Low Speed One

Comment by Graham Lennard on March 11, 2010 at 20:32

I tell you when one of those things belted past you at 200mph it would scare the bejeezers out of you! Like those damn motorbikes that drain your adrenal glands!!

Comment by LS on March 11, 2010 at 20:50

If the train is going in the same direction you might be able to catch the slipstream for a while and join the ton up cycle club!

There will obviously be obstacles to overcome but I seriously think it should be thought about. Consultation will take 7 years so there's plenty of time although I don't know why it isn't just done on Twitter and Facebook, it would be sorted in a week!

Comment by Andy Wood on March 13, 2010 at 8:30

Its a great opportunity and hopefully Sustrans will throw their weight behind this one. There should at least be good opportunities to tag cycle facilities onto the hundreds of bridges that they'll be building. Take a look at the linked document from their connect2 design guide (see section 6.2).
http://www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/resources/guidelines%206.pdf

All the provisional detailed route plans for the railway are available here http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/route/ Of most importance to us lot are sheets 14102 - 14108 at the bottom of the page showing the proposed route into Birmingham city centre.

Comment by Dave Holladay on January 11, 2012 at 0:53

One key benefit from creating a 3 metre wide paved way alongside the rail wayleve is apparent from the relocated Airdrie-Bathgate route.  Inspection staff can safely travel (ideally on bicycles) to locations along the rail line without having to walk on the tracks - or close the line whilst they use a slow-speed inspection vehicle to travel along it.

Basically Low Speed 2 would be a service road for the railway which, since it would not be required for continuous use and its use as a public walking & cycling route would maximise the use of the asset as ensuring it was kept clear and the line was policed by passive public surveillance.

Personally I think that the 1906 main line (Ms Greening was clearly Ms Informed) built to deliver high speeds, and additional capacity for GC & GW, as well as a direct GW route to Birmingham the sme distance as that from Euston BUT with faster alignments (which is why the Blue Pullman went this way in the 1960's). Evan it its degenerate condition in 1962 the 'prototype' Class 47 Lion thundered down 87.5 miles in 81 minutes averaging 100 mph for many miles, and peaking at 105mph through Bicester North.  The new Chiltern Mainline trains have already done the 113 miles in 87 minutes running the standard service (with stops!), and there are trains available which, with a further enhancement of signalling, and if possible some track details, could raise the line speeds to 125mph for long stretches. 

We already have trains on standard daily schedules which average over 100mph - 208 miles London-Preston in 2 hours including the need to slow down for Watford, Stafford, Crewe, Warrington and Wigan.  With the high speeds already possible between Banbury and Birmingham and the Chiltern enhanced route, a sub 1 hour journey should be possible, with existing trains  and route set to run at 125mph instead of the current 100mph.

Of course being built post-1900 this main line avoided level crossings, used flying junctions, and very gradual curves because it was built for high speed trains. 

Comment by Robert on January 11, 2012 at 9:23

LS1 indeed :).   I think it's an interesting idea.   My main concern would be turbulence, so I think some sort of protective barrier would be needed.   A spacing gap would help, but anyone who has experienced a high speed train passing through a station knows that even if you stand well clear it's pretty alarming (someone on Reading station was killed as a result of turbulence from a steam-hauled train).   The noise from a high-speed electric train is perhaps not as horrendous as one might think:

Comment by LS on January 11, 2012 at 10:53

http://www.birminghamcyclist.com/photo/brompton-meets-train

Comment by Dave Holladay on January 11, 2012 at 11:44

The issues are already well understood hence the major outlay on refuges with well anchored grab rails when the WCML project was going ahead to deliver 140 mph (remember that promise?) trains as the need for staff on the tracks to have a safe place to stand as a fast train thundered by was no longer addressed by the old standing to the side regime and people and equipment needed to be kept in secure places.

Sustrans worked with British Rail and the Railway Inspectorate to determine the minima for spacing from nearest running rail or OHLE structure to a cycle path for the various types of conventional railway and eve for a standard route as we see today the path would be at least 5 metres from the nearest live line and clear of the fence - generally a steel palisade for fast and dangerous rail lines - between them.

Comment by Simon on January 11, 2012 at 12:19

Tried to get them to put a cycle path up the cut from the new A5 by Hints-Weeford...not a chance in hell.  They raised all sorts of objections.

With HS2 you've also got to workout what to do in the tunnels!

But, yes it would be good if they did put such a path in (assuming that it was wide enough, had a proper surface, was maintained properly, didn't go off deviating all round the houses etc).

Comment by CKS on January 11, 2012 at 12:31

I can't see it happening - Railtrack spend a fortune keeping members of the public away from tracks.  They wouldn't do anything to encourage it, especially near a 200mph line.

Also, somebody has already mentioned the problem of slipstreams - but not in tunnels.

Add a Comment