|
eightf48544
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2009, 22:13:07 » |
|
No fans to extract diesel fumes. So short sighted design.
It's not so much a question of fumes, more to do with the fire risk of the fuel, hot engines etc it was not a railway ( BR▸ ) decision but more to do with the post KX fire regulations But yes, would be another good reason to electrify to Reading and beyond. There is currently a project going on looking at the feasibility of triple power stock  that is ac and dc electric traction and to have a diesel engines as well specifically for XC▸ services, principally being driven by the desire to reduce the use diesel fuel It's dead easy to pull a train using three (actually two if you count AC/ DC▸ electric as one) traction modes and that's loco haulage. Just change locos when the wires run out, that means you don't have to cart a heavy diesel engine about with a load of flammable fuel along the electrified bits. The article seems to imply that the line will be an extension of the CTRL▸ . Oh dear,  a high speed line running North from the exit tracks at St Pancras, turning West to Heathrow, then North to B'ham. This is going to be messy.....  Yep you are right Heathrow is completely in the wrong place to start a high speed line to the North even if linked to the CTLR or not. The only way you could get dedicated HS▸ tracks would be to put them in a tunnel from Colnbrook to say Wendover and pick up Chiltern and ex GC» alignment to Rugby and possibly Leicester. But avoid Aylesbury to the West. With an interchange/junction station on the Oxford Belchley line between Bicester and Claydon. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2009, 22:25:03 » |
|
But by the time you have done all these complex tunnels, twists and diversions:
a) it will be quicker going direct on WCML▸ ! Not everyone want to go to heathrow!
b) line speeds will be reduced. Constant changes in direct go against what HSS▸ are about.
c) it will cost the earth! If the WCML upgrade had to be reduced to 9 billion, how on earth will they afford this? What is it these days? A few trillion pounds a mile?
This needs a serious rethink before money is poured in.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2009, 22:49:41 » |
|
I think a few posters are misplacing the Heathrow Hub, and therefore introducing issues about underground diesel trains and loops off the main line that don't exist. I believe from the drawings here http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/16799F7A-19BB-316E-4064FA16AFA08CEB.pdf it will be on the GWML▸ , and north of the terminal for the third runway. The current underground stations under T123, T4 and T5, and the existing spur will be full enough as it is with HEx, Connect, and (at least at T5) Airtrack, which is intended to add at least 6 tph off the SWT▸ network. Pages 5 and 6 of the link indicate another network (automatic light rail maybe?) looping round the terminals and to/from the Hub... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
willc
|
|
« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2009, 09:06:59 » |
|
I think a few posters are misplacing the Heathrow Hub, and therefore introducing issues about underground diesel trains and loops off the main line that don't exist. I believe from the drawings here http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/16799F7A-19BB-316E-4064FA16AFA08CEB.pdf it will be on the GWML▸ , and north of the terminal for the third runway. The current underground stations under T123, T4 and T5, and the existing spur will be full enough as it is with HEx, Connect, and (at least at T5) Airtrack, which is intended to add at least 6 tph off the SWT▸ network. Pages 5 and 6 of the link indicate another network (automatic light rail maybe?) looping round the terminals and to/from the Hub... I don't think I'm misplacing anything. The three kilometres figure is from Arup and that distance north of T5 places it pretty much where I said it would be, ie near the M4/M25 interchange and well short of the GWML. That Arup diagram you cite is meant to be a simplified schematic representation - like the London Underground map. And of course an HSL will be expensive but it will be quicker than the WCML▸ and not everyone will go to Heathrow, as any new line would be pretty pointless if it didn't allow for direct running north straight out of London. Heathrow would most likely be an offshoot. No fans to extract diesel fumes being short-sighted? You are joking aren't you? What is short-sighted is that this country has never had a sustained policy of electrifying its major rail routes - unlike pretty much everywhere else across Europe. Had that been done, you wouldn't even be writing such nonsense. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2009, 19:43:03 » |
|
I think a few posters are misplacing the Heathrow Hub, and therefore introducing issues about underground diesel trains and loops off the main line that don't exist. I believe from the drawings here http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/16799F7A-19BB-316E-4064FA16AFA08CEB.pdf it will be on the GWML▸ , and north of the terminal for the third runway. The current underground stations under T123, T4 and T5, and the existing spur will be full enough as it is with HEx, Connect, and (at least at T5) Airtrack, which is intended to add at least 6 tph off the SWT▸ network. Pages 5 and 6 of the link indicate another network (automatic light rail maybe?) looping round the terminals and to/from the Hub... I don't think I'm misplacing anything. The three kilometres figure is from Arup and that distance north of T5 places it pretty much where I said it would be, ie near the M4/M25 interchange and well short of the GWML. That Arup diagram you cite is meant to be a simplified schematic representation - like the London Underground map. And of course an HSL will be expensive but it will be quicker than the WCML▸ and not everyone will go to Heathrow, as any new line would be pretty pointless if it didn't allow for direct running north straight out of London. Heathrow would most likely be an offshoot. No fans to extract diesel fumes being short-sighted? You are joking aren't you? What is short-sighted is that this country has never had a sustained policy of electrifying its major rail routes - unlike pretty much everywhere else across Europe. Had that been done, you wouldn't even be writing such nonsense. I think that's the first time I've been accused of writing nonsense in the Coffee Shop, which is probably surprising it's taken so long.  I agree that the policy not to electrify all our main lines is short sighted, and thank goodness there is some light at the end of the tunnel that this may be changing. But the whole Heathrow Express project was done on the cheap (er, not that cheap actually, especially once the tunnel collapsed). From the outset there should have been a west facing chord to enable local services to run from Reading, and maybe even Cross Country services which terminate at Reading to run into the Airport, enabling passengers from a large swathe of England to enjoy direct services to LHR with or without electification of those routes. (New St to Heathrow in just over 2 hours anyone?) That's what I mean by shortsighted. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2009, 20:23:46 » |
|
I think a few posters are misplacing the Heathrow Hub, and therefore introducing issues about underground diesel trains and loops off the main line that don't exist. I believe from the drawings here http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/16799F7A-19BB-316E-4064FA16AFA08CEB.pdf it will be on the GWML▸ , and north of the terminal for the third runway. The current underground stations under T123, T4 and T5, and the existing spur will be full enough as it is with HEx, Connect, and (at least at T5) Airtrack, which is intended to add at least 6 tph off the SWT▸ network. Pages 5 and 6 of the link indicate another network (automatic light rail maybe?) looping round the terminals and to/from the Hub... I don't think I'm misplacing anything. The three kilometres figure is from Arup and that distance north of T5 places it pretty much where I said it would be, ie near the M4/M25 interchange and well short of the GWML. That Arup diagram you cite is meant to be a simplified schematic representation - like the London Underground map. And of course an HSL will be expensive but it will be quicker than the WCML▸ and not everyone will go to Heathrow, as any new line would be pretty pointless if it didn't allow for direct running north straight out of London. Heathrow would most likely be an offshoot. No fans to extract diesel fumes being short-sighted? You are joking aren't you? What is short-sighted is that this country has never had a sustained policy of electrifying its major rail routes - unlike pretty much everywhere else across Europe. Had that been done, you wouldn't even be writing such nonsense. I think that's the first time I've been accused of writing nonsense in the Coffee Shop, which is probably surprising it's taken so long. I agree that the policy not to electrify all our main lines is short sighted, and thank goodness there is some light at the end of the tunnel that this may be changing. But the whole Heathrow Express project was done on the cheap (er, not that cheap actually, especially once the tunnel collapsed). From the outset there should have been a west facing chord to enable local services to run from Reading, and maybe even Cross Country services which terminate at Reading to run into the Airport, enabling passengers from a large swathe of England to enjoy direct services to LHR with or without electification of those routes. (New St to Heathrow in just over 2 hours anyone?) That's what I mean by shortsighted. Unfortunately it was BAA that funded the HEX project, if it had been built to there original spec only the Up and Down mains would have been wired and only platform 6 & 7 at Padd, it was pointed out to them by some of the senior BR▸ ops and eng staff, at the time, in meetings I attended in the design phase that it would be absolute lunacy to do only what they required. Also the tails west of Airport Jcn and into Acton Yard etc were added as it was explained that should at any time in the future these line were to be wired it is easier to splice into an existing part built over lap than to cut one into a running system. There was the intent when the M25 was built to build a parkway at the Iver ie a park and drive, this was the plan at most other points on the M25 where rail lines crossed it ...... still waiting BAA just did not want to fund a future route to the West they saw HEX as being "an airline into central London" |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2009, 21:01:35 » |
|
Three points:
1. I agree with John R. Yes, we need to electrify. But if the tunnels could take DMUs▸ and there were west facing chords, there would be less of the need for this new hub.
2. Willc, the plans in the sources clearly say that Heathrow would be the first stop out of London, with the line then bearing north. I think a branch would be better (like on the original plans).
3. If the plans indicate that the hub will be 2 miles out of the airport, it needs to be shelved! The whole point of an airport station is to allow fast access to the trains. Not having to catch a bus, or a light rail link to the airport station!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
simonw
|
|
« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2009, 21:28:35 » |
|
Is the CrossLink project using Heathrow Airport?
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, it is not likely that Heathrow will get it's third runway, whatever the government wants. The air pollution levels in the Thames Valley near London are too high already, and adding another runway would further breach EU» pollution targets. Even making planes much more efficient will not help if the number of plane movements increase by 50%.
The compressed geography of this country, means that hopefully common sense will prevail, and the government will approve funding plans for full network electrification and adding to the current network rather than adding a sepeare HS▸ network.
Finally, the cost of electrification may not be that high, it all depends on the funding method and write-off period that NR» uses.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
willc
|
|
« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2009, 04:25:30 » |
|
it is not likely that Heathrow will get it's third runway, whatever the government wants.]it is not likely that Heathrow will get it's third runway, whatever the government wants. You must be one of the few people who actually thinks this then. BAA wants it and despite all manner of pledges being given over the years about T4 being the last big development at Heathrow, then the same with T5, here we go again. There may be a bit of a rearguard action going on from Defra but DafT is all for it. It may take 10 years, a station and an HSL may take 10 years, but sooner or later it will happen. We're talking about an airport that was created by stealth anyway, after a small landing strip was commandeered during the Second World War, allegedly for use by the RAF▸ , but they never went anywhere near the place. The Air Ministry bought more land and built lots of runways and hey presto in 1946, you have an airport on the western outskirts of London. No-one was ever asked if they thought it was a good idea, it was just a fact on the ground. For all the HSL sceptics, perhaps you might care to ponder the following about the Spanish experience, which is the same as has happened in France - 200mph trains kill internal flights, stone dead. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/13/spain-trains One of the key arguments deployed about an HSL v a third runaway is that an HSL would ground all the flights to London from Manchester, Newcastle and Scotland, freeing capacity on the existing runways for international flights, so no need for more concrete north of the A4. Compressed geography has nothing to do with it. You serve the key regional centres only on an HSL, leaving the existing lines to deal with everywhere else, but with some HSL trains branching off to serve other towns along the way (for example Greengauge suggest Oxford and central Birmingham could be served in this way), taking advantage of the trains' ability to run on the existing network as well, which you couldn't do with gee-whiz Maglev. We will need to do something to increase network capacity as the WCML▸ , ECML▸ and MML» simply can't cope with any more traffic without yet more costly and hugely disruptive work. And can we please, please forget dirty diesels. Birmingham New Street has wonderful ventilation by comparison with anything you can do with fans and is still a stinking fume-ridden hole every time an HST▸ , Voyager or DMU▸ pulls out. As I said previously, the steer from the Government is that any Heathrow project would go hand in hand with main line electrification and if it does take about a decade then it would fit in well with the likely withdrawal date of FGW▸ 's HSTs. And you can't just pop a couple of chord lines in from the west. The current rail link and its stations only have capacity to handle Heathrow Express and Connect because that's all BAA was interested in, as electric train noted. For main line traffic you would need a proper main line station and more tunnels - and after the last attempt, I don't think anyone is keen on trying to do that again anywhere near the central area of Heathrow. First stop Heathrow? To get there from St Pancras, Euston or wherever, you would have to cross the GW▸ & GC» route somewhere, so if you were aiming for the M40/Chiltern corridor eventually, then why not go straight there? Same as with a fully-loaded peak Crossrail train, what's the point of going all the way to the airport with a packed Birmingham train when you couldn't pick up anyone anyway? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2009, 09:57:54 » |
|
We're talking about an airport that was created by stealth anyway, after a small landing strip was commandeered during the Second World War, allegedly for use by the RAF▸ , but they never went anywhere near the place. The Air Ministry bought more land and built lots of runways and hey presto in 1946, you have an airport on the western outskirts of London. No-one was ever asked if they thought it was a good idea, it was just a fact on the ground.
That is trure as Croydon was London's International airport in the 1930's Heathrow was chosen dispite being on a foggie swamp as it had more space to expand |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
|
|
|
simonw
|
|
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2009, 11:09:46 » |
|
Anyone you thinks the Government, these days, can ignore environmental issues when better alternatives exist is wrong.
Whilst I have no wish to see any more airports in the London area, and would rather see extra runways IF NEEDED at Stanstead and Croydon, the point is that due to Heathrow, the air quality nearby is very poor and no extra capacity can be allowed at Heathrow.
I totally agree that electrification is needed across the network, but I am not sold on a High Speed Line. Such a large amount of money, for so few to gain. If the government added capacity to the current system, restoring some lost routes, then many more people would gain.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
signalandtelegraph
|
|
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2009, 12:59:49 » |
|
November 2008 BAA commit ^230 million to Crossrail January 2009 3rd Runway at Heathrow announced Hmm...............  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Bring back BR▸
|
|
|
|
willc
|
|
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2009, 13:25:38 » |
|
Lee, this is DafT we're talking about, the people who gave us T5, the Newbury and Twyford Down bypasses, etc. You don't think they'll worry about a little thing like air quality do you? If they want to ignore it, they will, or will say that an HSL would cut the domestic flights, so that would improve air quality. They have a long track record of ignoring environmental issues, especially when it comes to aviation, for example arguing against any attempts to get aviation fuel taxed. Simon, where do you suggest this extra capacity on the existing network is going to go? WCML▸ has been quadruple-tracked up the Trent Valley in the past couple of years, it is already quad track all the way south from Rugby and up from Stafford to Crewe and is still creaking at the seams. Quad tracking the twin-track bit of the ECML▸ north of Peterborough would be like building a new railway anyway, not forgetting a new Welwyn viaduct nearer London. Which brings us back to an HSL - for goodness' sake even California is planning to build one now. How is it that we alone don't need one? If you get the long-haul traffic off the existing lines, then you can add more regional services and freight, as they're not crowded out by trains to the North and Scotland, so everybody will benefit. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2009, 13:43:03 » |
|
Lee, this is DafT we're talking about, the people who gave us T5, the Newbury and Twyford Down bypasses, etc. You don't think they'll worry about a little thing like air quality do you? If they want to ignore it, they will, or will say that an HSL would cut the domestic flights, so that would improve air quality. They have a long track record of ignoring environmental issues, especially when it comes to aviation, for example arguing against any attempts to get aviation fuel taxed. Ah yes, silly me... Remind me to be a bit more cynical in future |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
