Re: NR’s HSL PLAN - BEST HSL PROPOSAL ?

In message <8a76acb3-e115-4177-b346-0639a318ca53@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ups.com>
Dave <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 28, 5:17 pm, John B <s...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

and the route between them should include as much
population as possible. The interesting discovery is the "Backbone"
route London - Birmingham - Manchester - Leeds - Middlesbrough -
Newcastle - Edinburgh does that in 510 miles. It serves about 40% of
the UK population. That cannot be beaten.

Except for the fact that it's more than 20% longer than it needs to
be.


And how this 510 mile route has been arrived at is unclear.

Plotting a sensible London - Heathrow - Birmingham - Manchester -
Leeds - Middlesbrough - Newcastle - Edinburgh - Glasgow route I get
437 miles, and even adding a 10% deviation margin doesn't get there.

I took the data from the AA road atlas, on the basis that since I
propose all new build, road distances are as valid as the current rail
distances.

The distances, with the population figures are:-

Place* Miles Population (thousand )
Glasgow 0 1 750
Edinburgh 47 460
Newcastle 106 1 090
Middlesbrough 39 560
Leeds 64 2 160
Manchester 44 2 550
Birmingham 89 2 600
London 121 7 510
Total 510 18 320

Glasgow-London "direct" 410

It may be that in most cases the road distance is significantly
longer, but for Edinburgh - Newcastle it is shorter because the road
route "cuts across the corner".

I am delighted that you have cut the distance by 73 miles. Please can
you show me your calculation?


With 3 intermediate stops, this would take a sliver over 2h30.

Either NR have plotted accurate routes or, as they say, they haven't.

From http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/About%20us/New%20Lines%20P
rogramme/5881_Option%20Development%20Report.pdf

It can be seen that NR have limited themselves to 200mph maximum
speed, because it is the maximum "which can be achieved by trains
currently available on the market."

Don't French TGV Ests do 220 mph?
I think they have sold themselves short here, we should aim for 250
mph and build to allow for 300 mph.

They have also taken point to point distance +10% as the distance
guide. So this is how it gets through Cumbria so easily! (note, my
methodology above consist of plotting a *sensible* route on the map
and still adding 10% margin.)

They have started off by taking the existing corridors of WCML, ECML,
GWML, MML and Chiltern as baselines. No wonder this looks like the WCML
(2).

The "Reverse S" line we are talking about is not even considered in
the first round of cases, despite the fact that their own data on
target markets actually supports it. If you look at what they say are
the interesting target markets, London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds,
Newcastle and Edinburgh are all at the top. Only Nottingham is left
out of the Reverse S.

Network Rail state: "Additionally, in a wholly new line option,
building north of Preston may require additional tunnelling through or
around the Lake District. If new line trains operate on the existing
railway north of Preston it
may be essential and/or desirable to undertake additional works in
order to relieve some of the existing current pinch points and
reconcile the difficulties of pathing new line trains on this
congested route section." So how would these timings be achieved on
existing infrastructure?

I give up! This is another "WCML Upgrade"! Let's cut our losses on
this one!

Also, can someone please explain to me how the infrastructure cost for
London - Preston is higher than London - Glasgow?

Yes, obviously silly.

Seems to me that it is a case of rubbish in, rubbish out...

A rush job, published in haste, without revision?

Michael Bell

--
.

Relevant Pages
Loading