I have some new alternative money saving scheme to avoid building HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). They all stem from the problem that we are using two pairs of tracks to run four railways (fast, semi-fast, local passengers and freight).

a) Option 1 - Keep the fast lines for Intercity express services - cease all semi-fast services. Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Wolverhampton Stafford etc. would only be served by local services which, together with freight would use the slow lines. Capacity would be optimised by running all trains at the same speed.

b) Option 2 - Abolish the express services.  semi fast services (or fast services as they would become) would stop at all medium sized stations and would use the fast lines along with express freight.  Local services would use the slow lines along with slower freight services.

c) Option 3 - Close all the small stations and run no local services - after all this is a main line not a commuter railway. The only stations on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) would be Euston, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Stoke, Stockport, Manchester, Warrington, Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle, Glasgow.  Any other stations on the WCML north of Watford (which would continue to be served by the DC^▸ (Direct Current) lines) would be closed to allow capacity for Fast, semi fast and freight services. 

Which one would you choose?

You have not grasped the role of HS2.  It is only meant to serve a basic network of hubs. Trains from Wolverhampton and I suspect North Wales to Euston would continue to use the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and would be semi-fast services. If you wanted to get there faster you would change at Birmingham. 

If the HS2 trains were all extended onto the classic lines then, as you point out there would need to be major works to lengthen platforms.


Doubling the most expensive part of the route (the tunnels under London) would not add a small amount to the scheme.  Suggesting this sort of think is playing into the hands of the detractors who cannot bear that money should be spent on any public transport scheme outside London.

(^14bn for Crossrail and ^6bn for Thameslink - no problem - London deserves it, ^40 bn for Boris Island - no problem its a national hub that we are moving so that the rest of the nation can't use it - ^50bn for HS2 to benefit most of the rest of the country - far too expensive - just a sop to buy votes in 'the North')

There has been a steady stream of roof panels going in through the ticket barriers (a sight I would really like to have seen) each night.  Yet I note that the pile of panels outside the North entrance has not gone down.

I agree that we are likely to see geographical spread from existing AC and that it is unlikely that there will be no new Dc equipment fitted.

So the SWT^▸ (South West Trains) network is likely to be first.  

I recall that the Brighton line was originally electrified using DC^▸ (Direct Current) overhead lines. Does this mean that the clearances are there for re-electrification?

The recent relocatable equipment could be used to replace life expired equipment elsewhere on the DC network or for infill electrification.

How long will the power supply equipment last? Surely less than 100 years. If the conversion goes ahead I think that will determine the rate. 

I assumed the new signalling would be have references for Thames Valley.

Yes I have.  I watched them build that manhole and thought how primitive their methods were. especially compared to the speed at which the ramps and steps were built between Christmas and Easter.  It must be costing the contractor an absolute fortune - unless they are paying their (few) workers no more than minimum wage.  Even then the longer you are on site the more the fixed costs mount up. So unless there is a huge amount of activity elsewhere on the site that I cannot see, it would appear that either the contractor is loosing a fortune or Reading BC are being charged over the odds.   

You spoke too soon it failed again almost as soon as you posted

So I am wrong.  I also notice that live departure boards have no trains on p7/8/9 at the moment.  So I suppose its the large polystyrene blocks in use again.

I am pretty sure it has not been done before. I do not recall seeing a crane from the north side reach further than P10/11. I think the sections on P8/9 were done when the tower crane was still in place.  Working from the South side may be a shorter reach.

I would expect the P1/2 and P3/7 sections to be done from the south, but as you say these sections are not the right size for P1/2 and they are not ready yet for P3/7

It is when the train is busy that the fare will be high.

When I look at a railway or a motorway in the landscape, it is the ballast area or the surfaced area that impacts most.  On a motorway that is 30 metres wide. 

I do not recall it being 25 metres wide on HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel). Is it to be fundamentally different on HS2?

The verges of both blend in in time.   

The 25 metres on either side that will be affected - what will it be affected by? Will this be green landscaping?

We need to differentiate between what will be affected for a short time during construction and what will ultimately be the visual impact.

But they only sell bargain seats on trains where there they reckon there will be space. Otherwise they would have sold a full price ticket.

Welcome to from me.  I had assumed that P8/9 were beyond a crane lift from the North side so they would be lifted in from the south over the existing station building. 

So anyone who needs the bus to get to work on a Saturday or Sunday, who has to work late will be forced find an alternative or become unemployed.