|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jan 30, 2013 15:05:56 GMT
trt - the real headache in Nottingham is that the old GC station has now been replaced with a massive shopping centre - otherwise - yes, many said at the time of closure that the GC was a better option to keep than MML - now ,we really need both. I think you are absolutely right to focus on clearing freight (and local stopping services in the London area) to make room for more long-distance traffic, instead of building new lines. For example, better use of the Watford dc lines and elimination of the LOROL service to Euston would free up capacity both in terms of platforms and also the throat/approaches to Euston. GH
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jan 30, 2013 16:19:40 GMT
Some cross-thames connections will be required at some point in the east. Grays, Tilbury, Gravesend, Ebbsfleet. Perhaps using a small bit more of the Gravesend West branchline. A corridor following the Grays-Upminster branch/M25/M11 corridor, to just south of Sawbridgeworth (Jumping to the railway alignment and station), or curving round from the south to Brentwood Station by Naggs Head Lane.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jan 30, 2013 16:41:32 GMT
For example, better use of the Watford dc lines and elimination of the LOROL service to Euston would free up capacity both in terms of platforms and also the throat/approaches to Euston. Not sure about that, LOL! The LOROL is such a useful backup service for me when the LM inevitably goes titsup. |
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Jan 30, 2013 22:06:16 GMT
metrailway Doesn't the current TOC 'competition' environment argue against 'the state will have to cut' other railway services? Not really as the DfT specify the franchises. The economic case for HS2 published in August requires a cut in classic InterCity services.* If the DfT felt like it, it could specify a maximum frequency in the franchises to prevent the classic lines competing with HS2. Of course this is all hypothetical - I can't predict the future! *Sheffield/Nottingham - London via MML will be cut by around 1/2. Leeds - London via ECML will be cut by around 2/3rds and through trains from London to destinations north of Edinburgh via ECML are cut completely. Manchester - London via WCML will be down to 3 trains per day. The destinations I've mentioned have through HS2 services, so it can be argued that they are net winners, but it will be the intermediate destinations which suffer. For example Leicester loses 1/5th of its London service; Coventry loses 2/3rds of its IC London service; Wolverhampton loses 2/3rds of its IC London service; Stoke on Trent loses around 2/3rds of its London service as well. There are winners of course, such as an increase in the number of commuter services to/from London. chrisvandenkieboom - I do hope that EC and WC aren't equipped with ERTMS - slightly slower travel is well worth the improvement in reliability - Fyra... I think most of the ECML will be converted to ERTMS by 2025. WCML will be by 2030. I did a bit more reading; most of the GC around Nottingham was in tunnel, and whilst the cuttings have been filled in or developed the tunnels are still there. Doesn't that make it a better prospect?? I'm going to lurk into RIPAS territory... The GCML between Aylesbury and south Leicester is largely intact. There is some property encroachment but not a lot. The very lightly used freight only Burton - Leicester line meets with the GCML in south Leicester. In turn, if a chord is built, the Burton line can connect with the Derby - Crewe line. You now have parallel freight route from London to Crewe. The beauty of the GC option is that there are two parallel routes into London, it connects to the Daventry terminal, connects with the terminals around Birmingham (via Leicester - Brum line), and connects with Crewe Basford Hall. The GC allows you would also be able to divert a freight off the MML south of Leicester. A junction to the Varsity Line would give freight from Southampton an alternate route to the North West instead of running via Leamington and Coventry. GC through Nottingham is very unlikely I think. The GCML north of Nottingham to Penistone via Sheffield Victoria is relatively intact as well. I guess running freight from the (southern end of the) GCML via the MML between Leicester and Nottingham/Derby and then onto the (northern end of the) GCML is not ideal in the long term. If only the GC in Leicester and Nottingham was not built upon... |
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Feb 1, 2013 0:49:43 GMT
None of the scenarios for changes to 'classic' services are likely to be what really happens given the 20 years till opening, but its inevitable that some service patterns will be altered to reflect changes in demand and the loss of some long distance traffic to HS2 - but then creating more capacity, by freeing up the existing network for more regional, commuter and freight services, is the whole point of the exercise.
The alternative is ever more overcrowded trains on a network too busy to be maintained effectively, with passengers being priced off services and service patterns compromised to try and fit in more services. This has already being seen on the WCML.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 1, 2013 9:37:09 GMT
The alternative is ever more overcrowded trains on a network too busy to be maintained effective So where will the relief routes be for HS2 when that needs maintaining? I'm not convinced by the argument about long distance travel being a requirement. Surely it's the local network that carries commuters that needs the investment. They like to liken the network to heart, arteries etc, so... the local commuter network is the capillary bed, when you build muscle, it's the capillary bed that is the most important thing, you can stick as many arteries as you like in, if they dump the blood into a choked off network, it'll do no good at all. |
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Feb 1, 2013 11:29:48 GMT
All major infrastructure is opposed until actually built then people pile on to it. Motorways, Airports railways are all running near capacity. We could return to the pre-victorian times when nobody moved from their village except to the next village to play cricket or kidnap the local girls.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 1, 2013 11:53:41 GMT
We could return to the pre-victorian times when nobody moved from their village except to the next village to play cricket or kidnap the local girls. Can one get that as a season ticket? |
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Feb 1, 2013 12:22:33 GMT
So the real advanatge of HS2 is that it will enable us to kidnap girls from further afield?
GH
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 1, 2013 13:01:45 GMT
So the real advanatge of HS2 is that it will enable us to kidnap girls from further afield? GH Trolling, are we?   |
|
l1group
7007+7032 on T004, Gunnersbury
Posts: 358
|
Post by l1group on Feb 1, 2013 21:48:51 GMT
All major infrastructure is opposed until actually built then people pile on to it. Motorways, Airports railways are all running near capacity. London Ringways (M25, A406 and M41 A3320/A40 (M) albeit all part built only) - anyone remember? and Heathrow Terminal 5 is like this. Opposed, then it is running near capacity. Which is why I (personally) support Heathrow Terminal 6/Third Runway, even though I will be directly affected by noise, as I know if/when it is built, more flights will be filling to capacity. Therefore, HS2 would probably follow these previously mentioned projects and will end up running at capacity... Eventually. Controversial, I know, but true... |
|
