Why can't HS2 use the old Great Central Line
Discussion
Built 115 years ago, the Great Central Line through the UK was built from Sheffield to London. The route was designed to be high speed and built not only for a future connection from Liverpool to a propsed Channel tunnel, but also to foreign width and to allow for the upgrade if needed to four tracks. HS2 is only going to use a very few miles of it in the south.
Now the great and good and silly closed it in the late sixties amd north of Nottinghan totally destroyed it. However south of Leicester around 90% of the engineering, cuttings and enbankments are still intact, bizarrly including the bridges over the M1 and M45.
Now I appreciate that the route wasn't built for 220MPH trains, but the route has no sharp curves (1 mile minimum radius), no steep inclines, no level crossings and if the route was reused only as far north as Coventry, the bridge is there over the motorway.
I'm not a great believer we need 220MPH trains, but I am a believer in utilising what we already have and easily discarded.
I can see the GCL easily being capable of 150MPH trains, but the greatest use would be especially for freight (ie to clear space on existing lines) and I can see absolutly no reason why this line couldn't be reopened.
If you ever come across it, it was a massive engineering project and just shouting out to be used. Most of it, all the way to Coventry is in open country and needs little engineering (compared to a complete new line) to get back into working order.
I'm guessing asking on a motoring forum is maybe not the best place to ask, or is it? I just can't find information or a reason on why its not been considered.
It just knarks me that this isnt been looked at. Its almost heart breaking seeing it slowly decaying.
Now the great and good and silly closed it in the late sixties amd north of Nottinghan totally destroyed it. However south of Leicester around 90% of the engineering, cuttings and enbankments are still intact, bizarrly including the bridges over the M1 and M45.
Now I appreciate that the route wasn't built for 220MPH trains, but the route has no sharp curves (1 mile minimum radius), no steep inclines, no level crossings and if the route was reused only as far north as Coventry, the bridge is there over the motorway.
I'm not a great believer we need 220MPH trains, but I am a believer in utilising what we already have and easily discarded.
I can see the GCL easily being capable of 150MPH trains, but the greatest use would be especially for freight (ie to clear space on existing lines) and I can see absolutly no reason why this line couldn't be reopened.
If you ever come across it, it was a massive engineering project and just shouting out to be used. Most of it, all the way to Coventry is in open country and needs little engineering (compared to a complete new line) to get back into working order.
I'm guessing asking on a motoring forum is maybe not the best place to ask, or is it? I just can't find information or a reason on why its not been considered.
It just knarks me that this isnt been looked at. Its almost heart breaking seeing it slowly decaying.
Edited by Wozy68 on Tuesday 1st October 16:31
Wozy68 said:
ralphrj said:
Unless the route has been changed HS2 will utilise part of the old GCR.
Yes, 11 miles of it. Just shocking.Firstly, you would need a new line anyway as far as Calvert, because the line is full of Metropolitan line trains south of Amersham, there is a service provided by Chiltern as far as Aylesbury, and they have plans to extend that service to Bicester and Oxford. So that's 50+ miles of new railway needed before you start.
One of the reasons that the GC was chosen for closure in the 60s was that its only real reason for existence was as a trunk route, and there were plenty of those anyway. It didn't go through many places of importance, so it didn't generate a lot of indigenous traffic, and those places of any size that it did go through (Brackley and Rugby, for example) have seen the trackbed redeveloped, with embankments removed to build the Brackley bypass and a major bridge missing at Rugby.
There is a tunnel at Catesby that would need boring out to accommodate the larger loading gauge (one common misconception about the GC was that it was built to the Continental loading gauge which isn't quite true - the loading gauge was quite generous but not as generous as on European railways)
Also, I'm not sure that the residents of Helmdon and Woodford Halse would be any happier to see HS2 going straight through the centre of their villages than would the resdients of Amersham and Aylesbury
JB! said:
Answer: I don't know.
Rugby will need a new bridge over it, could cause a headache or two, but other than that, seems a great way of getting freight off the WCML.
It gets proposed from time to time, at one point in the 1990s it looked like it might actually happen. This is all I could find on Wikipedia about it though - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Railway_(UK) - I believe (could be wrong) the main attraction for freight was that the line was originally built to European loading gauges so you could carry deep-sea containers or piggyback HGV trailers onto wagons without needing to rebuild bridges etc.Rugby will need a new bridge over it, could cause a headache or two, but other than that, seems a great way of getting freight off the WCML.
Personally I reckon HS2 is very pricy for what it is, for a fraction of that you could 6 track bits of the southern end & forcing the freight companies to use electric traction over the northern hills would free up a lot of capacity for a lot less cash.
EDIT - yes, I was writing at the same time as rs1952...
Edited by alangla on Tuesday 1st October 17:49
Wozy68 said:
rs1952 said:
The trouble is, this is one of those ideas that seem good at first sight but fall to bits when you look into the detail.
Firstly, you would need a new line anyway as far as Calvert, because the line is full of Metropolitan line trains south of Amersham, there is a service provided by Chiltern as far as Aylesbury, and they have plans to extend that service to Bicester and Oxford. So that's 50+ miles of new railway needed before you start.
One of the reasons that the GC was chosen for closure in the 60s was that its only real reason for existence was as a trunk route, and there were plenty of those anyway. It didn't go through many places of importance, so it didn't generate a lot of indigenous traffic, and those places of any size that it did go through (Brackley and Rugby, for example) have seen the trackbed redeveloped, with embankments removed to build the Brackley bypass and a major bridge missing at Rugby.
There is a tunnel at Catesby that would need boring out to accommodate the larger loading gauge (one common misconception about the GC was that it was built to the Continental loading gauge which isn't quite true - the loading gauge was quite generous but not as generous as on European railways)
Also, I'm not sure that the residents of Helmdon and Woodford Halse would be any happier to see HS2 going straight through the centre of their villages than would the resdients of Amersham and Aylesbury
I do understand (the basics) of the difficulties, however HS2 I believe is being built under the Chilterns and meeting up with the old line and running on it for 11 miles alread,y so no alteration there, after that I see no real difficulty in reusing the old line. Firstly, you would need a new line anyway as far as Calvert, because the line is full of Metropolitan line trains south of Amersham, there is a service provided by Chiltern as far as Aylesbury, and they have plans to extend that service to Bicester and Oxford. So that's 50+ miles of new railway needed before you start.
One of the reasons that the GC was chosen for closure in the 60s was that its only real reason for existence was as a trunk route, and there were plenty of those anyway. It didn't go through many places of importance, so it didn't generate a lot of indigenous traffic, and those places of any size that it did go through (Brackley and Rugby, for example) have seen the trackbed redeveloped, with embankments removed to build the Brackley bypass and a major bridge missing at Rugby.
There is a tunnel at Catesby that would need boring out to accommodate the larger loading gauge (one common misconception about the GC was that it was built to the Continental loading gauge which isn't quite true - the loading gauge was quite generous but not as generous as on European railways)
Also, I'm not sure that the residents of Helmdon and Woodford Halse would be any happier to see HS2 going straight through the centre of their villages than would the resdients of Amersham and Aylesbury
When Central railways wanted to use the old line back in the nineties for freight, they believed catesby tunnel as 150mm to low to accept containers on at beds. You can't tell me that to find that 150mm after digging a tunnel under the ocean to France, tha we can't engineer too see the floor of this tunnel.
Other companies wanting to use the line in the south as an argument not reuse the line also falls foul. If we are to build a completely new line, then surely the widening of an already there one is easier?
At brackley the viaduct has gone, but the track at each end is still there and the line if the viaduct has not been built on other than a43 that can be easily spanned. South of the viaduct the cutting has been filled but this again is easier to remove than digging a new cutting on a new line. The north of the viaduct has a dozen or so small factories built on part of the track bed and a road bridge has been removed.
I just cannot see where (though there is expense) this would still not save billions, and utilise something that is already there, rather than build a parralel line just a few miles away, with all the upheaval and blight it will bring to the countryside.
I understand what you say about woodford halse, however I would sooner have a train going through and living there than the poor sods who face many of the busy roads and constant traffic noise literally just outside there front doors, or the poor people who are going to lose their homes because of HS2. I believe at woodford halse, pother than an industrial site not one house is on the track bed.
Save billions, save the countryside, utilise what we have got already.
The line is as pointed out miles from built up areas, in other word exactly what designers like to see for an high speed route. For many mile HS2 will also run for miles within the countryside.
Edit. Sorry my phone is using predictive text and pistonheads is not allowing me to see what I have written to correct some of the above. Hope it makes sense. PS it's supposed to read Chiltens, not children but I can't correct it. :-)
PPS I see the tram system in Nottingham has just bridged over the railway station for the southern extension. Guess what was there before that that they removed, to which they have now replaced, and guess which railway line it was on. We are putting back at fantastic cost what we ripped up 40 years ago.
Edited by Wozy68 on Tuesday 1st October 21:06[/footnote]
[footnote]Edited by Wozy68 on Tuesday 1st October 21:13Edited by Wozy68 on Tuesday 1st October 21:15
My post wasn't saying that it couldn't be done, just that there are a number of drawbacks with the idea that would quite possibly mean that if you did it, it might end up costing more than HS2 itself. Just a few quick examples (because the pub is calling) :
1. Widening the Met coming out of London as far as Amersham would only be possible if you bought land off a couple of thousand (at least) owner-occupiers whose garden land you would need and who would not, to put it mildly, be dreadfully keen on the idea
2. Running HS2 through any built up area is likely to have more NIMBYs up in arms than putting it away from where most people live - you'll still get NIMBYs out in the country but there won't be quite as many of them. Can you honestly see the residents of Brackley welcoming HS2 going straight through the town? No, nor can I A similar circumstance would apply at Woodford Halse and Hinton, although there aren't quite so many people out there as there are in Brackley.
3. The residents of Aylesbury are already up in arms about it and it bypasses the town. How much more noise do you think they'd make if it ran straight through the middle?
4. Where it is fdasible to reuse the GC formation it is being used. OK, only 11 miles or so (so somebody else has said, I haven't checked personally) but it is being reused nonetheless.
I won't be replying for at least an hour. I've got to go and make sure that the "Two Pigs" is still there
:1. Widening the Met coming out of London as far as Amersham would only be possible if you bought land off a couple of thousand (at least) owner-occupiers whose garden land you would need and who would not, to put it mildly, be dreadfully keen on the idea
2. Running HS2 through any built up area is likely to have more NIMBYs up in arms than putting it away from where most people live - you'll still get NIMBYs out in the country but there won't be quite as many of them. Can you honestly see the residents of Brackley welcoming HS2 going straight through the town? No, nor can I
A similar circumstance would apply at Woodford Halse and Hinton, although there aren't quite so many people out there as there are in Brackley.3. The residents of Aylesbury are already up in arms about it and it bypasses the town. How much more noise do you think they'd make if it ran straight through the middle?
4. Where it is fdasible to reuse the GC formation it is being used. OK, only 11 miles or so (so somebody else has said, I haven't checked personally) but it is being reused nonetheless.
I won't be replying for at least an hour. I've got to go and make sure that the "Two Pigs" is still there
I agree about he fact we'd have to build a completely new line through the Chilterns and quadroupiling south of this would be a no no.
The original line ran to the east of Brackley, just about all of the new estates of the last twenty five years are to the west. Also the noise from the trains would nothing compared to the racket of the duel carriageway they built under the old viaduct. The line is also raised above most of the town.
At woodford the route is above the village built on an embankment, at least it mainly could not be seen and noise would be reduced by it.
I fully appreciate the NIMBYs are and will be in full force (when the god people of brackley heard of the central proposals, they were up in arms, hipocrates though as it was the fact it wasn't going to be passenger only freight that upset them the most).
When Central railways wanted to build it, they estimated originally at 5biillion to reuse the line. Many years later it had risen to 8bn largely because of the need to compensate houses nearby on the route. Remember that was also for the route to follow the old route straight through Rugby, bypassing Leicester and Nottingham. The GCL bridge was still there spanning the WCML until only about 5 years ago. It was to be privetey funded, It failed because it couldn't get parliamentary approval. The government was worried thy May have had to pick up the cost. Now we are going to pay a lot more.
If that figure was doubled or tripled today, (this finally died a death about 5 years ago). It would still be far short of the 50bn they are now sprouting, and the line right back up to Sheffield would now be well under way to reinstatement.
I'm off to bed, good to chat, hoped your pint(s) were good. :-)
The original line ran to the east of Brackley, just about all of the new estates of the last twenty five years are to the west. Also the noise from the trains would nothing compared to the racket of the duel carriageway they built under the old viaduct. The line is also raised above most of the town.
At woodford the route is above the village built on an embankment, at least it mainly could not be seen and noise would be reduced by it.
I fully appreciate the NIMBYs are and will be in full force (when the god people of brackley heard of the central proposals, they were up in arms, hipocrates though as it was the fact it wasn't going to be passenger only freight that upset them the most).
When Central railways wanted to build it, they estimated originally at 5biillion to reuse the line. Many years later it had risen to 8bn largely because of the need to compensate houses nearby on the route. Remember that was also for the route to follow the old route straight through Rugby, bypassing Leicester and Nottingham. The GCL bridge was still there spanning the WCML until only about 5 years ago. It was to be privetey funded, It failed because it couldn't get parliamentary approval. The government was worried thy May have had to pick up the cost. Now we are going to pay a lot more.
If that figure was doubled or tripled today, (this finally died a death about 5 years ago). It would still be far short of the 50bn they are now sprouting, and the line right back up to Sheffield would now be well under way to reinstatement.
I'm off to bed, good to chat, hoped your pint(s) were good. :-)
Bobley said:
They've just cleared a load of junk away under the road bridge at Helmdon... perhaps they're expecting something? It would be nice to see the line being used again but I would have to re route one of my MTB XC routes!
Alas not:http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/councilservi...
BRBR have an obligation to maintain the bridge structure. I wonder how much it would have cost to regualry do preventive maintenance compared to the cost of removeal?
I'm not intellegent enough to understand why they couldn't bridge it rather than fill it, if just to allow for a possible reopening in the distant future (for whatever means).
Whats doubly heartbreaking is that Helmdon was renowned for being one of the best kept stations on the whole network. Though I'm guessing there's few left that would remember it.
WRT the Nottingham Tram (b
d things) they are re-using the former GC main line south of the Trent, but, get this, instead of replacing the bridge over Wilford Lane (the embankment on both sides is still there) the embankment is being removed so that the trams cross the (very busy) road at a level crossing. Genius.
Oh, and one set of concrete bridge beams have already failed, who carries the can for that one, then?
d things) they are re-using the former GC main line south of the Trent, but, get this, instead of replacing the bridge over Wilford Lane (the embankment on both sides is still there) the embankment is being removed so that the trams cross the (very busy) road at a level crossing. Genius.Oh, and one set of concrete bridge beams have already failed, who carries the can for that one, then?
I've not peeked round to look. I assumed they would've done a partial fill job like they did at Banbury Lane further up.
Not my photo - the infilled bridge is in the background. I ride my bike up this bit and it was quite unnerving when I first approached the bridge and it was semi buried in a post apocolyptic looking fashion...
I think these routes should be left open to the public or converted into light transit routes.
Not my photo - the infilled bridge is in the background. I ride my bike up this bit and it was quite unnerving when I first approached the bridge and it was semi buried in a post apocolyptic looking fashion...
I think these routes should be left open to the public or converted into light transit routes.
mrmaggit said:
WRT the Nottingham Tram (bd things) they are re-using the former GC main line south of the Trent, but, get this, instead of replacing the bridge over Wilford Lane (the embankment on both sides is still there) the embankment is being removed so that the trams cross the (very busy) road at a level crossing. Genius.
Oh, and one set of concrete bridge beams have already failed, who carries the can for that one, then?
Utter madness, for a country that once (and can still if the right people are in charge) build bridges, tunnels and railways just about anywhere in the world, we allow muppets to be in charge, and this is what we get as a result. :-( d things) they are re-using the former GC main line south of the Trent, but, get this, instead of replacing the bridge over Wilford Lane (the embankment on both sides is still there) the embankment is being removed so that the trams cross the (very busy) road at a level crossing. Genius.Oh, and one set of concrete bridge beams have already failed, who carries the can for that one, then?
Bobley said:
I've not peeked round to look. I assumed they would've done a partial fill job like they did at Banbury Lane further up.
Not my photo - the infilled bridge is in the background. I ride my bike up this bit and it was quite unnerving when I first approached the bridge and it was semi buried in a post apocolyptic looking fashion...
I think these routes should be left open to the public or converted into light transit routes.
Just look at what's there, such a waste of something that at this time.coud be used for something surely .Not my photo - the infilled bridge is in the background. I ride my bike up this bit and it was quite unnerving when I first approached the bridge and it was semi buried in a post apocolyptic looking fashion...
I think these routes should be left open to the public or converted into light transit routes.
Wozy68 said:
mrmaggit said:
WRT the Nottingham Tram (bd things) they are re-using the former GC main line south of the Trent, but, get this, instead of replacing the bridge over Wilford Lane (the embankment on both sides is still there) the embankment is being removed so that the trams cross the (very busy) road at a level crossing. Genius.
Oh, and one set of concrete bridge beams have already failed, who carries the can for that one, then?
Utter madness, for a country that once (and can still if the right people are in charge) build bridges, tunnels and railways just about anywhere in the world, we allow muppets to be in charge, and this is what we get as a result. :-( d things) they are re-using the former GC main line south of the Trent, but, get this, instead of replacing the bridge over Wilford Lane (the embankment on both sides is still there) the embankment is being removed so that the trams cross the (very busy) road at a level crossing. Genius.Oh, and one set of concrete bridge beams have already failed, who carries the can for that one, then?
Given that there are two new schools just next door it'll only be a matter of time before they build a pedestrian bridge
Sorry - bit ranty this morning, have to visit one of those schools later - big diversion to get there!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff