The single-string route is the elephant in the room

On 20 Mar, 20:41, Stimpy <stimpy199...m> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:27:50 +0000, The Real Doctor wrote

> > But it's not really that. It's your insistence on having a station
> > there that I find odd. Why on earth do you think that it deserves a
> > service more than Sheffield? And "the track would go there" isn;t an
> > argument, because you have chosen your route to include Middlesbrough
> > and exclude Sheffield...
>
> The exclusion of York seems a bizarre suggestion

Absolutely. He doesn't want to go to places like York or Sheffield
because it would add to the length of the route ... but he doesn't
think that increasing the distance to Glasgow by 100 miles would
matter. And I /still/ want to know if he envisages the same passenger
numbers from Manchester to London and Middlesbrough (steely pearl of
Teesside) to Edinburgh?

Ian

On 21 Mar, 05:48, Michael Bell <mich...@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:

> No. I would have York as a loop off the main route. It would involve a
> very sharp bend. It has a population of 191k. In contrast
> Middlesbrough is much bigger and a straight-through route is easy to
> see.

That difference is /entirely/ because you have chosen a route which
goes through Middlesbrough and not York. There is no reason why it
couldn't follow the A19 all the way - the exclusion of York (and
Sheffield) is, like the inclusion of Middlesbrough, wholly down to
you.

Ian

On 21 Mar, 05:44, Michael Bell <mich...@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:

> Middlesbrough is on any reasonable north-south route along the east
> coast. and it is a major town.

It's not a major town. It's a medium sized one.

> Sheffield IS a choice. And I have explained that Manchester is a
> bigger traffic objective.

Only because you have defined Sheffield as "The City of Sheffield" and
Manchester as "The entire metropolitan area".

ian

On 21 Mar, 11:27, "Lüko Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:

> Then maybe the DfT is right in its insistence to just improve the
> existing network?

I think there would be a lot to be said for closing the WCML and ECML
entirely (not at the same time) for however long - five years? - in
order to rebuild them as LGVs with realignment and quadrupling where
necessary.

> Coming back to ideas -- it might have been useful to build new lines
> across the Southern Uplands from Glasgow to Carlisle and from Carlisle
> to Lancaster instead of just investing in tilting trains.

A friend of mine used (he is now deceased) to say that the bad
decision was keeping the Beattock route open: he thought it would have
been better to close it and retain the Waverley and GSWR ras high-
speed routes to Edinburgh and Glasgow respectively. It's an
interesting idea, I think.

Ian

On 21 Mar, 10:54, Michael Bell <mich...@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <7eef5498-ef44-4724-97a9-2e1b9fe24...@13g2000hsb.
> ps.com>
> The Real Doctor <ian.gro...@> wrote:

> > Only because you have defined Sheffield as "The City of Sheffield" and
> > Manchester as "The entire metropolitan area".
> > ian
>
> On both definitions Manchester is bigger.

If you reversed your policy and compared Manchester (City) with South
Yorkshire (Metropolitan Area) then Sheffield would win easily. And it
doesn't matter how you count them, they are both /much/ bigger than
Middlebrough!

Ian

"Stimpy" <stimpy1997ukm> wrote
>
> Route 1: London - Glasgow or Edinburgh direct
> Route 2: London - Manchester direct
> Route 3: London - Birmingham direct
>
> That's it.
>
The main justification for a HSL is where existing capacity is insufficient.
This applies to the southern part of the WCML, possibly to the southern part
of the ECML, and because of constraints on runway capacity and airspace in
South East England, to London to Newcastle/Glasgow/Edinburgh.

So the best case for a HSL is London (& Heathrow) to Birmingham and the WCML
at around Tamworth. Second stage is to extend this to Manchester, with spurs
to existing lines to serve Liverpool and Preston.

Next comes a new ECML, from Hatfield or Huntingdon to Templehirst, to serve
Leeds, perhaps with a York Avoiding Line (Colton to Skelton), and perhaps
with a new line from say Northallerton to Gateshead to avoid the slow bit of
the ECML south of Newcastle.

For Glasgow and Edinburgh there would appear to be three possibilities.
Extend from Manchester. Extend from Newcastle. Or extend from Leeds, perhaps
by rebuilding the Settle & Carlisle and the Caledonian Line via Beattock as
High Speed Lines, with an Avoiding Line round Carlisle.

There might after this be a case for the 'missing link' - Birmingham -
Sheffield - Leeds.

Peter

"tim (not at home)" <tims_new_home.uk> wrote
>
> But I can't see why it requires 2 or even 3 lines.
>
> Michael's route has some merit as it meets the original problem in a
simple
> a way as possible. (I can't agree that a station at Middlesborough is
going
> to be worth the cost though)
>
A London & Heathrow - Birmingham and Manchester line is going to carry, say,
3tph London - Birmingham
3tph London - Manchester
3tph London - Liverpool/Preston
3tph Heathrow - Birmingham/Manchester/etc
I doubt, even with emerging signal technology, more than about 16tph can be
timetabled. You'd need 4tph for Leeds/Newcastle, and more if you continue to
Glasgow/Edinburgh and achieve significant diversion from air. So one line
out of London won't have enough capacity. Also, depending on decisions taken
on accessing city centres at Birmingham and Manchester I doubt that you'd
get to Leeds more quickly that way than using the existing ECML, especially
if it is resignalled to take advantage of the 225km/h capability of the
existing trains, or their likely successors. You certainly won't get to
Newcastle more quickly.

Peter

On 22 Mar, 15:46, Michael Bell <mich...@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:

> Exactly what I had feared! A network of routes that feed London and
> doesn't link other places. Is this really in the national interest, or
> is it rather in the London interest?

It is in the national interest. How do you think demand for
Middlesbrough to Manchester traffic will compare with Newcastle to
London?

Ian

On 22 Mar, 16:15, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@> wrote:
> Or extend from Leeds, perhaps
> by rebuilding the Settle & Carlisle and the Caledonian Line via Beattock as
> High Speed Lines, with an Avoiding Line round Carlisle.

Send 'em up by Dumfries!

Ian

On 23 Mar, 07:39, Michael Bell <mich...@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <czd2LKcn8EGd-pn2-C97pCQqDF...@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online

> There two midday trains/hour Manchester <-> Birmingham, taking an
> amazing 1 hr 36 minutes for the 89 Mile journey (as measured on a road
> map) No wonder the parallel M6 is the busiest road in Britain.

The problem, of course, is that both "Manchester" and "Birmingham" are
very widespread areas, and while a high speed train would provide an
excellent route from Piccadilly to New Street, it would not compete
nearly as well with, say, Bolton to Aston. Unless it stopped at those
places too, and if it stopped at everywhere it wouldn't be high speed
and more and cars would beat it again.

Ian