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"Michael Bell" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:c76dde8b50.michaelbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In message <G62dnYbVZ85CyRXXnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@xxxxxx>
"Graham Harrison" <edward.harrison1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
[snip]

HSLs are not aimed at commuting traffic but at long distance traffic.

HSLs are taken into city centres because the connections are there and
so are many of the destinations.

I would have no problem with route layouts like this :-

Glasgow
|
|\
| Edinburgh
|/
|
|\
| Newcastle
|/
etc

What I do think wrong is routes which go like this :-

Glasgow
|
| Edinburgh
|/
| Newcastle
|/
etc

which cannot join non-London cities TO EACH OTHER. That results in
large loss of traffic, revenue and public usefulness.

If you calculate traffic between centres using the gravitational
model:-

Population of town A * Population of town B / Square of distance
between A and B

-: for the backbone route Glasgow - Edinburgh - Newcastle -
Middlesbrough - Leeds - Manchester - Birmingham and compare it with
competing model, an east coast and a west coast line with fork-offs to
the various towns, then you get about 5 times more passengers/route
mile for the backbone route than for the east coast and a west coast
line with fork-offs. This is both because the traffic between
non-London towns has been lost and because (of course) the two route
layout needs more route miles.

I must re-do the calculation using data from the national travel
survey. I am sure the outcome will be broadly similar.

Michael Bell

--

Firstly since when did "a storm of protest" ever stop a government if it
sets its collective mind on a solution?

Next, why is a station on the M25 a bad idea? For a start why "a" station?
Why not more than one? I restate - people don't live in the middle of
cities to any great degree. They live and work all over cities. Putting
stations in the middle of a city simply forces people into the city just to
come out again. Put the stationS on the periphery and you change the
dynamics. It doesn't stop people from travelling between London and
Manchester or between Manchester and Glasgow. City centre stations are
there because our forefathers built them there, not because they are in the
best place for the traffic on offer today. You need to take a much broader
view of "London" and "Manchester" and "Leeds". People who join trains at
stations like Kings X have come from an enormous catchment area and I would
even suggest that the need to struggle into central London (possibly with
luggage) is a disincentive to using the trains. Put the stations where
people live and work.


At least you have a rational and consistent view. I expect that many
others will be appalled at by-passing city centres, especially London
city centre.

To discuss it around London, though much the same applies to most big
cities, it is true that a large amount of feeder transport goes to the
existing main line terminals and will do so for as far ahead as we can
foresee.

What would it involve to just to the M25?

* Feeder transport to the M25. A lot of new building.
* To serve all of the London, even the further side might involve a
ring, with stops at reasonable intervals, say 5 miles. If the trunk
hall trains are to be fairly big and run at reasonable frequency, that
would also be necessary to collect a full load.

This is a new thought to me, and difficulties arise in my mind as I
develop the above ideas, but go on, how would you plan it?

Michael Bell
--

Taking London as the prime example the M25 forms an existing and tempting orbital route. That said, it can be pretty sinuous in places and I suspect the opposition to siting a railway next to it in some places would be considerable.

So, using the M25 only as a rough guide build a high speed line round London. If you do that it's going to cross the Thameslink and Crossrail routes at 4 points (at least, because of the multiple Thameslink branches). It's also going to go somewhere near Ebbsfleet. It's also possible to think in terms of it serving not only Heathrow but also Gatwick and Stansted by running outside the M25. Luton may be more of an issue because of the site. Thameslink and Crossrail would form significant feeders to the stations at the crossing points; other stations - if you want to. As well as using the existing railways as feeders build Ebbsfleet style car parks.

In a way, simply having this belt with trains running at high frequency would allow people to avoid going into London and using the Underground. For instance, I live in Somerset. Instead of going to Paddington and heaving my cases onto the Circle/Hammersmith going to Kings X and then repeating the process to get a train north I get off at "Heathrow Parkway", ride the belt to what, "Stevenage Parkway" and board my train north. With proper planning such stations would provide a significantly easier transfer than London does.

A comment on this particular point. It would seem that the resurrection of part of the old LNWR line from Oxford to Cambridge is getting more likely. If this really happens then there would be a possible routing from Somerset via Westbury, Melksham, Swindon, either directly on the west to north chord at Didcot or by reversing at Didcot, then Oxford and Bicester to Milton Keynes (for the WCML) or Bedford for the Midland. Alternatively a route via Reading, Didcot and Oxford would be feasible. If such routings become feasible then I would suggest that the only traffic from the Southwest which would want to (or need to) travel via London, either through the centre or via the Belt, would be that trying to get to destinations in Sussex, Kent, Essex and other parts of East Anglia. To reach other parts of the country alternative routings via, for example Birmingham, already exist.

Some intensive flow modelling is called for, I think, as the additional stops on the radial routes will tend to lengthen end-to-end times.


It works if I live in Ealing (for instance), train out to Heathrow, round the belt etc.

<Lots of snipping of good stuff>

Ideas like this certainly need developing because of the comparatively short distances between centres of population in the UK. Higher speed lines may have their role for the longer distance north-south traffic, but passengers on other routes should have their lives eased as well. (At least - if money were no object!)

--
Robert

.

Relevant Pages
Loading