Great Western Coffee Shop

The government has made the demise of domestic air travel an explicit policy target for the first time by aiming to replace short-haul flights with a new 250mph high-speed rail network.

The transport secretary, Lord Adonis, said switching 46 million domestic air passengers a year to a multibillion-pound north-south rail line was "manifestly in the public interest". Marking a government shift against aviation, Lord Adonis added that rail journeys should be preferred to plane trips.

Start of a series of three days worth of articles in ...

(http://premium1.uploadit.org/ChrisCornwall3/logos/logogguard.gif) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/04/high-speed-rail-adonis)

I'm getting to like Lord Adonis more and more

250 mph network????!!!!! One or two high speed lines may happen, but 250mph? Never.

Me too. A politician who actually speaks sense not spin and knows what he's talking about. Shame he probably only has a few months left in the job. If the Tories get in they could do a lot worse by asking him to stay on. Can't see that happening sadly  :( Job will probably be given to someone who hasn't the foggiest about transport and couldn't careless about it hoping one day for a bigger promotion within the cabinet.

It will be a great pity if the result of (F)GW Electrification limits our line to 125/140 mph, rather than the TGV performance that Brunel allowed for.

Perhaps we should be "First".

OTC

too right, how fast would we be going today if we were still on 7ft gauge?

We don't need 250 mph, more lines capable of 125 will do!

I know Brunel was far sighted, but I think even he might have been struggled to visualise a TGV. The problem with the existing network is that it is shared with all sorts of other trains, doing all sorts of other speeds. Coal MGRs to Didcot don't mix that well with 125mph trains now. Anything faster and you would have a serious problem.

So of course we need proper LGVs.

IF we do go along with this I sincerely hope that it's engineered correctly and the a significant proportion of the route is FOUR tracked, so that ultra express services, I suggest that there is at least one non stopper Glasgow - London per day, express services say stopping Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle can run alongside those stopping at other stations en route. This will also allow limited use of the LGV by other services too.

The problem with the uk is the fact that the major citites are too close together to sustain any worthwile high speed running.

Hence my engineering comment,

A range of services

Ultra
Glasgow > Heathrow > London

Very Fast
Glasgow > Newcastle > Leeds > Heathrow > London
Glasgow > Manchester > Heathrow > London
Glasgow > Birmingham > Heathrow > London

Fast
Glasgow > Newcastle > Leeds > Manchester > Birmingham > Heathrow > London

Spur
HS Services using the LGV line then onto Classic tracks.

Express
Stopper at other LGV stations.

Running non stop gets the speed advantage thats lacking because of the Geography, hence the need for many four track sections.

It is a great shame that no mention is made of Bristol, Cardiff or Plymouth in these plans.

Whilst I accept that Bristol/Cardiff are to close to truly benefit from a high-speed network, dramatically increasing track capacity from Bristol to London, particularly Reading on would allow for many more trains, and arguably some express trains that can do 140mph from Cardiff/Bristol direct to London.

Certaimly 4 trcks would be good idea definitely south of Manchester,but it would be posssible to share 2 tracks North of there provided the intermediate staions were four tracked.

This is way the Japenese bullet trains operate, I've heard talks where people say if you on a train with more stops you pull into a station and < 2 minutes later a fast pases on the avoiding line. But the Japenese seem to run their to 30 second timngs.

Well, no-one appears to have told the Japanese, another small island nation, where some Shinkansen stations are as little as 20 miles apart. As eightf says, there are varied calling patterns, with fasts passing stoppers, some on short commuter runs, no different to Class 395s in among Eurostars on High Speed 1.

Tokyo-Osaka, the original line, is 515km (320 miles) long, with 15 intermediate stations. London to Edinburgh is just under 400 miles on the ECML.

But I suppose they're just strange foreigners, who don't know what they're doing, like all the other countries who have built HSLs while we have sat on our backsides.

I don't think it was a coincidence that last autumn pretty much the first thing Lord Adonis did as rail minister was to go on a fact-finding trip to Japan.

Nice to see yesterday's Daily Telegraph where their leader commented on keeping Lord Adonis on as transport secretary after the next election being a good idea:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/5979413/High-speed-derailment.html

But as I've said before, Adonis has ruled this out himself several times and Dave will have a lot of ambitious Tories hungry for office to satisfy, so I expect normal service will be resumed, where someone holds the transport job for a year or two, on the way up to bigger things or on the way down.

but he would say that at the moment wouldn't he.  He has been a Lib-Dem in the past so I wouldn't rule him out keeping his job.

To run at LGV speeds (>= 168 mph, 270 kph) one needs stable formation, better clearances, more sleepers/m, better top and line maintenance and (at least) a 50kph stepped, in-cab signalling system, to name but a few. This is not therefore a mixed traffic line either for pathing or maintenance.

A (F)GW LGV would need the present main lines dedicated to TGV type services with uniform operating speeds. We could have that as far as Didcot (or even Steventon) but extra tracks would be needed Westward. TGV's do run satisfactorily at normal speeds (<= 125 mph, 200kph) on conventional mixed traffic routes (practical these infernal Frenchies). Relief line passing loops would also be desirable East of Reading (some are going in for Crossrail anyway). The extra 2 (relief) tracks beyond Didcot are also needed for freight and stopping services but would not be needed in slower areas, say from Chippenham on the Bath route and Badminton on the S Wales line.

The GW line has gentle curves (LGV ruling is 5 km radius, 2.5 at a pinch) and clearances from Broad gauge days. It makes sense therefore not to close off future advances but allow developments to leap frog - the secret of East Coast success, and of West Coast failure.

But if those masts are planted laterally 100mm too close......

OTC

All this speculation about Lord Adonis' job next year: Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves a little bit. Who's to say it's going to be Dave handing out the jobs? We all know it was Kinnock who had his foot in the door in 1992 only for the electorate to slam the door in his face. If a week is a long time in politics then 9 months leaves a hell of a long time for things to change. Don't write off Gordon or the Labour Party just yet. If Lazarus could do it.....

But Lazarus wasn't running for election in the UK, with a skewed first past the post election system giving you huge majorities in the Commons on about 40 per cent of the votes and a tired government on its last legs after 12 years in office. Plus Dave will get a slightly easier ride from certain national newspapers than Mr Kinnock did in 1992.

Hang on though. We had a tired government on its last legs after 13 years in office in 1992. Only takes one slip on the beach or an overconfident "Well alright!" for the tide to turn.

The print media's influence, along with their circulation, is waning. I think Dave may start to experience a dip in popularity when policies and manifestos have to be published. At the moment we know very little of the Tory party's plans. So my colours are not yet tied to any one mast, I'll wait for the manifestos. Labour face an uphill struggle, but it is not insurmountable.
And I'd rather not see Adonis pitch up as a Tory transport minister. I agree, he's doing a fantastic job at the DfT at the moment, however I'm never entirely comfortable with politicians swapping sides. He did start his political career as a Lib Dem. One change of sides is just about okay, but to change again would show a lack of any ideaology or political conviction and merely show he is only interested in power. I'm also not overly happy with having unelected ministers of state.

Are you really suggesting that all the people who voted Tory in 1979 or Labour in 1997 had a detailed understanding of their manifestos? I think not.

Labour in 92 had come a long way, but Kinnock never convinced a lot of people he was PM material, and Major got lucky timing-wise - his financial crisis came after the election. Brown's didn't. Blair and Thatcher looked the part as a prospective PM. Dave has yet to do so fully, but he has one big advantage - he's not Brown, which is worth more than any manifesto.

I won't be voting for Cameron, but having actually met him twice and seen him in action at public events, I can assure you he's pretty impressive.

Very good point it's just what the Treasury would do to save a few pence on the scheme.

Wasn't HS1 built to one below full Berne gauge just to save few pence?

It's a classic British trait spoiling a ship for a hapeth of tar.

HS1 was built to UIC GB+ gauge, which is a pan-European standard for carrying piggyback lorry trailers on rail wagons and can also handle 9ft 6in shipping containers on standard flat wagons and standard European freight wagons - hardly penny-pinching.

As the same gauge applies in France and Belgium, you couldn't even get to the Channel Tunnel with anything built to the biggest UIC standard gauge loading profile, C, which is available in Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Germany and the former Warsaw Pact countries in Central Europe and the Balkans, though I think the Channel Tunnel itself is actually bigger than C gauge, due to the size of the shuttle trains.

Network Rail is on record as saying that any expansion of GB+ in Britain could only be done during major route upgrades - so electrification presents just such an opportunity.

The thing I think that was short sighted about HS1 is the line speed. It should have been 200 or 250 mph - in common with current HSL constructions.

You may say it would only save about 7 mins 41 seconds - but remember that eventually we want international trains to/from Northern Britain - so the shorter the journey time the better! Let's hope HS2 is 250 mph as Adonis hints!

With a fleet of 186mph trains?

No offence, but sometime I wonder what planet you are on  ???

I'm sorry to tell you that I'm still on Earth! :P

Firstly, the trains can go above 186 mph. ;)

But my main argument is that in about 20 years time, (by which time HS2 has opened...hopefully) they'll need replacing.

_{To be honest, they could do with going now - perhaps to augment an existing UK TOC's stock. They are cramped, tired looking inside, and should be switched for larger trains now HS1 has opened.} But we won't go there, otherwise the words IEP, SET or HST2 will be thrown at me!

The maximum speed possible on a rail route is defined by its curvature (radial forces) and clearances (dynamic envelope and aerodynamic forces). Brunel took this on board back in 1842, without recourse to the planet Zog.

As with Pizzas, you can add any toppings to a good base.

Mind the gap....

OTC

HS1 would never be feasible as a 250mph railway. It's just not long enough for the trains to accelerate to that sort of speed, and then maintain it for long enough for it to be worthwhile, before having to throw in the brakes for the tunnels. Getting a TGV up to 208mph for the current speed record was pretty much as high as you would be able to reach.

I have been thinking about the proposed High Speed Line and have been wondering whether it is a good idea.

This new line could run from London to Birmingham without stopping and then on to Manchester. However there are major places such as Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Sandwell, Dudley and Wolverhampton which will be missed out. Undoubtedly, the new line will so many of the Birmingham - London passengers, that the existing 3 tph VWC service which links the aforementioned places will be both cut, and slowed down by the need to call at additional places to get more "bums on seats". Thus HS2 would actually make the rail service WORSE for the above places.

A solution? Why not construct a new two track 155 mph line from Euston, going parallel to the WCML, with links in and out of both Watford and Milton Keynes. It would then split into two and join the Birmingham WCML branch and the Trent Valley line (with a link into Rugby just before this split. The Trent Valley line would be upgraded to allow for 155 mph operation, with a 155 mph Stafford bypass line removing the need for trains to slow down through Stafford. The 155 mph upgrade would stop just North of Crewe. This could be done in the same time as HS2 to Birmingham, but have much bigger results.

The result? The current VWC HF timetable could operated. All direct journey opportunities would be kept and most journeys would see significant journey time reductions, albeit less than with HS2. London to Birmingham would be about 1 hour, and Wolverhampton 1 hour 15 mins.

Passengers from Glasgow, Chester/North Wales, Manchester, Liverpool would all see time reductions - but still have the same stops. People from Milton would still be albe to catch the Chester train to Crewe and then change onto a Northbound service to Glasgow. As the Pendolinos can only go at 140 mph, they would be modest, but then with a IEP at 155 mph, timings would improve further.

The classic WCML south of Rugby would be freed up. Freight could be increased, and LM could run 125 mph fast service from Northampton and Bletchley, (and their Crewe/ Trent Valley stopper could be sped up south of Rugby) using IEPs.

I would also do a similar thing on the ECML. I high speed line to Leeds will only benefit Leeds. But I would add two new 155 mph tracks just beyond Peterborough, with links in and out of Stevenage and Peterborough. I would upgrade all major junctions as far as Doncaster to be fly overs, and the lines to be 155 mph. This would free up capacity for 3 tph to Leeds, extra trains to places like Hull, harrogate etc.; as well as improving journey times. i.e. more people would benefit.

Going west, install 2 new tracks as far as Reading to allow the main services to be 140 as far as Swindon. Free up space for more semi fasts for Maidenhead, Slough and Tyford.

Although the prospect of a High Speed line excites me, and the journey times quoted will make many lick their lips, I wonder whether it is the best thing for the country.

??? ??? ???

     I tend to think that the argument that a new high speed line, misses too many major towns or cities, misses the point.
     
     Surely the existing network will allow passengers from places like Milton Keynes or Rugby to feed into the High Speed line at Birmingham.   After all - when you catch a flight from Heathrow to Athens for example - you would't expect it to pick up at Brussels, Berlin, Zurich or Rome on the way.

     The whole point, surely, is reduce the travelling time over long distances.

     Even a journey combining a feeder service, together with the High Speed link, would still offer a good reduction on current journey times.

It seems that HS2 is more likely to have new stations in London, Birmingham and perhaps Manchester.  It certainly would be very difficult to accommodate High Speed Trains in New Street for example. Probably take as long to travel from London to Proof House junction as it will getting through the tunnel from Proof House into a platform. 

I am inclined to the view that building cut-off high speed lines might result in less fast journeys but benefit more places. A HS line parallel to the East Coast line which had short spurs to, say, Nottingham, Sheffield, but passed through, say, Doncaster before going to Leeds would enable faster services to many East Midland, South and West Yorkshire destinations as well as speeding up journeys between London and Newcastle and Edinburgh.  A similar line parallel with WCML and spurs towards Brum, Manchester, Liverpool, Preston (not forgetting towards North Wales) would free up space on the existing lines, speed up long distance trains, serve existing main line stations thus allowing good connections with other services to be maintained.

Has anyone stated how many passengers are carried by air between London and Manchester and Leeds compared with the current number of rail passengers. There are no flights from Yorkshire to Heathrow for example (according to press reports). High Speed lines ought to be to increase the attractiveness of rail compared with all other modes, not just air, which is likely to become even more expensive than rail!

Yes, but many direct services will be lost, such as Wolverhampton/Sandwell and Dudley to Euston. Milton Keynes to Manchester may survive, but as a much slower and infrequent service, as it will need to call more often to compensate for the loss of the London - Manchester passengers.

And I think the plan is for Birmingham to be severed by a London facing branch, giving Britain's second city NO direct high speed link North.

My suggestion would speed everyone up.

That just proves you haven't read it...

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/images/5896_NewLines_routePlan.jpg
(http://www.networkrail.co.uk/images/5896_NewLines_routePlan.jpg)

Thanks TJ, that's the first "plan/map I've seen with the Birmingham branch facing both North and South.

Is this NR's preferred route?

I haven't read it because I am bored of countless "reports" and "plans".

It's been in all the serious documents I've read. The latest RAIL for example quotes half-length trains (5 coaches) running four trains per-hour starting at Birmingham running north, two calling at Manchester, Preston and Glasgow, and two calling at Preston and Edinburgh. Those are in addition to 12-14 trains per hour running north from London.

It's very early days and so scant regard can be given to the length of trains and frequencies and stopping patterns, but what it does demonstrate is that Birmingham northwards is very much on the agenda.

Puts you at a bit of a disadvantage when putting forward your views on the subject then?

Well, the fact that Network Rail chose to publish it does rather suggest that it is their preferred route?  ::)

All maps I've seen over the last few years show a single London facing branch; if this has changed, so much for the better.


Whether or they run services North from Birmingham, my original post still stands. So the fact that I didn't drool over the latest proposal is irrelevant.

Anyway, I've stopped reading these documents. Partly as I can't be asked to spend time wafting through 100s of pages of hot air!

I used to read these reports; I used to lick my lips at the proposed improvements. But every year when the new report came out, the "completion dates" would be pushed back a year. (or more!) No progress. No action. Probably because they'd wasted the year writing another bloody report instead of actually building X line/station/signal/track!

It's also worth pointing out that Network Rail's proposals are separate from the Governments own HS2 study - though of course both might refine their plans based on each others findings.

mmm...here's what "an important think tank" is proposing for Central Scotland...have to say it seems a grim idea taking a high speed train from London (or even all points European) to a hub in the middle of nowhere, only to be crammed onto a 158, or it's latest incarnation to the Centre of Glasgow or Edinburgh...forget about Stirling...that's always going to be a 158!
Sorry it's not the South West, but you can see how some people are thinking!

Almost certainly more on this in the next issue of Rail ::)

of course forgot to attach the relevent article...bah ???

http://www.nce.co.uk/5204225.article

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8391874.stm):

I thought they'd explicitly said the report will put forward only one fully engineered route (albeit with some local options), because of the huge issues with property blight in Kent when they proposed a number of different routes for the CTRL. 

So if it proposes for instance a route based on the existing Chiltern route , that will be the route, to all intents and purposes...

Paul

Only problem is the bad connexions from regional and commuters services to the HSS.

And B'ham will have 4 different city centre stations on 3 different routes!

Wednesday should see the announcement of the preferred route option for HS2 to the Midlands and options further North, press speculation seems to suggest a new Terminus in London effectively combining Euston, the new HS station and Kings Cross St Pancras as the southern end.

Um, a station linking Euston, Kings Cross and St Pancras? :o

Where will they fit that in? And it's congested underground anyway! Surely the best option is to extend the Backerloo and Crossrail lines to get rid of most LM stoppers into Euston. Then add a few more platforms, giving the space required for the TGVs.

Of course, if the planners at St Pancras had been competent, we could have had spac there.

Wednesday is the day the report is passed to the DfT, AFAICT. The announcement won't happen until Labour need a fillip in the electioneering process, I reckon - so I'd expect it to be announced formally just before before the pre-election embargo on major policy statements. 

The press speculation this week is just that...

Paul

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8432051.stm):

If they built a New High Speed Route to Plymouth, I would think it would have to be via Bristol.

Due to the Canal next door to the railway line between  Pewsey and Reading.

I think Planning new lines go down

Population.
Cost
Benifit.

They won't.

From the Department for Transport: (http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=410022&SubjectId=36)

A HSL just to the West Mids is a waste of time. You might as well spend half the money 6 tracking the WCML to Rugby (providing similar journey time reductions to Birmingham, but also shaving time off ALL routes on the WCML), with links put in at Wembley to Heathrow and HS1.

Then use the money saved on a similar scheme for the GWML, 2 new tracks to Reading, link to Heathrow, etc.

I've asked a similar question before regarding the GWML, but where would the fifth and sixth track go? There's no space for the majority of the route - Watford and Kilsby Tunnels are a couple of the more obvious of many barriers.

Am I alone in being a little pessimistic for what the future holds for 'UK Rail'? There are a whole raft of aspirational network improvements out there, but I worry that a (likely) change of Government will put the ky-bosh on most, if not all, of the large projects. I cannot see where the money is going to come from. Govt. purse strings are likely to be tightened severely and private capital, with the entailing financial risk, is very unlikely to be forthcoming.

I fear another period of make-do and mend, rather than any great leaps forward.

Flyovers and tunnels. And the new tracks wouldn't have to stick to the rest of the route, as trains using the express tracks would not be stopping before Reading.

Regardless of the future government I very much doubt we will see any major rail investment as being announced. To do so would be economically unsustainable in the short term and getting out of debt is the biggest concern.

Why phaf about trying to follow the old alignments that are often a result of Victorian land owner NIMBYisum the WCLM is rife with kinks due to this.  The new high speed routes are strategic they will run hub to hub with some services branching off to key destinations which is how the TGV routes and airlines operate

Regardless of funding, the green issue and the strange notion of keeping up with Europe (far bigger distances and apparently no discernable nimby factor), I cannot see, by the time this lot is up and running...say 2020, where are 18000 people an hour going to come from that want to travel from London to "the North"?

Trains will be there for tourists, ageing parents, students, pass holders and a few misguided business people who cling to the face-to-face meet and a wee jolly. Everything will be so much more direct...computer based...mobile phone technology is changing so rapidly, more than most can imagine, so the notion that a 90minute and more train journey is important (with all the inevitable perterbations) is complete and utter nonsense.

Sorry these are the facts (Chiltern peeps, you can quote me)...Forget HS in the UK...Spain did it because in post-Franco years they felt they needed to catch up...and they did...I can only assume that the EU payed for it. (oddly enough the East Coast Main Line electrification had a serious contribution from the EU)

So, lets just upgrade what we have...a damn successful railway, dedicated people, with damn successful 125s (retentive tanks notwithstanding)...and rejoice.

BTW...to BT...as regards Nat XP...I rest my case, but I have a lot of time for First...FGW, Trans-Pennine, and er York buses...excellent to my mind...except the Purple ones! :-*

I like to prepare blog articles well ahead ... and I wrote one in 2007, for publication in 2032 and it tells you what will have become of the 125s by that time.    Like a sneak preview, 22 years ahead? - http://www.wellho.net/mouth/1729_.html?pwidth=wide

Ha Ha...superb G. take a bit to follow up all the links, but Bahgdad to Dundee...exotic stuff. Mind if the Spanish get their tunnel to Africa, Dundee to Casablanca is on the cards...Err, weekend return please, unless it's cheaper with singles mate?  8)

Cheers Graham, that link brought a smile to my face! And here was me thinking that in your r^le as Moderator-in-Chief of this erstwhile forum, you were somewhat immune to cynicism. ;D ;D ;D

Right, so, erm, you're not 6-tracking then, you're basically building a separate HS line?

HSR in the UK seems to be about adding capacity as much as saving time.  The UK is a small country and most of the population is in a small corner of England. 

Massively high speeds between places like London, Bristol, Brum, Manchester, Leeds do not make sense - the current journey times are already fairly short and things like electrification, signalling upgrades and reduced congestion with perhaps 140/150 mph running on some stretches and some of the current lines speeds eased up elsewhere by adjusting alignment and cant and closing some level crossings (how much of the GWML is actually at the 125 mph speed of the existing stock? - not very much.  Some of the windy parts can't be sped up cheaply, but would it be too difficult or expensive to make some of the 110 line, 115 or 120, and some of the 80 line 85 or 90? 

We need to get over our unhealthy obsession with the French and their TGVs and go for more of a German approach where HS rail generally means sustained running at about 125 to 140 mph.

Capacity is the main restraint to incremental speed upgrades - the solutions are:

1) in-cab moving block signal if we can get it to work properly (and we will eventually I am sure)
2) faster freight paths made possible by greater use of electric traction.
3) new medium speed frieght lines to divert frieght off the main lines which can then enjoy faster journeys and existing access to city centres.  Engineeered to wider loading gauges and about 80mph running they would be much cheaper than high speed lines and may be able to use existing disused formations in many places. 
4) new metro/tram/underground system to allow closure of small stations wich slow down the mainline (ie a Bristol tramway could run next to teh railway and allow closure of St Andrews Road and the otehr small stations that slow down intercity journeys

Not sure how St Andrews Rd slows down intercity journeys, but you could try this...

I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with Tim.

The idea of getting freight off of the main routes is an appealing one - how many thousands of delay minutes are caused by a freight train getting in the way? But, in order to shift significant traffic off of the roads and airways (which is HS2's main selling point in helping to reduce emissions), speeds between the major cities do need improving.

I personally feel that a network which links London/Heathrow with Birmingham, Manchester/Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle and Glasgow/Edinburgh (and arguably Bristol/Cardiff - although they're in an awkward part of the map) would do this. There could also be a couple of strategically located 'parkway' stations in the North-West or North-East in the same style as Ebbsfleet Intl (but also connecting into the local rail network) - perhaps one to cater for the Preston/Blackpool areas, one for the Sheffield/Doncaster areas and one for the Nottingham/Derby area?

With a sensible compromise of fast trains running non-stop from London to Scotland (or with a maximum of 1 stop en-route) and high-speed more regional trains running, say Edinburgh to Bristol stopping at Newcastle, Leeds and Birmingham.

Because the XC route of today has much lower average speeds, a regional service would offer the same kind of journey saving percentage wise compared with today's service as you would gain on a London to Scotland service running at 250mph all the way as the ECML and (now) WCML average speeds are much higher.

Even with the fast service on the ECML and WCML the market share of rail over air between London and Scotland is comparatively low when compared with London to Manchester - so, if the aim is to ground short flight then HS2 has to be built as you can't engineer any more significant improvements on those routes as they stand.

One thing's for sure, there's an awful lot of considered thinking to be done in order to get the best solution and value for money on what will be a very expensive commitment.

I agree BUT, on shorter distance routes like London-Manchester, modest cuts in journey times (although I conceed far from modest in cost) have almost completely killed off air competition.  On longer journeys like London to Edinburgh and Glasgow, I am yet to be convinced that the there are currently enough passengers travelling between those cities by air to justify the cost of hundreds of miles of new track.  Much of the recent growth of domestic fights has been at regional airports.  You can now fly Bristol-Newcastle or Manchester-Bristol.  Would HS rail take any of those markets?  No because it wouldn't go to Bristol, but speeding up the existing XC network preferably including electrification, slashing of slack and scrapping the Vomitors might. 

Where rail does badly compared to road isn't mainly for long intercity journeys, it is shorter almost commutable journeys that really cause congestion and are a high volume market that rail needs to tap.  Most people only drive long distances like Bristol-Newcastle a couple of times a year (Cristmas and holidays etc).  The day in day out congestion is caused by people who live in Bristol working in Cardiff or Bath and commuting every day.  For that kind of trip you don't need HS rail to tip the balance away from the car.  You could cut the congestion on the M4 with a 50 minute Bath-Cardiff journey time rather than 1hr 15 which becomes 1hr 30 or more once you have factored in getting to the station so that for many people today driving is quicker. 

It is journeys like Bath-Cardiff, Cardiff-Birmingham, London-Swindon, Oxford-Birmingham, Leeds-Manchester, Bristol-Exeter, Birmingham-Cambridge that cause most of the congestion on the roads because there are many people who drive those routes every day.  HSR will not speed up those journeys because 
it will only stop a very big cities.  If you speed up the conventional rail journey by say just 10 minutes on each of those routes, and allow the road journey to add 10 minutes to the jounrey (this will inevitably happen due to congestion) and give people fairly priced tickets and a comfortable seat, you will have reached the tipping point for many people on many of those routes.

If you build HS lines you may actually add to road congestion because you:

1) increase the use use of Parkway stations - I am always sceptical of Eurostar's green crudentials when their business model depends on a huge carpark at Ebbfleet.

2) slow down the classic route (as has happend when HS1 opened) whch actually stops at places people want to get to. 

Sorry I meant Stapleton Road.  There is space for another two tracks to be laid most of the way from Temple Meads to Parkway which would get the stoppers out of the way more easily than say Oldfield Park

You make some interesting and valid points and it all adds to the discussion about what will be the best solution. Though I'm not sure that if you take Bristol to Newcastle as an example, you could save enough time if trains still have to run on the traditional route, which passes through all those large stations between Birmingham and York and already has 125mph stretches. A 5-hour journey time of now might get trimmed down to 4h 15m - is that enough to reach the tipping balance when you compare the 1hr flight time? I'm not so sure.

It might make sense for the traditional route from Bristol to Birmingham to be upgraded for 125mph running (which has been seriously suggested before), electrified and connected to a brand new London to Scotland HS network near Birmingham (routed via Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle) where the trains could then run at HS2 speeds to the North-East and Scotland?

That way you get tangible journey time reductions and a sub 3hr journey time from Bristol to Newcastle would be possible (and sub 4hr to Edinburgh), but the cost is kept lower. As with most projects it'll be about finding the best compromise.

Tim has summed it up well. I don't think the demand is there for millions of seats every minute going non-stop from London to x, y or z.

Take the WCML and people who use the West Mids line. YES, a lot of them are going frm Euston to New Street. But a sizeable proportion are going Milton Keynes to Wolverhampton. Or Sandwell and Dudley to Rugby. Or Watford Junction to Coventry. HS2 will serve NONE of these flows!!

But if HS2 is opened, VT will cut back this route! Probably down to 1 or 2 tph, calling at more station. The result will be a WORSE service for many people. Or people will have to change at Birmingham on or off a high speed train, when before they could travel direct.

That's why I think 2 new tracks from Rugby to Wembley is best. It will permit ALL station calling patterns to remain, but speed up all WCML journeys. (the Trent Valley fast lines would also be upgraded to 155, and a Stafford bypass built) it would also cost a lot less (a 150 mph line instead of a 250 mph one), freeing up money to do the same on the ECML and GWML.

As I've said before here, the facility itself will cause demand, people will, if the fares are reasonable use the facility and expand their personal footprints regularly. Passengers will undertake regular trips to other destination cities for shopping and leisure purposes. It will also encourage a much larger travel to work area for cities such as London, Birmingham and Manchester, resulting in the levelling out of property prices in the South East overtime.

Will the New Heathrow Airport station be built under this new plan

Not that bloody Heathrow "Hub" to slow down the GWML!

Lord Adonis writing in The Times 30/12/2009:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6970893.ece

All this talk of high speed rail (250mph) is making my head spin,back in the real world, how is FGW going to remain competitive from say west of Exeter to Plymouth /Cornwall with line speeds of only 55/65mph(secondary line speeds) in the 21st century.A railway running 20th century trains on 19th century infrastructure has little long term future.

I agree that more people will travel further if speeds are increased.  The HST expanded London's commuter belt out to Chippenham and Bath,  HS2 could take it out to Manchester and Preston.  But if you take that route of arguement you can't simultaneously argue that HS rail is green.  The green solution is for most London workers to live nearish to London and Most people who live in manchester to have reasonably local jobs. 

I hope that we will get some levelling out of property prices across the country, but HS rail will do no more than impose London prices on a few small parts of Northern England.  less excessible parts of the country will be unaffected and HS2 will be inaccessible to most of the country.  What really needs to happen to help the North (and other parts of the country outside the SE like Cornwall/Devon and parts of Wales) is to move decent jobs close to those places.  Isn't that more sensible then subsidising movement of the workforce to existing job hotspots.   You do need decent transport to help less-well off places develop, but improving local transport to local and regional centres is the answer.  Moderate line speed increases in places like Cornwall and tram/metro networks to bigger cities are the answer.  It would be better if the people of Burnley or Cambourne or Hartlepool   were given decent transport to jobs and training in their local city (Manchester, Exeter, newcastle, respectively) than people in Leeds and Brimingham which are already regenerating are given better links to London.  I sense that the Northern Way (a consortium of RDAs in the North of England) are begining to understand the importance of regional transport with their talk of regional improvements between the big cities of the North.  It makes more sense for Liverpool, Manchetser, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield to come together in a regional grouping to develop an economic centre of gravity to rival London rather than for one or two of those places to become satalites of London.  Some of Northern's line speeds are truely terrible.  Much better (and cheaper and easier) to boost those by 20 mph than to build HS2.  Also many of the post-industrial Northern towns have loads of disused rail formations which could be brought back into light or heavy rail use (ie reoppening the Woodhead tunnel as just one example) whereas there are real engineering problems in trying to run yet more raillines into London.  HS1 was hugely expensive because of the large distance of tunnels.  Putting tracks onto overgrown formations in going to be much cheaper.

Industry Insider makes some very sensible points about integrating new HS lines with modestly improved classic lines in order to get more towns onto the network and improve losts of journeys not just a few point to point ones.  If he were planning (and funding) the HS network I would support it.   

My fear is that the reality is that we will get a vastly expensive very limited HS network benefiting a few journeys only and that the classic routes will suffer to pay for it.   

The biggest compromise decision that will have to be made is to choose the speed for HS2.  I would suggest that somewhere between 150 and 180 mph would be the answer (more like germany than France - our closer spacing of citie sin more like Germany's).  We sould forget about 250mph running our geography is wrong.  To get the benefits of though services running part on existing line, part on upgraded existing line and part on new line, the new line needs to be able to accept trains running at 140/150mph.  If you mix those trains with 200/225/250 mph trains on teh HS section you really kill capacity.

If we build a 250mph track, as well being very costly most slower trains will be barred in order to run enough very fast trains to keep the track utilisation up in order to justity building it in the first place.   

Thanks, Tim. And you make some very valid points too - especially regarding the green credentials of a High Speed line which just means more people are brought within the commuter belt of London and as a consequence trains run over longer distances to get them to the office. It's an argument also used by Christian Wolmer regarding the Javelin service.

No doubt this should be a response to a thread which I cannot locate, but it seems that Simon Jenkins hits the nail on the head...again!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/05/high-speed-rail-crowded-island

Worth trawling through some of the comments. There's the usual nonsensical bile from those who seem to spend their lives just criticising everything, but there are a few well written counter arguments to the article - one from Anders9x posted at 10:39pm is well worth reading.

Just adds to what, in a more limited way, we've been discussing on here - http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=5138.0 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=5138.0) - there's a whole lot of hard thinking to be done to come to the best decision!

I agree with the article. It's going to benefit so few at the expense of us all!

In fact, just like Southeastern and the Javelin service, but with the whole country paying, not just Kent.

Very interesting article from the Guardian a couple of days ago intimating that a Birmingham Airport link for HS2 makes much more sense than Heathrow.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/07/heathrow-threat-high-speed-rail-birmingham

Heathrow should have a link, but as a spur line, not as part of the route to the West Mids.

LOL...last year Doncaster, er international airport, was likewise mooted. Well, if there was space on the tracks, you could do, with a high speed spur which wouldn't cost much, airport to KX in under 90 mins. Of course lots of the commuter stuff would get in the way South of Peterboro' but makes you think. Doncaster does have a fantastic long runway, and there will be those that want to go to Hull and Grimsby...even Goole. ::)

Wasn't the build up of Doncaster Airport once touted as an alternative to the third runway at Heathrow and 2nd runways at Gatwick and Stanstead?

What about Humberside Airport rail close by and Barnetby station has disabled access via the most massive ramped footbridge. It also has an immpressive array of semaphore signals as well. You can then have high speed trains on an old GC line as Watkin intended.

Slow news day?

HS2 is the top story on tonight's (19/02/10) Newsnight.

An unusually easy ride given to Andrew Adonis by Paxo, perhaps time constraints didn't allow him to push the point about how much HS2 is expected to cost. Paxo could also have pressed him further on the favoured route(s) contained in the report which Andrew Adonis is currently sitting on.

Listened to Theresa Villiers this am didn't understand a word except they (the Tories) are not going to look at the report until it's published.

Can anyone explain why?

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8523518.stm):

I didn't see the report but I am sorry to read this analysis.  For those like me who grew up with a downtrodden railway recovering from Beeching, all talk of High Speed Rail brings out wild enthusiasm.

My guess is that the preferred route is the old GWR main line to Birmingham, re-instating four tracking through most of the route.

There is a train on most days from Paddington that takes this route (11 00 or so Princes Risborough).  Take the train and see the potential.   

I'm sorry to see that, having supposedly backed High Speed Rail, the Conservatives seem now to be having cold feet.

Not a good sign for the future.  And there I will leave politics......

No matter what route is take north west out of London it will carve it's way through Tory heartlands, for instance if the old GWR/GCR route is used this will cut its way through some very blue areas which are areas where the likes of UKIP could put up a strong challenge also some of the inner London parts BNP might get a foot hold.

The Tory's have never liked the railways which is made even worse by the failure of their privatisation model of Railtrack and the myriad of competing TOC's and maintenance contractors

If the Tories push through the going via Heathrow option, it will make the journey time reductions much less impressive. With a bit of investment, Euston to New Street could be got down to 1 hour - which is fine. If HS2 goes via heathrow, I can't see times less than 50 minutes working. (when you consider that the preferred route will take 45 minutes)

Mr Wolmar, on the same Today programme, suggested that a serious rethink of the route, presumably by a new administration, would set the project back 4-5 years, just in time for, err, for the next election.
It ain't going to happen...where are all these 20000 pax per hour London-Birmingham going to come from, and more importantly why?
Far better value for money to continue with new hubs and let millions more benefit from the shrinking purse. The UK is not Spain, France, USA, Oz and now even Morocco...all big empty countries with I imagine no organised nimbyism. ;D  

The UK quite simply doesn't need a High Speed line. It will benefit only a fraction of people, now lets get some new DMUs ordered helping to alleviate overcrowding across the whole country.

I'm tempted to agree despite the mouth watering journey times. BUT the WCML needs more capacity. So add a 5th or 6th track as far as Rugby and spend the rest of the money on DMUs, electrification.

But does it? I've not heard any stories of the 3tph being overcrowded. Instant capacity relief would be installation of ERTMS cab signalling.

I'm disappointed to find such a lack of enthusiasm for high-speed rail in the coffee shop.  :(

Adding additional lines to existing infrastructure is needed in certain areas (e.g. Swindon - Kemble, Oxford - Worcester) but it is disruptive to the existing service (witness the WCML upgrade) and difficult to achieve really high speed when traffic is mixed and there are lots of junctions.

I believe that the delay in starting construction is damaging the British economy or our environment and probably both.  There is at least political consensus that it is needed, years after the French have already completed a comprehensive network of high speed routes.  What is lacking is consensus over the route and this needs to be sorted out before we can move on.  But many of our main lines are operating near to capacity, our motorways are also full and we don't want to encourage more short haul air travel.

We need to free up capacity on our existing lines to provide reasonable services to smaller towns, such as Melksham! :D

The Newsnight item is available on BBC iPlayer until 2259 26/02/10.

http://bbc.co.uk/i/qxfy5

HS2 would be a completely separate line from the Chiltern Mainline. However, there may be some mileage in developing this line further (Evergreen 4?) as a cheap alternative to HS2 if money were scarce - i.e reinstatement of passing loops, 4 tracking from Dorridge to Birmingham Moor Street, running fast services into Paddington rather than Marylebone once Crossrail releases platforms at Paddington, electrification, longer platforms etc.

I'm not sure if higher speed or higher frequency are the best service and investment for the future. If I'm hanging around at Salisbury for 40 minutes for a train to Trowbridge - journey time 32 minutes - how would I like my 72 minutes elapsed time cut? Would I prefer a service every 30 minutes rather than at sixty minute intervals, or a journey time that's cut from 32 minutes to 22?  The heart says "make it faster", the head says "make it more frequent", and will continue to do so until the frequency of the services is at least a half of the journey reduction.

I think that my point is that high speed rail would release capacity on the "classic" lines to provide more frequent services to existing stations.  Part of the difficulty in re-establishing a decent service to Melksham is that the trains must compete for space between Wootton Bassett and Swindon with four HSTs per hour in each direction.

Ditto
My fear is that any future HS2 project will be at the expense of improvements to the classic rail routes (ie Great Western).All this against a backdrop of tough financial decisions that will soon have to be made by government either Labour or conservative.Certainly under the conservatives the principal that rich get richer and the poor get poorer has been clear to see at work since rail privatisation which is why FGW is still running refurbished 33year old HSTs on its main lines and pacers on overcrowded local services.

But HS2 won't really. The Watford - Dudley, Milton Keynes - Birmingham and Rugby - Wolverhampton flows will still have to use the WCML, along with any services that stop south of Rugby.

I think the huge amount of money needed for HS2 could be spent country wide on improving services that suffer continous overcrowding by providing new and longer rolling stock. HS2 would benefit the few and not the many.

Surprised the Tories aren't fully behind it then! ;D

Make that man Minister for Transport !!!

I disagree.  HS2 would benefit the many by freeing up capacity on existing lines to increase frequencies on current services.  I do agree that we should be ordering additional rolling stock now to augment services on existing lines.

HS2 will be many years before it is a reality but the longer we delay it, the more rail risks losing competitiveness to other modes and we risk the investment being diverted into building more motorways, which would be a disaster.  It is great that we have seen, over the last few years, the reversal in the decline of the railway network that we all probably grew up with.  I want to see progress made on HS2 now so that when more money is available after the recession we can get on with building it.  And if the rail lobby is not united behind it, it stands little chance of success which would be a great opportunity wasted.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against HS2 as I welcome any new line being built but what I ask is how will it benefit lines like Cardiff-Portsmouth and services to the West Country? The GWML has missed out on major investment for many years whereas the ECML and WCML have had billions thrown at them not always well spent I must add.

The WCML is only forecast to become full south of Rugby. So a better use of the money would be to alleviate the pressure here with some new dedicated fast tracks where the Pendolinos can get to 140. (and perhaps a Stafford bypass route, so permitting 140 all the way to Crewe)

A video report from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8528216.stm), with some rather amusing model village footage by way of illustration: "Has cross-party support for high speed rail broken down?"

From The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/04/heathrow-high-speed-rail?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter):

I'm sure that'll be pretty near the mark if not spot on.  Much more sensible than the Tories Hub idea.  We'll see in good time whether either scheme will come of anything...

HS2 SHOULD serve Heathrow, but as a spur line (so journey times are not affected).

But this whole Old Oak Common/ Heathrow Hub thing needs to STOP. Not least because it will involve a further TWO stops on FGW's "high" speed services - i.e. adding on 10 minutes onto schedules that need to be sped up not slowed further!

But I am sceptical about this whole HS2 thing anyway. I've said it many times before, why not spend a fraction of the money on 2 new tracks for the WCML as far as Rugby, also adding a link to Heathrow and HS1. (which is what Virgin want to do)

I think the idea is to put the Heathrow hub at OOC so that there will be only one extra stop on the GWML. I too share your concerns that this one extra stop will impact on FGW high speed services.  If it happens we need line speed increases elsewhere to compensate.   

It does open up some further journey oportunities for folk from the SW though.  Bristol-Manchester would presumably be faster via the HS hub than via the XC route.  Possibly it could even be done direct when the GWML is electrified.   

"London's Euston station has been earmarked as the main terminal, according to rail industry sources. But the transport secretary, Lord Adonis, believes Old Oak Common will be just as popular with passengers because of the Crossrail connection that will ferry passengers to Heathrow in about five minutes, or Liverpool Street in the centre of the capital's financial district in around 30 minutes."

5 minutes to Heatrow I reckon that's at least an average of 120 mph!

Not sure of OOC as a hub junction on HS2 it's too close to Padd and Euston. However given it's place in the London Rail Network it does give lots of through journey possibilities from HS2 to the South Coast with links to the West London line to Clapham Jn, NL Line to Kew. A few yards of condutor rail  from  South Acton to New/Old Kew Jns and you could have through electric trains from HS2 to SWT destinations.

IF MML line is ever electrifed you could have trains from off the Midland as well.

Use for old Eurostars?

So if it's going to be OOC as a hub let's make it London Hbf with lots of platforms and electrified links in all directions, local  services to NL & WL TV Chiltern all the old SR Commuter Lines and mainline links to all the radial lines from London. From Southern clockwise to C2C.

How about Hornsey as the interchange with the ECML?

It would certainly use it for many journies from Taplow if all the links were in place and it saved me dragging a suitcase on the Tube.

Although having said all this Frankfurt Flughafen station is not far from Frankfurt Hbf but at least it is on the high speed line to Cologne.

 

Actually, I can see the benefits of an Old Oak Hub, as it would allow lots of current services from the West and South to run onto the high speed line, thus giving it a use other than ferrying the supposed billions that travel between London and Birmingham every hour.

Yep ... and with Crossrail open and providing links into the centre of London it would allow longer distance trains to be terminated a little further out and Paddington to be closed and the site sold off for redevelopment ;)

Yes, and why not widen the A40 Westway using the trackbed! :p

HaHa...Mr Wolmar, the only man seeing through the fog and hype...industry take note. With typical UK dithering it'll never happen, hopefully. 8)

I think you're referring to Mr Wolmar's article in the TSSA journal:

'Towards the end of this month, we will get the government^s White Paper based on the work by the HS2 team which will set out a route between London and Birmingham down to the last few inches. Everyone apparently wants a high speed line. The Tories, the Libdems and belatedly Labour have all embraced the idea. Environmentalists say it will be green, the CBI says it will be good for the economy and the unions reckon it will create jobs.

 There is much excitement among the media stimulated by squabbling between various towns in the Midlands and the North about where a line should go. The Sunday Times even ran a story complaining that the Tories had not funded the line north of Leeds and therefore it might not even go to Scotland.
 It looks, therefore, like a no-brainer. Given the political consensus and the universal approval, what can stop it? Well, actually, lots and the idea that the line could be built without serious damaging effects on the rest of the rail network is fanciful.

 The whole project is being caught up in its own hype and a reality check is urgently needed. Lets first put the overblown story in the Sunday Times to rest. The story is about a line which will not even start to be built until 2015, with a completely unquantified cost and- except you can be sure it will be more than any number so far quoted - and a purpose which has never been properly specified. The line, at best, would not reach Scotland till 2025. Yet, here they are getting up a head of steam over the details of something that may or may not happen in fifteen years time. That is like much of the coverage of HS2, quite literally much ado about nothing.

The Tories are partly to blame. They claim that their proposal is fully funded and worked out. It is, wait for it, a line that will go from London, probably via Heathrow, to Birmingham, Manchester and then through the Pennines to Leeds. That is complete madness. If the line had an L shape, and stopped in the intermediary cities, it would hardly be faster than the existing two hour service between Leeds and London. It^s a typical politician^s plan, trying to include everyone but unable to stand up to rigorous analysis.

Moreover, the Tories plan to fund the line partly through the private sector which will only make the scheme more expensive since it has no hope of being commercially viable. But even they admit that ^15bn out of the supposed ^20bn cost will have to come from the public sector, or ^1.3bn per year during the 12 year construction period.

Even if assuming that these figures are not underestimates, this shows the real danger of a high speed line. There is no way that it would be built without demands being made on the existing rail budget. During a 12 year period, there is almost bound to be an economic downturn and halfway through construction it would be impossible to cut back on the construction costs as the contracts would be let. This is not a zero sum game. The money for investing in the high speed line would ultimately come out of the budget for the maintenance and improvement of existing lines, especially in hard times.

 HS2 therefore represents a significant threat to the existing railway. You only have to go to France to see that while the TGV services are undoubtedly wonderful and far better than any services on this side of the Channel, their lignes classiques are characterised in many places by old trains, irregular services and rundown stations. France^s investment in high speed lines has been at the cost of the old railway.

 There are plenty of other reasons why a high speed line is unlikely to be built, Its environmental credentials are dubious, the state of the economy is unlikely to warrant it, rising energy prices will impact on the railway and new technology may well reduce the need for business travel.

The focus of the investment programme should, therefore, be on improving and adapting the existing railway. Given that load factors on the railways are still load, except at peak times, there is plenty of spare capacity. You only have to look at the vast empty spaces in first class at most times of the day to realise that.

 Indeed, abolishing first class would create a vast amount of extra capacity, far more cheaply than building a new line. If capacity is the main problem, then investment needs to be targeted at bottlenecks. The priorities for the investment programme beyond 2014 has just been examined by the Commons Transport Committee in a report published on February 15. The report highlights the fact that investment in railways is currently at a historic high and most of that is untouchable because it is committed in Network Rail^s current five year plan. Rightly, the committee warns that the next five year period, starting in 1914 is likely to be much tighter and says that this requires prioritisation.

That is undoubtedly right and my instinct is that the railway must focus on modest but significant schemes - infilling electrification, reopening lines on the cheap through the use of development money, boosting capacity by clever pathing and maximising use of existing track, reducing costs of running branch lines through flexible arrangements and so on.

 This may sound unexciting and modest but it isn^t. Quite the opposite. The railways could be operated far more efficiently than at the moment, and spending money on bottlenecks and small scale schemes could lead to radical improvements.

 There must, though, be room for some major schemes. By 2014, London will have benefitted from a huge proportion of the investment in the railways - Thameslink, Crossrail, HS1 commuter services, East London Line, the PPP on the Underground and so on. So rightly, the MPs - who of course have vested interests but never mind that - are seeking to see major schemes such as electrifying the Midland Main Line and improving the Manchester hub which has become a major bottlenecks.

 The railway is going through a fantastic period of investment which is bound to be cut back once these large schemes start to come on stream. After such a bonanza, it would be unrealistic to expect that a north south high speed line could be built without detracting from much-needed investment programmes. Sure there is a potential capacity problem, but it is not big enough to justify a scheme costing upwards of ^30 billion. Let^s focus on Britain^s lignes classiques and forget the pipedream.'

Indeed thanks, I did post the link, but plainly it didn't! ???

From the Guardian website this evening (10/03/10)


'The government will tomorrow unveil plans for a 225mph British high-speed rail network, including a detailed London-to-Birmingham route that will create more than 10,000 jobs if the multibillion pound project goes ahead.

The transport secretary, Lord Adonis, will announce that building and operating an ultra-fast rail link between the capital and Britain's second city will boost manufacturing and technology industries in the UK. Construction could begin as soon as 2017 with 2027 a likely completion date for the first phase. The route would have to undergo a public consultation before going through parliament.

Adonis is considering a London-to-Birmingham line that starts at London Euston station and does not go through Heathrow directly, instead connecting with Britain's largest airport at a site on Old Oak Common in west London that will be called the Crossrail Interchange.

It will connect passengers to the airport via the ^16bn Crossrail route, which links Heathrow to Canary Wharf via central London and is due to open in 2017.

The route will then embark on its most controversial phase, through the Chiltern hills in Buckinghamshire, one of 40 areas of outstanding natural beauty in England and Wales.

The Chilterns Conservation Board, the public body responsible for protecting the area, has warned that swaths of the area could be "trashed" by the route.

However, part of the line is expected to run alongside a dual carriageway in the Chilterns as Adonis seeks to build the line alongside existing transport routes. It will then stop near Birmingham airport and the National Exhibition Centre at a parkway station, designed for car drivers and bus users, before continuing to a new terminal in Birmingham city centre. The main route will continue from Birmingham airport through the Trent valley to connect with existing rail lines, where high-speed services will continue to Manchester and Scotland at conventional speeds.

The journey from Old Oak Common to the parkway station will be swift, taking 31 minutes compared with the current 80-minute journey from London Euston to Birmingham New Street.

Although trains are expected to travel at 225mph, the route has been designed to achieve a top speed of 250mph. The London-to-Birmingham route has been drawn up by a government-backed company, High Speed Two, and will be published in detail, within five metres in urban areas and 25 metres in the countryside. The full High Speed Two report will be published alongside the Adonis proposals, which will become a white paper once the public consultation has closed.

However, the national route beyond Birmingham will be outlined in broader terms, with rail industry sources expecting a "V" shaped network running through Manchester to Glasgow on the west side of the UK and to Leeds and Edinburgh on the east side. Adonis ultimately hopes to reduce the journey time from London to Edinburgh from four and a half hours to two hours 40 minutes.'

http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/adonis20100311 (http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/adonis20100311)

The announcement has this to say about the route:

"Subject to this consultation, the London terminus for the high speed line
would be Euston; the Birmingham City Centre station would be at Curzon
Street; and there would be interchange stations with Crossrail west of
Paddington and near Birmingham Airport.  HS2 Ltd's recommended line of route
between London and Birmingham is also published today; the Government
endorses this route, subject to further work which I have commissioned on
mitigation, and to subsequent public consultation. HS2 Ltd's recommended
route would pass in tunnel from Euston to the Crossrail Interchange west of
Paddington. It would leave London via the Ruislip area, making use of an
existing rail corridor. It would then pass by Amersham in tunnel towards
Aylesbury, before following the route of the A413 past Wendover.
"North of the Chilterns, the recommended route would follow in part the
disused Great Central rail alignment before passing Brackley and entering
Warwickshire. It would then skirt to the east of Birmingham, to enter the
city via a short link, alongside an existing rail line, beginning in the
Water Orton area, with the main line extending north to the West Coast Main
Line near Lichfield."

and Heathrow/Crossrail etc:

"It is important that Heathrow is connected to any high speed line. A prime
purpose of the proposed Crossrail Interchange is to provide such a
connection, via an 11 minute direct service to Heathrow. However, the
overwhelming majority of passengers on a high speed line south of Birmingham
would be going to or from London. This is the other reason why the Crossrail
Interchange station is so important. Crossrail, a very high capacity line,
will provide fast services direct to the West End, the City and Docklands,
catering for an estimated one third of all the passengers travelling on the
high speed line. Without this Interchange to Crossrail, congestion on the
tube from Euston would be exacerbated, and passengers would be severely
disadvantaged in getting in and through central London.

"The question is whether there is a case for an additional station at the
site of Heathrow itself.  HS2 Ltd, after thorough analysis, advise that the
business case for such an additional station appears weak, given the
estimated cost of at least ^2 billion for the additional tunnelling required
to serve the site. Furthermore, Heathrow is not a single place; it is an
airport with three widely dispersed terminal centres.

"However, I am conscious that, as foreshadowed in the Government's January
2009 decision on adding capacity at Heathrow, there may be a strategic case
for a high speed station at Heathrow, particularly in the light of that
planned expansion. I have therefore appointed Lord Mawhinney, a former
Transport Secretary, to advise on the best way forward, having fully engaged
with all interested parties.  A complex decision of this nature should not
be taken in a knee-jerk fashion, but after a full analysis of the facts and
options."

Paul

I can see the advantages of using Old Oak Common's Xrail link to ease possible Tube overwhelmation at Euston. Something's been thought through for once!

I assume that the Xrail trains currently planned to terminate at Paddington will all be extended to Old Oak Common to deal with these extra pax. Who know's, perhaps they were planning ahead when they decided 14 tph would stop at Padd?!!

It's just a shame that the B'ham terminus will be so unconnected from all the West Midlands' rail network. There will now be 3 different stations (4 if you count Snow Hill and Moor Street separately) in the city centre, with poor links between them. I think some sort of high capacity rapid transit system (underground, or monorail) is needed to link them all. Or scrap the New Street re-build, and build a new station (i.e. the B'ham Grand Central scheme) near Curzon Street, incorporating all the existing New Street lines, and HS2. A walkway could link it to Moor Street, to give Snow Hill line passengers (remember that it is now B'ham's busiest route!) a good link.

Well, there's the proposed route out in the open then.  Watch the NIMBY's start their campaigns with venom from now onwards!

Probably what most people thought the route would be - the route from Old Oak via North Acton to Ruislip was an obvious candidate as it's fairly straight and hardly used at the moment.  The Crossrail link is a sensible compromise to the Heathrow conundrum.  The route through the Chilterns is a little further east from the M40 corridor than I would have expected, but in terms of Birmingham the largely industrial/waste land near Curzon Street is the ideal location and a stop for the NEC/Airport as an integral part of the route is sensible.   The temporary interface with the WCML just north of Lichfield will mean the busiest stretches of the WCML will be relieved of their fastest services allowing for the growth of freight and more regional trains to use the southern end of the WCML.

A lot of questions and concerns still to address (Btline's Birmingham comments being one of many), but a start nonetheless!

The plan for Crossrail was that the terminating trains were going to run to a 'dummy station' with basic platforms some way beyond Paddington anyway, this was so that they wouldn't have to check trains were empty at Paddington before running forward (Westbourne Park maybe?) I think TfL and the lcal authority were already discussing an extra station at OOC anyway, which wouldn't cost much more.
Odd that the DfT have referred to Curzon St as the location of the HS2 station, the actual report from HS2 Ltd calls it Fazely St consistently, and if you saw the drawing I posted earlier it has access to Moor St.

Paul

So am I right in thinking, assuming any of this gets the go-ahead, that all points North of Birmingham, highspeed, are from International...a tad inconvenient surely or is there a triangle at the junction? :-\

No, there is a 'delta junction' somewhere near Water Orton, which allows trains from Birmingham (Fazely/Curzon St) to run via a west to north chord without going back to the new interchange near International.

What is interesting is that trains stopping at the interchange for Birmingham will not go back onto the HS through lines, but there will be reserved tracks for Birmingham bound trains to the junction. Have a look at the inset schematic on this drawing...

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/route/westmidmap02.pdf (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/route/westmidmap02.pdf)

Paul

Sorry, can you give a link to the diagram, I can't find it anywhere, and my computer freezes with the size of some of those files, so I don't want to use trial and error! :P

Btline, I think it's more a case of the DfT site being overwhelmed with traffic, I've been unable to download any of the HS2 stuff at all today. I'm gonna try in the wee small hours, but have also ordered a few copies of the free CD-Rom for keepsies.

Some really detailed stuff on the DFT site, The one document worth looking at in some detail as far as I can see is ARUP's Route Engineering Study Final Report: A report for High Speed Two Ltd - Chapter 5 (PDF - 17 MB) - Weighs in at a huge size but even has potential construction scenarios for MegaEuston. I'm really impressed with the detail (Network Rail take note).

Hopefully some cross party consensus seems to be developing on the project too.

DFT Rail (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/routeengineering/pdf/Chapter5.pdf)

Have any of you seen the announcement in parliament? http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8561000/8561782.stm

Transport Minister Sadiq Khan does not seem to know what he's talking about, reading the statement as if he has never set eyes on it before, being unfamiliar with rail terms, and mis pronouncing St Pancras (as Pancreas).

BUT... it sounds good.

I think it's understandable that Sadiq Kahn is unfamaliar with rail terminology - I was under the impression he was the Minister for Buses!

The formal Government announcement was Andrew Adonis' in the Lords. Khan's was an information statement only as applies when the Minister is 'in the other place'.

BBC Democracy Live - Adonis unveils high-speed rail plans in Lords statement (http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_8561000/8561779.stm)

If that was a reply to my (previous) post, that was a link to the diagram - the junction schematic is an inset on the map...

Paul

Hang on a sec  ??? wasn't a "fast rail line" built on this very alignment (London - Brackley) opened about 100 years ago and closed 40 years ago

Now this what is called progress  ::)

I do think the Tory's have a Heathrow fetish which I think is quite unachievable and is potentially the biggest risk to HS2 not being built, if AURP thought it was economic to go via Heathrow they would have proposed it

To the contrary actually, if you dig thoroughly they have investigated Heathrow considerably, they propose many possibilities to include the Airport in the route, currently the plan excludes them BUT should it become a viable choice the exploratory work is done.

I've spent some time tonight reading selectively and have a number of issues,

1. Linking with HS1, the choices are not good, and actually seem to come down to a single track tunnel between Old Oak Common and the link point to the North of St Pancras. The most expensive route alternative avoids St Pancras completely.
2. Manchester, could so easily have been included in HS2 from the start and the relevant integration work done as part of NR's NW initiative.
3. Birmingham, the two alternative stations aren't really that imaginative. New Street should have been looked at with the possibility of double decking either by putting HS2's platforms above or below the classic lines as is done in Berlin.
4. Euston, the plans are immense, and the St Pancras Intl rebuild will be considered childsplay in comparison. I wonder whether this will be the deal breaker in the longterm. Especially with the land take requirements.
5. Old Oak Common, the GWML/Crossrail/HEX interchange station looks far too small, I would assume the GWML TOCs would want every service to stop to gain the revenues of incoming/transferring HS2 Pax.
6. Paddington's role has to be questioned now, with services stopping and being serviced at OOC/NPJ justifying so many services going in to terminate at Paddington will be difficult.
7. Maybe in the long run this could lead to the closure of Marylebone diverting it's services back to Paddington (Blue Pullman days return). Selling Marylebone could raise a chunk of cash for use in the HS2 project build.

.... and before I go to bed
Maybe this will see the end of a Cross Country franchise. The Norm NE to SW route given electrification of the GWML could, with HS2 be down to OOC, and then onto the GWML. timings could be quite competitive and open up the XC paths south of Birmingham for use by the GWML TOC.

Did anyone notice that on BBC R4 they were  announcing it would be a 250 mph line.

That's 400 kph, even the French are only thinking of 350 kmh.

Or did they mean 250 kmh or 156 mph which is slower than 186 mph on HS1.

The line will be built for 250mph (400km/h) . The trains will initially run at 225mph (360km/h)

The Atkins Report on alternative rail upgrades has been published on
the DfT website:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/alternativestudy/


These are summarised in the Strategic Outline Case (see pages 73 -76
plus Annex A page 77 and options copied below) and covered in more
detail in the Rail Interventions Report:


'8.1.1 The Packages


The rail strategic alternatives to the High Speed 2 proposition
started from the point that the West Coast Main Line and the other
rail routes to the West Midlands and the North West are at full
capacity, and that no extra services can be run without any additional
infrastructure investment. The timetable has been optimised.
A total of five rail packages were identified as Strategic
Alternatives to the High Speed 2 proposition. The first of these,
train lengthening, was not taken forward for further analysis as it
was not likely to be considered as a viable alternative to High Speed
2, since it made no impact on journey times.
The remaining four packages were largely incremental, with each
subsequent package building upon the preceding one.


8.1.2 Package 2


Package 2 and 2A show that with extra infrastructure investment (in
the region of ^3.6 billion) the capacity of the WCML can be enhanced
significantly. Subject to further engineering and capacity modelling,
it should be possible to operate an extra four or five trains per hour
(tph) in a standard off-peak hour, resulting in a total of 15/16 tph
into/out of Euston.
This package has a reasonable impact on journey times. Journey times
to Manchester are forecast to decrease by 6.5 minutes, to give an
average journey time of approximately 121.5 minutes. Journey times to
Birmingham are also forecast to decrease by approximately 12 minutes,
to give an average journey time of 73 minutes ^ primarily as a result
of serving fewer intermediate stations.
Depending on the assumptions made in relation to rolling stock
procurement and timetabling contingency to assist recovery from delays
and incidents, this package has an indicative BCR of between 3.63 and
2.19. This BCR may change should the forecast scheme costs and
benefits be developed in greater detail, as part of the project
development and value engineering process.
Whilst Package 2 does impact moderately on the environment at various
locations, there are not predicted to be any very significant adverse
impacts with this package, and it is the least environmentally
damaging of the packages. This is mainly due to the fact that it does
not have any new infrastructure build on the Chiltern Lines, so does
not impact on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
The proposed works will be disruptive to passengers. The extent of
this depends on the scheme design and the scope of staging works, and
has not been assessed in detail at this stage.


8.1.3 Package 3
With significant investment on the Chiltern Line, in addition to the
WCML investment in Package 2, it should be possible to operate the 3
trains per hour (previously WCML) London to West Midlands services on
the Chiltern route. The infrastructure works for this package are
forecast to cost in the region of ^12.5 billion, and will free up to
three London to North West paths on the WCML.
Although the investment will electrify the Chiltern route, and have
other benefits, it will not significantly further reduce journey times
between London and the West Midlands/North West. Typical journey times
to Manchester are forecast to remain at around the 121.5 minutes
achieved
by Package 2, with times to Birmingham decreasing further to give a
typical non ^ stop journey time of around 70.5 minutes to Moor Street
station.
Depending on the assumptions made in relation to rolling stock
procurement this package has an indicative BCR of between 1.24 and
1.11. This BCR may change should the forecast scheme costs and
benefits be developed in greater detail, as part of the project
development and value engineering process.


Package 3 creates some significant adverse environmental impacts. This
is mainly due to infrastructure works on the Chiltern Lines, having an
impact on the Chiltern AONB.
The proposed works will be disruptive to passengers. The extent of
this depends on the scheme design and the scope of staging works, and
has not been assessed in detail at this stage.
In order to consider the case for enhancements to the Chiltern route
without further enhancements of the WCML, a revised version of package
3, package 3A, was developed which excluded WCML infrastructure works.
The cost of package 3A is approximately 30% less than that of package
3. Depending on the assumptions made in relation to rolling stock
procurement whilst retaining timetabling contingency to assist
recovery from delays and incidents results in package 3A having an
indicative BCR of between 1.30 and 1.19.


8.1.4 Package 4
Package 4 entails further works on the Chiltern Line between London
and the West Midlands, in an attempt to further improve the journey
times to the West Midlands. It includes a number of additional
infrastructure schemes, and is forecast to cost in the region of ^15.1
billion.
In this package it should be possible to reduce the journey time
between London and Birmingham to around 64 minutes, assuming a single
stop. Typical journey times to Manchester remain as at
121.5 minutes as in Packages 2 and 3.
Depending on the assumptions made in relation to rolling stock
procurement this package has an indicative BCR of between 1.1 and 1.0.
This BCR may change should the forecast scheme costs and benefits be
developed in greater detail, as part of the project development and
value engineering process.
Package 4 does have some significant adverse environmental impacts.
This is mainly due to infrastructure works on the Chiltern Lines,
having an impact on the Chiltern AONB.
The proposed works will be disruptive to passengers. The extent of
this depends on the scheme design and the scope of staging works, and
has not been assessed in detail at this stage.


8.1.5 Package 5
Package 5 involves additional infrastructure works to enable the
Chiltern Lines to become a viable alternative to the West Coast Main
Line as far North as Stafford. This package is likely to cost in the
region of ^19.6 billion, but running trains onto the northern
stretches of the WCML via Chiltern is may prove too technically and
operationally challenging. A considerable amount of additional work
would be required to assess whether this option is feasible
Package 5, if possible to implement, could allow a limited number of
extra services (notionally 1 tph to Warrington and 1 extra tph to
Manchester) to be operated via the Chiltern Line. It is not clear that
there is any significant demand for these services. It will not impact
on journey times achieved in Package 4. Typical journey times to
Manchester will remain at 121.5 minutes, with typical times to
Birmingham at around 65.5 minutes.
Depending on the assumptions made in relation to rolling stock
procurement this package has an indicative BCR of between 0.93 and
0.85. This BCR may change should the forecast scheme costs and
benefits be developed in greater detail, as part of the project
development and value engineering process.


Package 5 is the most environmentally damaging scheme, and has a
number of significant adverse impacts in the Chilterns AONB and
elsewhere.
The proposed works will be disruptive to passengers. The extent of
this depends on the scheme design and the scope of staging works, and
has not been assessed in detail at this stage.'

The problem is that the UK is so full of dinosaurs when it comes to progress, do we really want to be one of the few developed nations without a significant High Speed Rail infrastructure?

I don't think the people who think HS2 is not all it's cracked up to be are dinosaurs.

For example I would like to see the GWML and MML lines electrified  with cross Pennine links following before HS2 is started. Perhaps even the Chiltern line. 

Also I'm not sure the distances involved in this country are enough to warrent the time savings against the cost. After all London Glasgow is basically the same distance as Paris Marseille just over 400 miles. But the only real town is Lyon 256 miles from Paris, the LGV misses Dijon but serves Avignon. Look at the fuss Amiens made when LGV Nord bypassed the city.

But we have to serve at least Birmingham, Manchester, Preston, Carlise (for connections) which makes a stop every 100 miles. That's missing out Milton Keynes, Stoke or Crewe, Warrington, Lancaster etc.

As for capacity increases judicious 6 tracking of the WCML with 4 tracks in parts  from Roade to Rugby and Birmingham. 6 tracking in places from Padd to Reading.

Extra station loops on 2 track GW lines from Reading/Swindon to Penzance (all routes) and Swansea. With electrification.

Would give the capacity increases coupled with line speed increases and electrifcation would give quite considerable improvements.

Plus a few more DMUs would relieve a lot of the overcrowding experienced on many exisitng routes by giving more seats per train rather then more trains per route.

I think that's a bit unlikely. You're still going to be quicker by XC for Bristol to Birmingham surely, then there's all the other intermediate journeys across the Bristol area that XC provides.

And there'll still be the routeing guide and premuim prices to contend with...

Paul

I don't think that can be assumed from the reports. AIUI, trains to Scotland need only stop at Manchester and optionally at 'Lancashire Interchange' - there is no necessity for any or all of them to stop at Birmingham, and the proposed track layout allows for Birmingham to Manchester trains as it is.

Going back to GWML electrification, on current plans (it has started already - at least in the drawing office) it will be complete before HS2 even starts - what's to say MML and cross pennine won't be done next anyway, again before HS2 is anywhere near use?

Not fast enough though. If you look at the maps in detail, you'll find that it only uses the exact alignment here and there.  To get the curve radii required for proper HS running, many of the GC route's bends are bypassed on the inside IYSWIM. From scanning through a few of the drawings last night, I think it would be fair to say it is 'based on' parts of the route, but probably less than 20%, as far as it goes.  Old Oak to Denham and Quainton to Brackley are about the most significant sections.

Paul

Well said that person!

Can you imagine the disruption to services on the WCML etc if we start adding another pair of tracks.  Remember the effect on weekend services of the 4-tracking of the Trent Valley and other aspects of the upgrade.  Hardly a recipe for a 7-day railway.  We would also achieve little reduction in journey times when it was finished.

Yes, we do desperately need some more stock in the short term but we are talking 7 years before the start of construction here.

Is there anything in the reports on how passengers arriving at Birmingham Curzon St make interchange for onward journeys in the Brum area?

I know - it's quite a way out. Looking at Google Maps, Moor Street is almost as far away as Snow Hill!

By the way Google Streetview now covers 95% of ALL UK roads, so your home is probably on now!

Ok, I take that back, looking at the official maps, I see that they're NOT building it at Curzon Street! In fact, as far as I make out, the site will be bulldozed - meaning any claims that the old station building will be given a "new lease of life" are just wrong!

At least it will be adjacent to Moor Street!

There were plans 15 years ago for the Heartlands station in Birmingham, this was going to be in the Washwood Heath area, New Street Station is such a restrictive site lengthening platforms would be almost impossible without some major city center demolition. Birmingham needs a new station to act as a hub for the future northward high speed routes and potentially for the much longer aspiration of a high speed route to the South West and South Wales

I think i posted something about Heartlands in another thread saying I'd found an article on it in an April Rail Magazine. I thought it was their April Fool but was assurred that it was a genuine plan.

It would seem ideal for a high Speed Station being planned as through station serving both the Strechford Aston Line and the Midland with a West to North link off the Midland.

Another advantage is that would give a quicker through route to W&SR and a station in Birmingham with good onward connectons add HS2 and it could be viable. Possibly served by either a shuttle from New Street or street trams from the city centre.

Not sure that a terminal station is the right thing for Brum.

The Germans built a new through station in Kassel on the High Speed line and bypassed the terminal Hbf station . It is served by street trams and Tram Trains running off the streets and onto the DB lines via a link at the Hbf. 

That is exactly the type of thinking we need to adopt, major hubs best placed for there HS purpose with good links for other rail, public and road transport

BBC Newsnight video report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8564283.stm):

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/8565865.stm):

From the Buckingham Advertiser (http://www.buckinghamshireadvertiser.co.uk/south-buckinghamshire-news/local-buckinghamshire-advertiser-news/2010/04/07/chorus-of-disapproval-at-rail-route-82398-26191799/):

NIMBY with some very large back yards where most of use measure back yards on square yards they use acres.

This will rumble on for a long time to come

Let me guess: this "sample" contains none of the responses in favour of the new line?


I thought the idea was for the rumble to whizz past as quickly as possible ;D

It really will not happen...nor is it necessary.  I believe things will change so much in the time it takes to get it through planning...the way people communicate and how/why people travel, it will just be abandonned...it's all short term politicing v reality...and those that could afford it will be working very much smarter...surely?  ???

From ThisIsLocalLondon (http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/8092677.Lord_Rothschild_opposes_train_plan/):

See told you the NIMBY measure they backyards in acres

This story is also in Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7094237.ece):

Is HS2 really needed though? Who is it going to benefit? London and Birmingham, even then it doesn't take you to the centres of the cities.

Perhaps the money would be far better spent nationwide.

I think the Rothschild's probably measure their back yard in square miles!

Fair comment: 5,700 acres is very nearly 9 square miles!  ::)

(See http://www.metric-conversions.org/area/acres-to-square-miles.htm for those, like me, who are mathematically challenged!  ;) )

Exactly

The route of High Speed 2 was featured on this weeksCountryfile (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s8h8m/Countryfile_25_04_2010/)

  Watched Countryfile yesterday, have some sympathy with the residents in the Cotswolds.
 
   I lived in rural Kent when the M25 was constructed quite a few years back.
   Surprised the 'impartial' BBC featured this, bearing in mind an election due.
   Perhaps the 'country gentry' still has some media influence.
 

Think you meant Chilterns, Henry.

The 'country gentry' featured a family who had moved out of London two years ago. Wonder where and how they get to work?

Initially, I thought the feature on Countryfile was unduly biased toward the NIMBYs, however there was a balanced response from a rail analyst. (Who wasn't Christian Wolmar - he must've been busy!)

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8694997.stm):

From the Witney Gazette (http://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news/8188397.MPs_join_forces_to_press_for_rail_link/):

The Mahwinney report today now rejects a Heathrow link until at least after HS2 reaches Manchester. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/heathrow-link-london-scotland-railway

Thanks for the link grandsire.  It'll be interesting to hear how the ConLib's react to that report given that it goes against the Tories HS ideas and conforms in a large part with Labour's oroginal ambitions!

High speed rail access to Heathrow: a report by Lord Mawhinney
 http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/lordmawhinneyreport/                                                                                             
"I recommend that serious consideration be given to making Old Oak Common the initial London terminal for the high speed line".

"I have concluded and recommend that, in the early stages of a high speed rail network, there is no compelling case for a direct high speed rail link to Heathrow, and that a London-Old Oak Common interchange".
 Thoughts.

Seems eminently sensible to me - access to Old Oak from Heathrow by rail is trivial and there's even a purpose-built depot for servicing and maintaining high-speed trains located nearby that's doing nothing much at the moment...

Thanks for your link to the actual report, woody: I've merged your topic with an existing one, where this is already being discussed.

C.  :)

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11028431):

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11155066):

An interesting 15-page article examining HS2 can be downloaded from the link below:

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/10/09-hs2-unwrapped-major-feature-now.html (http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/10/09-hs2-unwrapped-major-feature-now.html)

Y or S that is one question and the other what influence the Tory heartland of BucksOxonWar will have on the route

The final route (pending public enquiry) has been announced today in what must have been a very busy day for Philip Hammond!  Squeals of 'burying bad news in the snow' predictably made by opponents!

A few minor amendments to the structures on the original Adonis announced route, but nothing like what the opposers of the scheme were looking for - mind you it would be impossible to to please them without shelving the scheme.  http://stophs2.org/ (http://stophs2.org/)

The speech:  http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/12/hammond-statement-on-hs2.html (http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/12/hammond-statement-on-hs2.html)

The supporting documents:  http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/proposedroute/ (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/proposedroute/)

Interview with Philip Hammond at a chilly Willesden Juntion High Level:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8214840/Phil-Hammond-we-have-to-invest-in-Britains-railways.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8214840/Phil-Hammond-we-have-to-invest-in-Britains-railways.html)

Local newspaper article: http://www.uxbridgegazette.co.uk/west-london-news/local-uxbridge-news/2010/12/20/government-backs-high-speed-rail-line-through-ruislip-113046-27858228/ (http://www.uxbridgegazette.co.uk/west-london-news/local-uxbridge-news/2010/12/20/government-backs-high-speed-rail-line-through-ruislip-113046-27858228/)

Again, despite peddling alternative proposals when they were in opposition, the ConLib coalition find themselves sticking, in the most part, to what the Labour government announced.  Especially significant is dropping of the old Tory idea of a separate station for Heathrow Airport, with them now favouring a spur to Heathrow in phase 2 of the project when it's extended to Leeds/Manchester.  I actually can't see that happening anyway, as I think it won't provide value for money and the interchange onto Crossrail at Old Oak Common's station will be the best way to continue.  We'll only have to wait until I'm drawing my pension to find out if I'm right - he says still clinging on to his 30's!   ;)

Would've been nice if the DfT could've put all those documents into one or two .zip files. Or offered them on CD-Rom like the last lot were back in March. Gonna take me an age to download and collate......

I've been looking at a few of the maps, what they've done is labelled the changed areas with a few words of description. 

But one of the main docs I clicked on seemed to be a 123 Mb download,  :o  presumably that's to stop people with slow dial up connections in the Chiltern countryside finding out what's going on...  ::)

Paul

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12298708):

Funny how the government can easily commit itself to HS2 to "secure the Midlands' future for the next generation"  while Great Western still awaits a decision on basics like the extent of any future electrification.Some parts of the Great Western franchise are in danger of merely getting a like for like HST replacement rather than a real service upgrade like the the East and West Coast main lines have already received.                                                                                                                               
Sad really given the vast amounts of public money that gone to waste in recent times on our fractured and faulted rail structure something Sir Roy McNulty^s value for money review and the governments consultation on the future of rail franchising policy will no doubt tackle.

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12514335):

Some of these people in my opinion are idiots.  personally i think it is great that the governemnt are even planning to build a high speed domestic line in the uk.

It is need actually to take pressure off the west coast mainline and to provide additional capacity.

 This is also expected to provide a lot of job which is good

From the Oxford Mail (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/yourtown/oxford/8854713.High_speed_rail_through_Oxfordshire_could_revive_train_service_to_Milton_Keynes/):


The full Greenguage 21 report can be found here:

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/Capturing-the-benefits-update.pdf

East-West is mentioned on pages 20 & 21 of the the report.

If I remeber  from the plans they  were looking at running a service from Miltom keynes to Reading although if paths could be found how about running instead to swindon, Maybe if the Go-Co proposal comes off do a joint service with them or something

A franchised TOC cannot run a joint service with an open access operator.

The short history of Chiltern/WSMR 'co-operation' shows it is a minefield, there is ample evidence on the ORR website.

Paul

Has anyone noticed that the massive 123 Mb file (whatever it was) that was there on 20th December has disappeared?  I've emailed DfT asking what it was all about and where has it gone, but been fobbed off with a link to some 5 page summary or other.

I think it was a whole new updated report, but I never downloaded it...

Anyone got any ideas what was in it?

Paul

Is this still a goer? Has anyone heard anything recently?

http://www.goco.coop/train/

... current as at 20th January (verified by a member of the Goco team at a public meeting in Swindon). See http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=6509.75

A video news report, from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12588563):

I travelled to Milton Keynes and back on Friday (back roads not motorway) from Maidenhead.. I saw several signs on my journey indicating where the new train line would be crossing the roads I was on.. It did make me realise what an impact it would have locally...Although I do realise it won't literally cross over each road all the time...there will be bridges and tunnels (I hope)  :)

From RAILNEWS.co.uk (http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2011/03/30-new-group-is-launched-in.html):

good to hear that the yes to HS2 campaign are finally getting stuck in gainst some of these nimbies.

I am supporting this new line not only because i think it would bring a lot of benfits to the uk economy and will provide a lot of jobs but that it would mean greater capacity on the west coast mainline especially for freight which could mean more lorries being taken off the motorway network.

I am not too sure about charging people extra to travel on the new high speed line however as i think this may push some people to continue using the classinc routes.

That is my concern. If it's only a few pounds more like HS1 then fair enough as it will be a premium service but if it's too expensive that's not good.

Here's hoping that the TOC responsible for setting fares on HS2 don't make a complete hash of the fares structure like southeastern have done with HS1!!!

DfT insisted on the premium fares that Southeastern charge on HS1.

The exact percentage increases were defined in the franchise spec - and AFAICS no flexibility was allowed, eg Ebbsfleet to St Pancras was defined as normal fare plus 35%.  The north Kent line was defined as plus 30% of the part of the fare from Gravesend, and the other route was defined as plus 20% of the part of the fare from Ashford.  (So in effect the effective percentage rise for longer distances such as Margate was less, around 10% of the normal fare.

I just lifted this from DfT's HS2 FAQs:


And this was Villiers in a recent Westminster Hall debate:


Be interesting to see what pans out if it is ever built...

Paul

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-12947268):

There is a interesting article in the latest copy of Rail about High speed 1 which shows half the stuff these nimbbies are saying is rubbish.

 I am glad to see that Rail & Modern Railways are keeping up the fight for HS2 against some of these people. I do think that governments do need to grow a bit of a backbone  instead of backing down because they are too afraid to upset some voters.

RAIL magazine do give space for one of HS2 fiercest critics, transport journalist Christian Wolmar. His criticisms are however a bit more than just nimbyism.

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13081206):

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13848599):

Good of the BBC to cut a 30 page report down to a couple of sentences for us. 

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/transport/HSR%20503%20-%20Oxera%20Report%20-%20Review%20of%20the%20government's%20case%20for%20an%20HSR%20programme.pdf (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/transport/HSR%20503%20-%20Oxera%20Report%20-%20Review%20of%20the%20government's%20case%20for%20an%20HSR%20programme.pdf)

It is worth reading the whole thing - I thought it was fairly balanced, and certainly not as negative as some vested interests are suggesting...

Paul

The Latest News (http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2011/07/01/hornby-wins-contract-for-high-speed-rail-link/)

 ;D ;D ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeD8hyHbZBQ

(I couldn't find any reminders on this forum, apologies to those who are aware.)

http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/ (http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/)

The responses from the Nimby's are to be expected and should be treated appropriately. What worries me is whether HS2 is real value for money as currently proposed. It has been reported that a quarter of the construction costs would relate to the first 4 miles out of Euston. Why not start the line from the proposed West London station? It seems to be assumed that it needs to be at Euston to be close to HS1 at St. Pancras. Although there would be transfer traffic much would go to and come from all over the London area and most would have no interest in getting to and from Euston The west London terminal would be connected to Crossrail for just as easy access to the City. The benefits are said to be for the Midlands and eventually the North so what benefit would the Midlands get from those 4 miles? At a later date a more viable and less costly route further out to connect the two terminals might be found to be viable.

I'm sure I saw a proposal somewhere to divert all of the WCML slow services into Crossrail tunnels and thus free up the slow lines from Willesden Junction for use by HS2 into Euston. Thus in a stroke finding something useful to do with the Crossrail 16 TPH terminating at Paddington and saving ^4Bn from the HS2 price tag.
There's probably a catch...

good idea in theory, but there is always a BUT.

I did read a report published a year or so ago which proposed it, i will have a look for it though.

That said there is a lot of oppostition to runing HSW into Euston which i sure i read somewhere before would mean the end of London Overground services into Euston to free up some platforms.

Wouldnt i be cheaper to build a station at old oak common which would have a interchange station with crossrail so that there is easy acess to Heathrow, Reading, London Paddington, Central London & the City?

It's discussed in a fair amount of detail in the final version of the London and SE 2nd generation RUS.

...and we were discussing it only a couple of days ago in the 'Crossrail' thread towards the bottom of the page here:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=818.60

There's a link to the RUS in that thread so I won't repeat it...

Paul

The government have already committed to an HS2 station at Old Oak Common, with interchange platforms on the GWML for access to Heathrow.  This was part of their announcement prior to the recently closed consultation. 

The only continuing debate is really about a Crosssrail interchange, and potential LO NLL or WLL interchanges.

The works described at Euston do not include removing LO services at all, not even temporarily AIUI, and I've been through all the papers about HS2 on the DfT's website.

Paul 

Just been watching a few youtube videos of pete waterman campaigning for HS2 and arguing with Mr christian wolmar over it.

The problem I have is the effect on Wolverhampton and Coventry etc. The service is likely to be slowed down or reduced in frequency. For the former, a change in birmingham will result in no journey time saving. For the latter, no alternative.

I think high speed tracks should stop at rugby so the existing service can be maintained but with faster journey times and higher frequencies.

I see no reason why the service provided on the classic route after HS2 need be any slower than before.  Perhaps not as frequent at that speed to allow a better service for more places.

If you insist that HS2 has to stop every 30 miles it will no longer be high speed!

Lets hope there isn't a Eurostar style check-in process or it will be quicker to use the WCML.

Why on earth should there be?

Umm, because most pax travelling from London to Bham will be on HS2, so there won't be the demand for 3 11 car trains per hour. They are bound to either axe this to 1 or 2, or to make all trains stop at Rugby, Milton Keynes and Watford. This will add about 15 mins to the journey time. So Coventry to Euston will be 1 hr 15 instead of 1 hr. Wolverhampton to Euston will be 1 hr 45 on classic or 1 hr 30 on HS2. (which is what they have now, without changing!)

As well as this, direct trains from Milton Keynes to Manchester, Crewe etc. are also likely to be slowed down, as well as commuter trains to Trent Valley stations. A HSL from London to Rugby would allow all flows to retain existing calling patterns, but with faster journey times and still freeing up the WCML fasts.

Ummm - I think they'll do both, for the reason you gave. They'll be looking to fill what trains they run, but I don't think 1 tph will be the right service for Coventry / Rugby - so 2tph, along with the extra stops you listed....

Also, the fares will drop as they're no longer the Premier service to Birmingham, which in turn will attract some that currently use Chiltern as they're 50% of Virgin's fare. THe domino effect will likely mean changes at Chiltern too, as three competing services from Brum are either going to introduce some cut-throat marketing, or a reduction in services, or both.

It'll be four competing services if the franchise map stays the same.

Chiltern
West Coast
London Midland
HS2

No wonder Chiltern are extending to Oxford. I suspect they'll remain committed to Kidderminster to try and keep as many people on "direct" trains. I don't think there is enough demand for 4 TOCs to compete!

If Chris B is correct, then Coventry will lose out big time, it'll be cheaper and less crowded.

Only by a max of 15 mins I reckon - and thats to Lindon.

Of course, other extra stops will open up other opportunities too - Lonfon Midland might lose 1tph or have different stopping patterns, so Virgin might pick up the Northamoton stop, for example, thus improving services there. We'll have to wait & see - but the RUS is quite clear that all the 3 current operators will have service frequency & stopping patterns reviewed once HS2 is up & running

Lindon, Colorado or Lindon, Middle Earth?  :P ;) ;D

Ho, ho....it aint easy on an iphone in a moving train...

You're on a moving train? More fortunate than some today.  ;) ;D

An article in today's Sunday Times suggests that Maria Eagle, the Shadow Transport Secretary, will announce a new preferred route for High Speed Two tomorrow, with a station near Heathrow and a route paralleling the M40 and Chiltern Lines with a Chiltern tunnel bypassing High Wycombe.

I think you need to say tgat you lifted this directly from ukr newsgroup, rarher than from the Sunday Times?

I posted it on ukr newsgroup, still using my old username!  :D :D

Why? It appears that it was the same person who started the thread over at uk.railway. What's so wrong with cutting and pasting the same text?

'appears' being the operative word....

Thanks Chafford1 for confirmation. Be intresting to see where this goes - possible that DfT about to make some announcement & Labour jumped gun to take credit

Reading this article is rather depressing. I had hoped that the previous cross-party consensus on the route would hold. As it is, a revised route is likely to delay the project if there's a change in Government and even increase the chances of the whole thing being shelved.

That's weird. When Labour proposed the current route, it was the Tories that suggested going via Heathrow.

Now the other way round? ???

Just build the damn thing!

And make sure it travels via Worcester. And that the trains run non-stop from there to London whilst avoiding damaging any Cotswolds scenery... ;)

You've forgotten a stop at the vast metropolis that is Charlbury! A parkway station with 4000 spaces should suffice... :P :P

Unfortunately as often happens the Adonis asked the wrong question and therefore got the wrong answer.  I still hope that someone spots this before spending too much money.

The West Midlands are irrelevant in journey time saving and therefore will not generate sufficient additional revenue to pay even a sensible proportion of the cost.  A route parallel to the M1 with stops at E Mids and Sheffield with extensions to Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle would be more sensible.  Scotland could be added eventually.  Sheffield is a huge catchment with historically poor train links to London (they only got 2 tph recently).  This would generate far more revenue and Bham is now well served with 3 operators and good journeys.

The M1 route avoids the Chilterns.  Heathrow is also a distraction - links to the GW mainline with services on Crossrail will do most of what is needed.  Replacing internal flights is not needed - GNER killed off London-Leeds and Virgin have almost eliminated London-Manchester.  This HS2 would do the same for Newcastle and Edinburgh/Glasgow.  Anyway "Boris Island" is probably a much better long term solution.

It is a pity that the cheerleaders for HS2 cannot spot any of this!

HS2 isn't, and never was, about time savings to the West Midlands, it is about providing increased capacity for both long distance and regional services, with the route to Birmingham being intended, from the outset, to be the first phase a of Y shaped network serving the places you mention. This is abundantly clear from the proposals...

 
So why go there - the Manchester traffic can go on HS2 freeing capcity for W Mids.  I know what the proposals say but it doesnt make them right!

I'm not convinced you've read the proposals properly... most of the trains won't go to Birmingham at all they will bypass it and head north, initially following the existing lines then moving to dedicated high speed lines once the full Y network is built. But by serving Birmingham as well it will enable currrent fast services to divert to the high speed line, thereby freeing up a lot of capacity on the most congested section of the west coast main line. While there is no doubt some scope to move the route around a bit, the current proposals maximise the number of fast trains diverted from the existing tracks, thereby maximising the capacity that can be freed up for other services.

The map is below....

(http://www.hughendenresidents.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/HS2-Labour.jpg)

According to the Sunday Telegraph, the transport select committee is going to recommend that HS2 should start in the north, leaving the southern section until later. I hope this isn't true, as if so it would demonstrate a worrying failure by the committee to grasp that the whole point of HS2 is to provide increased capacity, and that capacity is most urgently needed on the southern section. Building a northern HS2 in isolation wouldn't have any business case at all.

May be the Select Committee are interested in the politics of perhaps protecting their own seat in Parliament those in the proposed route because of loss of votes due to the NIMBY's those in the north because building it there would generate jobs show investment hence possibly earn them votes.  We have to remember the MP's start looking to the next election in 2012 so will be unwilling to do anything that might upset the voters and will do anything to please the voters.

Besides since when have MPs grasped anything that is common sense

From The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8872413/HS2-rail-link-should-start-in-north-of-England-say-MPs.html):

If they want to boost regeneration in the north then new stock for local services, regeneration of stations and extra track at congested sections of line will be far more useful and cheaper than HS2.

All major towns and cities in England outside the South East have 125mph trains to and from London.  On the other hand XC services are slow, so how about a new high speed link between somewhere like Blackpool and somewhere like Newquay via Manchester, Birmingham and Bristol?

Norwich? Northampton? Shrewsbury? And if were talking outside the South East rather than outside the (former NSE) Network area then there are numerous places in the south that do not have 125mph trains to and from London. Portsmouth, Southampton, Salisbury.

And whilst the rest may have 125mph capable trains, on many lines or for large parts of the journey that speed is never achieved.

What's going to happen to all these extra HS trains from Manchester and Leeds once they slam into Birmingham? :o

No capacity. In fact, congestion will get WORSE, as they'll still need to be trains from Liverpool, Stoke, Wimslow travelling on the Classic WCML.

Indeed, such a  proposal would be absurd, for this and lots of other reasons. I hope that the select committee aren't in fact about to produce such a recommendation and suspect that this is the Telegraph furthering its anti HS2 agenda by leaking a minority view in the committee. If however this is what the committee recommend in their final report then it is a rather damning indictment upon their understanding of the issues, and will seriously damage their credibility.

Outsource the whole lot, construction, operation, maintenance to RFF / SNCF and get the Assembl^e Nationale and Senate to legislate accordingly. We might actually get it constructed then.

Interesting idea RailCornwall. the trouble is you'd get a junction station for Glasgow and Edinburgh somewhere near Meridan and if you are  lucky intermediate stations somewhere between Warrington and Manchester on the Glasgow branch and on the Edinburgh branch somewhere between Leeds and York although both are not far in LGV terms from Meridan, and maybe somewhere near Newcastle.

the trouble is our major population centres are too close together in LGV terms.

Don't know how many juctions you'd get with traditional lines as LGV junctions tend to cover vast acres of land to minimise the curvature not sure we'ed have room .

Look at Amiens fought hard to get LGV Nord, misses it by miles.

Which is why I'm not sure HS2 is the answer, or if so to what is it the answer?

OK all major towns may be an exaggeration but the point about faster trains/routes being needed for XC type journeys is still valid.

If this new line is all about capacity, I would have thought that a new frieght line would be the way to go.  It would be cheaper (cos lower speed), less environmentally damaging (cos doesn;t need to be so straight or plough into city centers) and could be built to a continental loading guage.  Passenger capacity (and perhaps speed to an extent) could be increased on the existing lines with their already-built city centre stations.

No, a freight line wouldn't release anything like the same capacity, for two reasons: first, there aren't as many freight trains on the WCML as fast trains that will divert to HS2, secondly, the mix of speeds between fast and semi-fast services uses far more capacity than is used when trains are all travelling at similar speeds with similar stopping patterns. 

I don't dispute that there are valid concerns about HS2, but none of the alternatives proposed offer anything like as much additional capacity for both long distance and regional services.

Not surprisingly, the Telegraph's prediction about the Transport Committee report was largely wide of the mark:

"There is a good case for a high speed rail network, linking London and the major cities of the Midlands, the North and Scotland says the Commons Transport Committee. "

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/news/hsr---substantive/

However, the report still includes the bizarre recommendation "A full assessment of the case for building from north to south should be carried out as a priority". When the chair of the committee was interviewed on the Today programme she agreed fully that all the capacit benefits are on the London to Birmingham section, so I suspect it only represents a minority opinion. There really isn't much to do a full assessment on: the capacity is needed in the south, so that's where you start building!

They also say "Claims that HS2 would deliver substantial carbon-reduction benefits do not stand up to scrutiny", which is a bit of a straw man, as the HS2 scheme documents are very clear that carbon savings are small, and largely dependent upon the extent to which the electricity supply is decarbonised.

They also question cost benefit analysis based on value of time, which has certainly become controversial, however it is still the standard method used in transport appraisal and it would not be reasonable for high speed rail to be treated differently from other transport schemes in that respect, simply because it suits the HS2 opponents.
Nonetheless, the campaigners have seized on it to conclude that the report destroys the business case, so it appears the report has something for everyone in it.  ::)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15619461

The HoC Select Committee proceedings have shaken my support for HS2. The promoters seemed just lobbies for the consultants, contractors, interest groups and regional chambers of trade with a lot to gain. Only NR came near to convincing me but the reasonable alternatives weren't given and  some answers were just wrong, such as no intermediate stations being possible (never heard of platform loops or high speed turnouts).

If long distance capacity is the issue (i.e to Rugby, in stage 1) then the old Great Central route is the answer. Well engineered, older main lines (such as the GW and LNW/WC) were mostly laid out for speed and with a small fraction of the ?32Bn quoted could have long stretches raised to LGV speeds. What they can't have is mixed traffic operation so HSx in the UK really requires new slow/relief lines to allow full segregation. The argument against this majored on tunnelling (the fast lines) under existing towns, really to allow all the platform roads to be used by non-TGV and stopping trains, unnecessary if this traffic were to be diverted.

I suspect that in the end the big scheme capital costs will be too much for a weakish economy like the UK and after years of dreaming (and borrowing), we'll have to live within our means again.

Thoughts?

OTC

It isn't that these aren't possible, it is that they greatly increase the cost: to prevent trains that stop from getting in the way of the through trains they'd have to separated miles before, so you are talking about long sections of 4 track high speed line, not just platform loops.

I'm pretty sure I've seen  discussion of this in the detailed HS2 scheme documents.

On what basis do you think this could be done for a small fraction of the cost of HS2? Apart from the fact that the alignments simply aren't straight enough for LGV speeds, it would require far more work in built up areas and the cost of disruption to existing services. The old GC of course doesn't provide a complete route from London to Birmingham or the WCML anyway, but HS2 does follow some of its alignment; it can't use the exact route because it isn't straight enough for high speed.

HS2 is effectively like adding an additional pair of tracks onto the WCML, nothing short of that would provide the same capacity improvement. But building on a new alignment means built up areas and disruption to existing services can be avoided. And if you are building a new route, then the cost estimates were that you only save 10% of the costs by building a conventional speed line instead, but lose a third of the benefits that high speed offers.  And that's because, irrespective of the arguments currently going on about the appraisal of time savings, shorter journey times make rail more competitive with other modes and attract more people paying more fares, so any proposed alternative that doesn't offer high speed is never going to raise as much fare revenue to pay back the construction costs.

One of teh things that has puzzled me is that HST2 is predicated on London to Birmingham, and North.

What happens to Rugby to Birmingham, it seems to me that even if HS2 takes the London trains there is still a need for extra capacity for local traffic on this line.

 Things like Leamington Nuneaton service via Kenilworth, Coventry and Bedworth which has been posted on Coffee Shop and presumably as DaFT loves competition a cheaper LM type semifast London Service. 

Are there any plans for 4 tracking stretches etc?

mjones - thanks for your reply and comments.

1. There were 125mph points at Hambleton Jns on the ECML. It's true they do need long leads and braking space - about 2000m, plus a 400m platform to TENs standards. TGV's can take off - reaching 125mph in less than 3 minutes, if published evidence is to be believed. Hopefully, HS2 would have more than 2 tracks, anyway. HSx's can't run mixed traffic for many reasons - specification, maintenance, pathing, signalling etc.

2. As a rule of thumb, 50% of main lines are straight enough for high speed (say 186mph), about 50% of the rest are upgradable and so only about 1/4 actually need new route, probably less when cost/benefit is taken into account. The down side may be some disruption as curves are eased, the up side is importantly, quicker realisation of benefits, without the fights and controversy.

3. The Great Central line reinstatement would be for freight and would not need high speeds (its quite good already). I'm not sure that the WCML case study by NR allowed for this.

4. Does anyone think that HS3 paralleling our GWML is necessary?

Regards,

OTC

I'm not saying your figures are inaccurate necessarily, but where have you got your rules of thumb from?  I would suggest that in a lot of areas where curves would not have to be eased there would still need to be significant costs on providing suitable infrastructure (more of a cant in the track for example), which would mean practically the whole route would still have to be relaid.  What about tunnels?  The existing tunnels would not be able to take trains at that speed, and so if you have to decelerate and accelerate for each and every tunnel then you'd lose so much time over a purpose built route.

Also, how would having 2-tracks of High Speed line work on a 4-track railway such as Paddington to Didcot?  Clearly you wouldn't want High Speed services passing conventional platforms such as Tilehurst and Goring at 186mph, so would those platforms have to be removed?

Personally, I don't think upgrading the GWML for 186mph is practical or affordable (like I don't think a HS3 route to the south west from London would be either).  I do think that 140mph running with IEP's and cab signalling, and targeted infrastructure improvements such as remodelling Wootten Basset junction for much faster speeds could achieve some good time savings, but for a fraction of the cost.

Except to employ 000s of unemployed Northerners....

The "rule of thumb" came from a magazine interview with, I believe, Armitt. His speeches, when you can find them are really informative, concise but with essential figures and technical detail. The idea is not contentious and can be partly checked from published information, such as the speed map in the WCMLRUS (p23?). The dfT's case for high speed rail touches on this also on p58. There was also something called "Rail Package 2" or RP2. This was mainly to do with extra tracks and so was expensive in towns. That's why relaying the GCML is attractive. You are right of course about the formation, track etc., all high speed needs this.

I like the East Coast approach (they did copy Swindon for loco valve gear), where each new technology leapfrogged the old allowing incremental improvements each time something was renewed. it only got stuck at 125mph because of signalling for 140mph....

Now if SNCF wanted to cascade their PSE TGV's.

Regards,

OTC

Is there still a lower limit through Box Tunnel?  I remember reading somewhere that when HSTs were first they either had to run or reduced speed or not pass in the tunnel for fear of blowing the carriage windows in.

It will predominantly be 2 track, which is why a mix of stopping and through trains would adversely affect capacity. A business case would have to be made that the additional costs of building 4 track to faciliate intermediate stops would be justified by the additional passenger revenue from those stops, which seems highly unlikely given the lack of large centres of population on the proposed route.


The minimum turning radius for 300 kmh is 4km, compared with under 2km for 200kmh; and bear in mind that tilting isn't used for high speed. So even if 50% of the existing main lines is straight enough, you can't simply 'ease' a few curves on the other 50%: the high speed sections all have to connect up via curves of at least 4km radius, so sticking to the existing alignment is pretty well impossible, and when you then have to avoid built up areas, sensitive habitats etc you will find that actually you'd have to build long sections of completely new routes, which aren't necessarily going to connect easily back to the existing corridor. If it were straightforward to fit a HSR route onto a conventional speed rail corridor then they'd have followed much more of the GCR trackbed.


But creating a new, separate, freight route doesn't create anything like as much new capacity in comparison with a new passenger route, but is still very expensive. You seem to be arguing that a huge amount of money should be spent trying to upgrade the existing line for passengers, which still doesn't create as much capacity as a new line, while also wanting to build a new line, but for freight, which offers much lower benefits. Why not spend the money on a new passenger line, thereby maximising the capacity improvements?

While I agree of course with your general drift, it remains true that intermediate stations are  both provided and used on high speed lines. The 70 or so miles of HS1 have platforms at Stratford, Ebbsfleet and Ashford, although they're not all used as planned. The PSE station at Le Creusot Montceau-les-Mines while not welcomed by SNCF now attracts nearly 1M users each year. Generally they have platform loops. The MP for MK (Mark Lancaster?) raised with the Chancellor yesterday the prospect of a Bucks Parkway where the Oxford Bletchley route now to be re-opened crosses HS2.

I have an an ex-BR map that shows a continuation of the Selby avoiding line to just past York, giving a continuous Doncaster-Darlington high speed section. The WCML also has its fast stretches and connecting curves of 4km (I think the norm is 5km or 2.5km at a pinch) are not out of the question. The capacity released by diverting freight is multiplied because being slower, it generates more paths for faster services.

HS2 is of course the ideal - I just think that we will eventually discover we can't afford it.

Regards,

OTC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16017413

Delays until Jan...

Usual alarmist stuff I see.  "We've got 270 acres here to farm and we won't be able to get to it..."

Do the BBC ever bother trying to substantiate any of this rubbish, or do they just print whatever they get told by people with an axe to grind...  Ever since the first railways were built accomodation bridges have been provided as necessary - indeed the same applies to motorways etc.  Why ever wouldn't this policy continue?

Paul

Sadly "people who don't have an axe to grind" don't make interesting news (or so it seems in the media's eyes) and often get ignored!

What do people think? I think the line will be given the go ahead. The Chesham and Amersham MP has been very quiet on the matter of the tunnel! I think it's a shame as they'll be less of a view onboard. I don't buy the argument that rail lines scar the landscape (living near one myself - albeit, unelectrified)

If it does happen, I expect they'll be Newbury Bypass scale opposition when trees start getting axed. This could drive up the costs...

To be honest, I think we need it, it will have eased overcrowding for all Northern Home Counties when it gets to Leeds.

When do we hear? Is it early Jan?

I'd be surprised if there is much Newbury type direct action. The environmental campaign groups are split on this, and the direct action groups seem to have moved to other issues since the high profile campaigns of the late 1990s. Will be interesting to see what the Government decides. There isn't much support within the Conservative party, on the other hand they known fully well that if they don't go ahead with this then they will have to come up with some alternative ways to deal with the capacity problems on the WCML, which also affect Tory voters. Labour hasn't helped by throwing in the 'go via Heathrow' red-herring, thereby rejecting the results of all the detailed studies they commissioned while in government...

Edit Note:

As we had at least five different topics on this forum, on two different boards, all covering various aspects of the ongoing HS2 debate, I've now merged them all here - purely for continuity and completeness.

At this stage, I've preserved the original heading in each post, so the context of the original post can be taken into account.  However, on reading through this now combined 'definitive' topic, I'm fairly sure that it actually stands up in its own right.

If anyone has any concerns or questions over this 'editorial policy', however, please do let me know!

Regards, Chris.

From the Coventry Telegraph (http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2011/12/31/hs2-could-revolutionise-travel-for-coventry-and-warwickshire-92746-30036038/):

I am still siting on the fence over HS2 whilst in general terms I would love to see High Speed Rail in GB, I keep coming up against geography.

It seems to me we are too small an island to justify LGV. Ideally it seems stations should be say roughly 100 miles apart to justify having to stop and accelerate.

Now Using my Road Atlas I get

London Birmingham 106 (ideal)

West Coast                                                      East Coast

Birmingham Manchester 78 (just?)                     Birmingham Leeds 109 (ideal)
Manchester Carlise 115 (ideal)                           Leeds Newcastle 96 (OK)
Carlise Glasgow 95 (OK)                                    Newcastle Edinburgh 104 (ideal)

However we've already seen Milton Keynes wants a station.

On the West Coast what about Preston? Plus Warrington and Wigan
On the East coast there's Derby Nottingham Sheffield who would probably like a station and York is not going to be too pleased not having a station.

So we really need stations every 50 miles, except perhaps in Scotland, this will increase journey times and lessen the benefits of HS2.

Unless these places are to be served by spurs on and off HS2 which will mean large flying or burrowing junctions, which are presumably fairly expensive.

Also is Euston really the right station I still the idea of through station under Euston Road between Euston and Kings Cross with a link to HS1 if we could sort out proper border controls., or become less paranoid about our borders.

Unfortunately having knocked HS2 I realy can't see an alternative to HS2 for the WCML particulay South of Birmingham. Obviously 4 tracking from Birmingham to Rugby would help as would possibly extending the 4 tracks South from Rugby to Roade, but that would then put 6 tracks into 4 Southwards.  

I am also worried that  spending a lot of moneyy on this one project will mean that cheaper schemes to ease capactiy problems on other lines will be shelved. It would be interesting to compare the costs per potential passenger of reopening to say Portishead with HS2. Just a simple division of the estimate cost by estimated number of passengers per year would give an idea.

So here's the challenge can anyone convince me one way or the other?

WCML overloaded. Upgrading is not good value for money, so build new. If building new, might as well push the boat out.
The French have one (several).

If HS2 is to work then some people are going to have to learn that better journey times on classic rail and connecting into HS2 is better than no HS2.  As youy say it can't stop everywhere so some people are going to be disappointed.  But they will get better classic rail services which should still be an improvement. 


One of the main lessons learnt from WCML route upgrade was that working in a live railway is phenominally expensive.  If HS2 is not built then the sort of schemes you mention will be tried and it will cost a huge amount of money for less gain. O and it will bring the WCML to a stop again for years while they do it.

The result would be a view that the rail industry is not value for money again.  And no further investment for Portishead or anything else. 

... and, interestingly, one of the results of my 'merging' of these topics is that I was reminded of some posts on this subject from a couple of years ago - which discuss exactly the same concerns: see http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=5138.msg47808#msg47808 for example.  ;)

Thanks for bringing Japan into the equation. i remeber going to atalk on Japenese railways at one of my clubs and one of the things we saw on avideo was a non stop train passing a stopped train stopped in the station.

But it was within 2 minutes of the first train stopping could we run to that precision?

I agree that any intermediate staions on HS2 need to be 4 track as on the LGVs in France.

Also agree with ellendune that connections into HS2 will be vital, and take the point of cost and disruption of upgrading  a classic line.

A similar point was also made by Not from Brighton. I like their idea that if we are going to build HS2 lets do it properly "puh the boat out" and not try and get it on the cheap.

So For HS2 2 points, against 0. 

I think the Coventry Telegraph has got its Millions and Billions mixed up. If only HS2 could be built for ^32Million!

It is now highly likely that HS2 will be given the go ahead. A damming report by Network Rail has slammed campaigners who have suggested modernising the WCML. They say it is not good enough and will cause years of disruption. Horrified objectors woke up to the news this morning; after a long struggle, they now face the arrival of bulldozers in 5 years time.

I have to say, the stopHS2 did not help themselves by spreading LIES:

*HS2 won't benefit x [x= a town on a current railway, e.g. Lichfield, that would be relived by HS2 - LIE]
*B'ham Curzon Street is 15 minutes away from the centre [Blatantly haven't been to B'ham before - it's a 3 minute walk to New Street and a 30 SECOND walk to the Bull Ring/Moor Street station - LIE]
*Modernising the WCML will solve the problems - LIE what about commuters from Peterborough, Bedford and Milton Keynes south?
*Peak time trains from Euston are half empty - biggest LIE of them all - the campaigners blatantly don't travel by train - says a lot!
*First Class carriages are empty - not in the peaks there not, and what about the lost revenue when they're axed? - LIE

If you spread lies, you lose. Just look at the Yes2AV campaign. The British public are not stupid.

There are some very good common sense reasons why NR knows (and yes it is know and not think) improving / adding capacity to the existing routes will not work, NR came about in part because of the over running time and accelerating cost of WCML upgrade.  Upgrading the existing routes would also draw investment away from the rest of the National Network.

NR are not going to be the owners of HS2 they are keen to be infrastructure maintainer and operator like they are with HS1

This has seemed to me to have been an own goal by the DfT.  

It was always quite clear from their own drawings that the entrance to the new HS2 station will be adjacent to Moor St station, indeed extending over the road. (Queensway?)  Mentioning Curzon St at all seems to have been a sop to those who think that the old station building there ought to be still in use...

Some documents also refer to the location as Fazely St - also irrelevant. As far as passenger accessibility is concerned, the station is at Moor St.

Paul    

Personally, I think if we need a new line it ought to be a 80 to 100 mph freight line to a huge loading gauge suitable for piggy-back lorries.  Cheaper to build than HS and less environmentally damaging (cos it can go round bends reducing the need for tunnels) and would free up capacity on Both the passenger railway and the Motorways.  Speeds on existing routes (which already go to and from were people live and work)  could be edged up to 140 150 mph were possible by getting rid of slow frieght and incremental improvements.   

The HS2 Brum station has to be seen as an interchange point, Curzon St is well place for access to other routes better to have a shuttle service to the center of Brum and other West Midlands destinations

While there is a lot of freight in the UK I am not sure there is sufficient to warrant a dedicated freight only line, move the most perishable commodity, people, onto its own dedicated route which will free up capacity for the 80 / 100 mph freight to path in with traffic on the classic routes

Again, this is covered in the original studies...

A new conventional speed doesn't save that much money- only 10% cheaper is the figure quoted in the studies. Maybe a slower freight line, which wouldn't need stations etc would be a bit cheaper still, but the key point is that it wouldn't provide anything like as much additional capacity, and still leaves fast trains conflicting with stopping trains on the existing lines. So you save a bit of money up front, but you get vastly less capacity, and by not offering significantly improved journey times you attract vastly fewer new passengers, so get vastly less revenue. All of which make the business case far worse than building a new high speed line.

You seem to be describing what you want to happen, I'm describing what the published plan is.  A rail shuttle service isn't mentioned anywhere, and the new station is for HS2 services only - and passengers willl enter and leave nowhere near Curzon St, so it is a misleading name...

Paul

They should re-brand the station as Moor Street - it could be the same complex in the end. Then build the Bordersley curves and Platform 4 at Snow Hill and get Nottingham, Cardiff, Tamworth, Leicester and Peterborough train in there too. Then it can have even better connections than the Snow Hill lines.

A new freight line would not help anyone. How many fright trains run at rush hour? We need passenger capacity now on the WCML, MML and ECML. HS2 delivers this. Each express removed from these lines can be replaced by a semi fast 12 car congestion buster special with hundreds of seats! They would go to Northampton, Derby and Peterborough.

Another LIE in the Guardian today - someone from Stop HS2 claiming it doesn't connect to HS1 unless you walk along Euston Road. Umm, what about the track connection - LIE? Why do they publish so much rubbish? Another person compared HS2 to the 3rd runway at Heathrow, saying it'll get axed. Umm, the Tories were always going to axe the 3rd runway - it was nothing to do with the local campaign!

I've just been reading the comments on the BBC news website article, and it is depressing to see just how few people seem to understand what is actually proposed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16453869

A typical argument is "^30 billion just to save 20 minutes to Birmingham? But who wants to go to Birmingham anyway!!!".  Or variants of the slightly more constructive "Why not spend the money on the existing network?"  Deliberate misrepresentation by the NIMBYs aside, there has clearly been a failure by supporters of HS2 to get the message out that it is first and foremost about providing new capacity, by enabling fast trains to bypass the most congested lines, and that this will bring benefits for the whole WCML from "Day 1". As long as people continue to see it as only an expensive express train to Birmingham then it will never gain widespread support.

It's because it is reported to make it seem it is just for Birmingham:

"The line runs from London to Birmingham and will save... blah blah...."

When it should be reported as:

"The first phase will cut 30 minutes off journey times to the West Midlands and North West. The new track will run from London to Lichfield, just north of Birmingham, with a brach to the City CENTRE".

The bit to Lichfield is always overlooked. At least the Daily Mail highlighted all the journey savings (i.e. those in Scotland).

Another misleading LIE on BBC Midlands Today - they implied the 32 Billion was for phase 1 in the headlines. Only giving the correct details in the main piece. Of course by then, people will have tut tutted - too late.

^16bn is OK for Crossrail as it will benefit London.  But HS2 benefits the provinces so ^17bn to Birmingham is clearly excessive!

The line has been given the go-ahead, with more mitigations:

*A longer, continuous tunnel from Little Missenden to the M25 through the Chilterns;
*A new 3m bored tunnel along the Northolt Corridor to entirely avoid major works to the Chilterns Line and impacts on local communities in the Ruislip area;
*A longer green tunnel past Chipping Warden and Aston Le Walls, and to curve the route to avoid a cluster of important heritage sites around Edgcote; and
*A longer green tunnel to significantly reduce impacts around Wendover, and an extension to the green tunnel at South Heath.

Not that the NIMBY's will be placated by that one iota.  Still, another hurdle in the race overcome - though plenty still lie in wait...

I think this was mostly tunnel anyway, just a 2km section above ground.  I can't see why anyone wanted this section covered - perhaps it spoilt the view from the A413 dual carriage way along side it?  Perhaps it was preferable from an engineering perspective and good for PR too even if slightly more expensive...?

One would hope this curve is very slight and doesn't reduce the 400km/h line speed there.

Very good news though.

I'm glad they're not eating up land in the Northolt Corridor, as it will enable Chiltern to fully 4 track it in the years ahead.

Here's a rather long article about it being given the green light! BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16478954)

Interesting Institute of Directors press release here. (http://press.iod.com/2012/01/10/directors-still-need-convincing-on-hs2/)

It claims that IoD members are unsure on whether HS2 provides good value for money, and in every UK region, IoD members think that improvements to existing intercity services are more important to their business.

I cannot believe the BBC are still saying it is a 15 minute walk from Moor Street (where HS2 terminates) to New Street. It takes THREE minutes - you can see one from the other. ::) I'd expect this kind of sloppy thing from newspapers or StopHS2, but not the BBC that have major offices there (i.e. should know where Moor Street is!)

Just watched the debate in the Commons, there is clear major support. Lots of banter about the Welsh secretary having her constiuency being put in a tunnel! ;D :P

Interestingly, the Chiltern's mega tunnel will save ^millions. ???

Shame no-one pressed for a link at Burton on Trent, so EMT and XC (?) services could be diverted (using CC stock) from day 1.

Quote from the Telegraph

"The decision to include a direct link between the existing high speed line from London to the Channel Tunnel and the new route up to Birmingham was the biggest surprise in the announcement by Justine Greening, the Transport Secretary."

Oh dear... ::)

Walkit.com suggest 5 mins fast, 7 mins medium, 11 mins slow. Minimum interchange time 15 mins.

Oh, and where are the BBC saying this? A link would be helpful....

From the Shropshire Star (http://www.shropshirestar.com/blogs/daily-blog/2012/01/10/leader-new-rail-link-is-bad-news-for-shropshire/):

Journalist research fail. Or deliberate misinformation to suit the story.

You decide.

A bit of both probably. The complaint that people from Shropshire will have to change trains is also made in the dubious analysis of the Taxpayers' Alliance, conveniently forgetting that they already have to change trains.

Although I realise that no construction will occur for at least a couple of years (or thereabouts) I am extremely pleased that the Government have given HS2 the go-ahead. I have read through the arguments, both for and against, and concluded that many of them are just plain wrong.
For what its worth my support for HS2, and high speed rail in general, is based on the following:
Recent history tells us that humankind will have a continuing wish/need to travel (in large numbers) regardless of how much high speed, high quality telecommunications infrastructure is made available.
Whether people like it or not easy-to-get-at oil is running out and the price will continue to rise. This will make medium & long distance travel/transport in private/commercial vehicles powered by the internal combustion engine increasingly unaffordable. I do not believe that biofuels and/or electric vehicles are a solution.
In very simple terms this will result in a requirement for much more capacity on the existing rail network than can possibly be provided without moving large numbers of passengers on to brand new lines.   

I decide "Journalistic research fail".  With all the misinformation around there seems to be no concept that clearing the WCML of express trains will leave room perhaps for semi-fasts from places like Shropshire. 

Such a shoddy story from that paper. It is perfectly possible (as set out in Greenguage's report) that current Euston - Wolverhampton trains will get extended to Shrewsbury every hour or so. As for terminating on the Eastern edge - disgraceful.

If you take the 7 minute medium walking speed figure, the BBC have still more than doubled the required time. A figure of 5-10 minutes should be given. Preferably 5 (as it only takes 3). I have got off one train and got on another within 5 minutes without rushing plenty of time before.

I'm also sick of hearing about all the cities that are bypassed - no mention that some these places (e.g. Nuneaton) will get more faster and more frequent services on the WCML.

I reckon the Construction start date is at least 4 years away, because introduction of the Hybrid Bill is not planned until Dec 2013, and that is the last phase 1 milestone in the newly published timetable.  (ie a construction start date is not yet mentioned.)

I'm sure the Hybrid Bill procedure takes at least a year or two to go through both houses following introduction.  I'm trying to work out how long Crossrail took (I see wiki reckons Dec 2005 - July 2008).  I think there are all sorts of hearings and debates over a reasonably long period - that's when objections etc are supposed to be heard. 

I see in the papers the current objectors are briefing about their intention to defeat the DfT in the courts over the coming months - they really have got the bit between their teeth...

Paul 

One or two replies to the article (posted upthread by Chris from Nailsea (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=5138.msg105119#msg105119)) have debunked the misinformation regarding HS2's main Birmingham station. Nice to see the Shropshire Star (http://www.shropshirestar.com/blogs/daily-blog/2012/01/10/leader-new-rail-link-is-bad-news-for-shropshire/) printing those replies. There's one from a Justin McAree that I was worried had failed the 'right to reply' moderation. Took 'em a while to allow it.....   :-X :D

.... love the reply from 'David' as well.  ;D

bignosemac (aka Justin McAree)  ;)

I think I can see where the 15 minutes travel time from Moor Street to New Street comes from. If you ask Google Maps for walking directions it seems to think you you need to follow a one way system and it does not know about the Stephenson Street Entrance.  So the distance is about three times longer than the direct walking route.

If the trains are 400m long, the walking time will depend significantly upon which part of the train you occupy, and also whether you assume "free-flow" walking speed or against-the-horde-coming-for-the-next-train.

Oh, and what if you have two heavy bags to carry?

It's for those reasons I was more conservative with my '10 minutes' to New St and '10-15 minutes' to the city centre (Town Hall) when I replied to the article.

Btline has said he's done train to train from Moor St to New Street in under 5 minutes. Rear coach of a HS2 train into Curzon Street and onward on foot to New St maybe a push even at 10 minutes. You can bet that the official minimum connection time will be even more conservative.

I was wrong earlier when I stated that the minimum official connection time between Moor St and New St was 15 minutes. Checking with National Rail Enquiries and the person I spoke with stated it was 20 minutes. Whilst the walk may only takes 5-10 or so minutes I guess the rail industry has to allow for many variables when providing official connections. Not unlike cross-London transfers which are also very conservative.

Recent comments from my Bucks and OXen friends include mention of at least 20 SSSIs affected by the alingment is this correct or another exageration.

I'm still undecided the score in my challenge to persude me (see previous post) is if SSSIs are affected is currently 2 - 1 in favour. Any more clinchers for the against apart why Euston lets go for a through underground station (as Berlin HBF) between KX and Euston aligned East West. Much easier to operate than a terminal station.

The mitigation saves some ancient woods. The thing is, it's got to go somewhere. There are SSSIs all over the place!

More LIES from newspapers in affected areas. Apparently Phase 1 is costing ^33 billion with more for Phase 2! Plus the usual tripe about it being useless for locals - despite the fact it will relieve pressure on existing commuter services.

The modern railway industry is very good at protecting its environment, Network Rail has a large number of SSSI's on its land and other forms of protected environments NR has possibly one of the largest number of SSSI of any land owner in the UK and they range across the full range of types.  HS2 will destroy SSSI's and ancient woodland but measure can be put in place to limit the effects and replace them

Hey... or just Camden Road International!  Making use of those southern platforms after all..  I mean, who'll want tube connections when you've got the NLL?  With only a couple of carriages platformed, only a few passengers will manage to get on and off, so existing facilities should suffice.  Passport control?  Pointless... anyone entering illegally won't drift far from North London anyway.  Time to phone Frank Dobson with a Plan.
:)

I remember that Theresa Villers caused outrage by branding Old Oak Common as "Wormwood Scrubs International" when she was in opposition! ;D

It turns out that redoing the WCML would have led to several stations getting AXED.



Moderator note: Edited to include a link to the quoted article. bignosemac.

From Plastics and Rubber Weekly (http://www.prw.com/subscriber/bcopping2.html?cat=32&id=303) (no, seriously! :o ):

Network Rail and Passenger Focus have published a joint report entitled "Future priorities for the West Coast Main Line", in the wake of HS2 - http://www.networkrail.co.uk/hs2-wcml.aspx

From Railnews: (http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2012/01/20-report-confirms-benefits-of-hs2.html)

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16725504):

I predict they'll get absolutely nowhere with that ^^. 

DfT will have met all the requirements for consultation, that's why they employ so many staff, and take so long to make any decisions...   ::)

Paul

From BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18169435)

Tonight's (12/04/2013) BBC Newsnight had an in-depth report largely from the point of view of those that will be directly affected by the building of HS2.

Worth a watch on BBC iPlayer http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01rw1j9/Newsnight_12_04_2013/ where it'll be available to view shortly and for the next 7 days.

My personal take. I've probably got one foot in the anti- camp. Although neither side of the argument has me fully convinced. Is the capacity needed? Can the country afford it? Should the money be spent countrywide on existing infrastructure? Flip side. Building for the future. Prestige project. Economic benefits.

And for those directly affected, losing one's home matters, as does having your property blighted even if you don't have to move. NIMBYism or not. In the Newsnight piece the point is also made that, unlike other such large infrastructure projects, many of the communities through which the line runs will not directly benefit from it. There won't be a station in the area for them to use.

But if you take that view, the M4 would never have been built, nor would the railways that we already rely on today. It's inevitable that any major infrastructure change like this will result in people being displaced and homes blighted. The question should be "Is this the right thing to do, for the country?" and if it is then the answer is to ensure that those impacted are adequately compensated. Though I would agree that the current plans have so few stations that it does result in whole regions feeling that they have all the pain and none of the gain, and that probably is tactically unwise.

I noticed that Have I Got News For You tonight has a new opening sequence, including HS2 ripping through the countryside but then avoiding a stately home that I suspect is in Cheshire. Proof if it were needed that HS2 is clearly a mainstream public issue, and is likely to be so for many years.

In short yes - not perhaps tomorrow, but if you look at the growth figures on rail use there will become a time when it is needed. And since it is going to take such a long time to build then we must start now. Remember this is not all new travellers, but a modal switch from road to rail.


There are several answers to this question:

1) Somehow cross rail at half the price for one city is affordable (as well as another crossrail 2), but HS2 at twice the cost to benefit the whole of the North and Scotland is according to the opponents not affordable.  Is this equitable?

2) Even right wing economists accept that money spent on infrastructure does benefit the wider economy because:
  a) It reduces public expenditure from those no longer on the dole.
  b) The workers have money to spend some of which pays for service jobs (who in turn spend some of their money etc.)
  c) If improved transport encourages less movement to the south it will reduce the increase in house prices in the South, benefiting our economy which has to pay higher wages than other countries to support our very high housing costs.


Spending money on existing infrastructure can only achieve some of the benefit. 
1) Taking out pinch points can only achieve so much. This will probably need to be done anyway before the line is completed (e.g. the new junction at Stafford)
2) The WCML is really two railways (i.e. 4 tracks). On this trains run at three speeds (non stop express trains, semi fasts and local stopping trains - goods trains can largely fit at the same speed as one of these). To get the maximum capacity you therefore need three railways so all trains aon a railway run at the same speed.
3) If the existing lines had to be widened through the towns and cities (to build a third railway) on the way there would be hundreds more houses needing demolition.
4) The non stop trains do not need to go through the towns (as the semi fasts and local trains do in order to serve the stations there) so the logic is to build a new fast line.


If oil gets too expensive transport will start to shift mode at a much greater rate and we will need more capacity or our economy will nose dive (even by present standrads).



Loosing your home clearly does matter. However relatively few people are actually loosing their homes.

I have less sympathy for those who are running themselves up into a frenzy about noise from trains some distance away making their houses unsaleable. Sounds too much like the arguments when railways first came and from HS1.  Honestly is living near a high speed line that bad.  I use to live right next to a commuter line and sometimes not remember whether I had heard a train that morning. I much rather that than live next to a Motorway.  PS I do live no more than a mile from a Motorway.

I take all those well made points on board ellendune. As I said, I'm slightly in the anti- camp, perhaps because of where I live. HS2 will only ever be an alternative way for me to head to the Midlands and later to the north. The rail enthusiast in me will of course enjoy the opportunity to travel at 200mph plus in the UK.

Regarding oil. Electrification on a much wider scale than already promised/budgeted for also has to happen. I just worry that the cost of HS2 will swallow up so much of the available funding that further electrification of the existing network will be a low priority. Not because it's not needed, but because the money isn't there. The danger is that the peripheries of the network will become even more peripheral, relying on Diesel rolling stock for far longer than is economically sensible.

Hand in hand with much greater electrification than already planned/promised is of course the generation. We need those new build nuclear power stations. Another political hot potato subject to NIMBYism. Although I'd have no problem with the Oldbury site being used for a new build. Can see the old nuclear power station from my front door.

As rolling stock comes up for renewal the economics of electrification bend further in its favour - after all the HST renewal coinciding with signalling renewals is what put GW to the top of the list.  In short electric trains are cheaper to buy and operate and therefore above a certain train frequency it is cheaper to electrify.  The price of oil will be another factor determining the economic frequency.

Glad to see someone supporting carbon free generation in their back yard we have to build it somewhere or the lights will go out!

At the moment though it isn't a choice between HS2 and further investment in the classic network, it's HS2 or nothing. If there were alternative proposals for WCML capacity relief being considered then I might well be swayed by them, but at the moment the only WCML, and also with HS2 phase 2 ECML and MML, capacity relief proposal is HS2, so I'm in favour of it.

The problem is that alternative proposals for capacity relief on WCML all seem to be on line and would therefore impact on far more people. Also we all remember how much disruption the last WCML upgrade caused do we really want that over again - but disrupting even more people!


"not directly benefit" is the key. We need to remember that one way of increasing capacity is to remove stops on local and semi fast trains. So more people will benefit from HS2 than realise it. (e.g. Rugby, Milton Keynes etc.).  Of course those in the Chilterns still do not benefit but we need to remember we are country not just a collection of villages.

One thing we have been very poor at doing in the UK is thinking strategically when it comes to transport, the canal were a hotchpotch and the railways that followed were the same, even the road system followed Roman roads, granted there was some thought to the motorways but only some thought.  HS2 is strategic there is no getting away from that the UK will need it in 15 to 20 years time

Living in Maidenhead we have both a High Speed rail line and a motorway running through the town... In my experience it doesn't make houses unsaleable and in fact means that some people can buy bigger houses than they could otherwise afford if it backs onto the railway/motorway... I imagine these houses are harder to sell, but not unsaleable...and yes the price will go down, so some compensation could be due to the people likely to be affected similarly by HS2 because of that..

I guess there must be some houses near where the railway/motorway cross each other in Maidenhead that have the benefit of both motorway and railway noise too  ;D

Indeed a number of alternative capacity relief proposals were considered in the lead up to the original decision.  One of the documents issued with the original HS2 plans under Adonis was all to do with possible improvements to the existing route, or the Chiltern route, and IIRC they even considered increasing capacity to Brum via Oxford.

As far as DfT are concerned, alternatives have definitely been considered and decided against.  Also, wasn't it one of the many objector's claims ruled against in the recent judicial review decision?

Paul

It seems to me a useful thought process is to consider what one would do without any acknowledgment at all of the need for very high speed (VHS).  Just accept that travellers needing VHS have the option of air (just for the sake of argument and to avoid environmental issues for the moment).

I think that one would say we have a good capacity line from London that goes up the west side of the country, but it is already filling, as it tries to do two jobs, one from the Midlands and one from the North West and Scotland.  We have one up the east side but it is filling too, because it too tries to do two jobs, one to South Yorkshire and one to the north East and Scotland.  We have a line from London that goes up the middle to the East Midlands and South Yorkshire but that is also filling.  So we need extra capacity on all three or otherwise new lines. 

Other than the London lines, we do not have a high speed line from the south west to the Midlands and north and we don't have one from the south east to those same places either.  All of those lines are rammed due to under provision of capacity rather than the absence of lines.  Apart from an embryo VHS line from London, we have no service from other major UK cities to the mainland.   From east to west of our island, the lines are there but there is no inter city service, only semi-fast ones and they are rammed too.

The only way out of this is to provide new lines or try and rebuild the old ones (e.g. GCR Woodhead and MR Buxton) and provide more trains on them.

Thus:

1.  We need new lines.

2. Any new lines may as well be VHS ones, so do that.  If we intend to connect from our major cities with the mainland or Scotland, then we need VHS lines and services from other than London because of the distances involved. That's how I see it anyway.



   

 

Just listened to Today had a lot on the NAO (National Audit Office) recently published report on HS2. Basically it queries whther the government has joined up the dots enough to jsutify HS2 particularly the Cost Benefit Ratio.

Since the publication of the onward routes to Manchester and Leeds I am begiinning to doubt whether HS2 is the right answer for rail.

The problem it seems to me is that of geography and the siting of towns. Basically you need stops on a high Speed line to be at least 100 miles apart which as I think I posted before gives you only 3 stops from London to Edinburgh/Glasgow. Birmingham Manchester and Carlise Western Arm. Birmingham Leeds Newcastle Edinburgh Eastern arm. Edinburgh could also be served from the Western arm. Thus Milton Keynes, Coventry, Stoke (Liverpool) Preston  Derby Nottingham Sheffield York. Don't get a look in. Although there are proposed Parkways for some of these towns.

The other problem is that there is very little integration with the existing rail Network with Birminham Leeds and Manchester having their own HS2 stations not served by convential rail. One of the things about European LGVs is that by and large the trains serve the exisitng stations in the City and in many cases they run part of their route on non High Speed Lines. The classic being the Eurostar Ski train. The problem is we don't have the space to put in the necessary junctions to allow say a train to serve say Stoke and Maccelsfield (Manchester) from HS2. Or another juction to do say (Liverpool) Warrington Wigan Preston Lancaster and maybe rejoin North of Lancaster.

I am begging to think that we mifght be better off eleminating some exisitng bottle necks. Welwyn North for a start. Stafford burrowing Junctions 4 track Rugby Birmingham to Roade Junction Long loops on Bristol Line. Even reinstate Bradford North curve. etc. Rather than go all out for a high speed line.

With ERTMs it certainly ought to possible to upgrade GWML, WCML, ECML, in part at least to 140mph running.

Pete Waterman has been on BBC news defending HS2 and yes he does raise some very good point.

I do think HS2 would do well when it is opened, we have seen passenger numbers be underestimated on many lines which have been re-opened, the Ebbw Vale branch as an example

I'm still not won over by the pro-HS2 arguments.

I think the problem is that the pro- HS2  campaigners need to make more noise to promote the positive benefits of HS2, so far all I have seen on tv etc has been the anti-hs2 groups.

Pete Waterman seems to be one of few supporters of HS2 to get much TV time to argue the case for HS2.

I am less certain than I was - I'm now only 109% sure we need it.

• Is it likely that Britain is the only country in the developed world that would not benefit from high speed rail?
• If personal communications technology means that time spent on the train is now just as productive as time spent in the office, why don't they just park a load of old carriages at local stations and we'll all do our day's work sat in them. No need to move them - think of the energy we'd save!

They can play whatever games they like with the numbers; the truth is that it's a punt. The odds look pretty good to me though.

Time spent in the train is nowhere near as productive as other time even with personal communications technology for the following reasons:

a) Very difficult to get a table - I cannot use a laptop in normal seats, my arms are too long for the rake of the seats and I cannot reach the front of the keyboard!
b) Not enough space- no elbow room.
c) Other people distracting me
d) Interacting with people electronically is no substitute for face to face - which is why I would be travelling in the first place!

I would say that I am no more than 25% efficient when on a train. 

Yesterday on a  quiet early afternoon train I was able to get a table, get the laptop out and write up the minutes of the meeting I had just been to, but that is a rarity. Even then I suspect I was only 75% efficient.


The best I can do is catch up on reading.

I am very glad I did all my business travelling before mobiles and wi fi etc. Jump on the train for the 2 hour run to Derby down to the Resturant Car for breakfast then read or chat with colleagues if more than 1 of us.

Bliss and do you konw it was very rarely that there was even a phone call waitng at the office in Derby. Then back on the late afternoon train, with a beer from the buffet.

But then my productivity was never very high.

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22941908):

Thing is, just about anyone can set up a suitable sounding name for their organisation, a website, and call themselves a director or researcher or whatever.

That's after all how people such as Paul Withrington, Director of 'Transport Watch' managed to get coverage in the likes of the Telegraph in the past.   But how much credibility should their 'reports' be given?

BTW I see the 'Institute of Economic Affairs' mentioned here: http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=12549.0
is also linked to from the bottom of Mr Withrington's list of topics on his 'Transport Watch' home page.  Coincidence?

Paul

The New Economics Foundation (http://www.neweconomics.org/pages/our-history) are a bit more than just a 'whatever'.

They've been around since 1986, have charitable status and are free of any political bias and influence from special interests. Their funding is a lot more transparent than that of the IEF's.

Their report should be given just as much credibility as any pro-HS2 one.

At a very quick glance, the New Economics Foundation may be asking questions on an initially thought-through alternative, whereas some of the other folks are suggesting thing which look pretty impractical to me, as has been pointed out in other posts - "How on earth could you ..."

I do find it interesting that the New Economics Foundation specifically singles out North/South, non-London/regional and Birmingham/Leeds/Manchester/Liverpool.  Missing are London to South Wales and the South West, and Bristol / Cardiff / Plymouth.  Perhaps because they're looking for direct HS2 benefit replacement, or are we the forgotten corner again?

interesting comment in Modern Railways by Chris Gibb (Virgin) who reckons with abit of tweaking to 135 mph from Lancaster North he can get to Glagow in 4 hours by Pendelino. However, he comments when HS trains start to run from Rugely or Lancaster off HS2 onto teh WCML as they are non tilting they willbe limited to 110. Thus reducing teh capacity on teh WCML. DOH!

HS2 most definitely in the news today, with the Institute for Economic Affairs claiming that costs could reach almost double the current estimate, and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England claiming that construction would affect the lives of more than half a million people - this Guardian article (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/18/hs2-budget-rail-study) is a good summarizer.

Also worth noting that the IEA report argues that their claimed ^80bn HS2 price tag could deliver ^320bn of value if spent on other projects. I suspect though, that road schemes would figure rather more prominently in the IEA proposals than the Squirrel Formula would allow...

IEA don't have a political agenda do they  ::) they are about as unbiased as The Morning Star    ;D

Worth looking at Richard Wellings' other public utterances (Google him!) - we should all be wary when people called 'Richard' start making pronouncements about rail, particularly those with doctorates. Frankly I'm rather surprised at the Guardian for giving the man any publicity.

If you're in any doubt about where he's coming from, here's what he has to say about Britain's railways in general:


Sound familiar?

You haven't been out watching those pigs flying over Battersea Power Station (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_(Pink_Floyd_album)) again, have you?...

Still, why not quote from a song (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigs_(Three_Different_Ones)) written by one of Maggie's biggest fans, when we are on the verge of class warfare... (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-cameron-class-war-hs2-plans)

...apparently.

Indeed I have - apologies for editing it out when I found a better quote; bad form.

I think that the HS2 issue has been muddled, as usual by sectional interest lobbying from the industries that want the contracts and UK Regions that want infrastructure without the bill.

IMHO there are two issues; the desirability of TGV's operating on the InterCity (dates me!) network and the need for more capacity particularly on the WCML.

The capacity issue is I contend because of the amount of freight routed this way, especially South of Rugby, not because of IC (VWC) & LM traffic.

The TGV issue depends on how far and at what cost the UK rail system can be made suitable.

The capacity issue could be addressed by reopening the 34 miles of the GC line between Calvert and Rugby, in many ways much the same route as HS2 but for freight mainly. While there will always be more congestion nearer London, there do seem to be a lot of disused loops etc closer in.


The TGV issue could be addressed by easing the curves on the main lines including some new stretches and improving clearances. Not every km of track needs to be cleared for 250mph. About 25% of UK main line route needs such  attention (our lines  were built to much better alignments than in mainland Europe).

I don't accept that this would be too disruptive; it was how BR created the IC network in the 1960's and 70's.

I would like TGV's out of Paddington, as well.

OTC

(and  for today only, Capt Link Hogthrob)

Yes you could do that but you still have to get it North of Rugby and South of Aylesbury.

The route from Rugby to Birmingham is heavily congested. I am not sure how much capacity there is on the Trent Valley route either. 

As for capacity south of Aylesbury...


They did indeed do improvements.  To do that they had the advantage of a much less busy system.  I am sure the users of FGW Coffepot would understand the need to close Wooton Basset to Filton for an 18 month (?) blockade to sort the problems out like they did in the mid 70's. 

You could also do that to sections of the WCML to do widening.  What was that about a 365/24 railway?

I swing both ways on this one. I see the logic of a new high-speed link from north to south, even though I am unlikely to ever take the journey. Certainly, I see the benefit of increased capacity on an overcrowded network. But I see the undoubted value of the beauty of the British countryside, something I value as much if not more so than the railway network.

I have argued against the current cost / benefit system of planning transport projects. Usually, with road it under-estimates costs and over-estimates benefits, whereas with rail it works the other way. I am not qualified to suggest whether HST is a good thing on that basis or not, but I strongly suspect that the truth is that it is close, maybe too close to call. In that case, I would go for it, because it would show commitment to the railways, it would provide construction jobs, and on past experience, it would solve more problems than the proponents suggest, and cause fewer problems than the opponents put forward.

I would rather see a 2 track railway going through the landscape than a 6 lane motorway!  Many of our railways blend in beautifully into the landscape.  How does HS1 look ten years or so after it was built? I do not hear about any complaints of the noise from it either.

You could provide the capacity on the current alignments, but you would have to tear great swathes through most of the towns on the route.  I think you might find that is less popular than than going through the countryside. 

What all our economic models seem to miss is that high house prices in the South and South East are crippling this country. If we did not have to pay so much for housing then wages would be less and living standards higher. As a result the country would be more competitive.  Either we find some way of moving our economy North and West and take the heat out of the London bubble, or the UK (as opposed to London) will never be economically strong.  It is no coincidence that most of the opposition is coming from the South East.

Trying to fossilise some past idyll gives everyone a warm feeling (me included), but my children do not want to live in a museum, they want jobs and affordable housing.

Oh and the cost? How does it compare to the amount on money we put in the bail out the banks?

Ha ha, charade you are... ;D

Only kidding - Indeed, it is very interesting that, in her Guardian article, Melissa Kite accuses David Cameron of manipulating the rest of society over HS2 in much the same way as Roger Waters accused the animal substitutes of manipulating the rest of society in the song whose lyrics you originally quoted.

Scanning down the 'Rail News' aggregator, I'm staggered at how news organs of every stripe have reported on Dr Richard Beeching Welling's report on the costs of HS2.

Some of the lazier one haven't even given Beechings the credit for making the figure up - they've just used it as though it were an accepted fact - and few of them seem to have found it necessary to point out that the IEA is so far to the right as to be in danger of meeting the communists coming the other way.

I remain slightly ambivalent about this project, but I do think HS2 Ltd need to up their media game if they actually want it to happen.

My reaction was similar - that's such an obvious ploy, why did so many news media fall for it? Granted it was  Sunday in August so there was never going to be a lot of other domestic news, but they were still very naive. No doubt you could also re-define the category of "costs" on their favourite projects to similar effect.

To pick up on another strand in this thread (or possible just a fibre in a strand) I thought much the same about the reporting of the recent survey showing a rise in house prices. The common view that this price rise is a good thing baffles me - do they really all believe that "what the country needs now is more expensive houses" or "our houses are too cheap"?

While I don't think that they were letting themselves be manipulated, there was a general reliance on "experts" who have a vested interest in driving more sales by more mortgage finance which - in the absence of more houses - gives them higher prices and hence fees too. I was struck by one who argued strongly in favour of more "affordable housing" - i.e. please will the government look after poor people outside the mainstream market, so supply in our market never catches up with demand.

Of course that is largely a London-centric view, but I doubt that prices are really sensibly low except is areas with serious economic problems. However, I have to say that I am not convinced that poor physical communications are the main reason for the jobs being concentrated in the South-East.

The IEA report, entitled "The High-Speed Gravy Train: Special Interests, Transport Policy and Government Spending", has been published and can be found here. (http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-high-speed-gravy-train-special-interests-transport-policy-and-government-s)

The last paragraph in particular of the IEA blurb is rather Beeching-esque, I have to say:


Here is a Railnews article (http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2013/08/19-free-market-lobby-group-prredicts.html) on the report launch. It also contains the beginnings of a Pro-HS2 response, largely along the lines of the IEA presenting a partisan view in line with its general policy of opposing major publicly-funded projects in favour of allowing the market to decide.

More Pro-HS2 articles, examples here (http://www.globalrailnews.com/2013/08/19/damning-hs2-report-dismissed-as-flimsy-and-unsubstantiated/),here (http://www.cityam.com/blog/1376904189/why-hs2-wont-cost-80bn) and here (http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/blogs/keith-barrow/the-iea-assessment-of-hs2-is-pure-fantasy.html), with a general conclusion that the IEA have based their conclusions on back-of-the-fag-packet calculations.

Also some recognition of RS's point that pro-HS2 campaigners need to up their media game if they want to succeed.

There is even a poll (http://railwayeye.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/time-for-hs2-to-be-scrapped.html) for you to vote in, should you so choose...

HS2 needs a core path of 25m width for 2 track (60m for 4 track), with another 25m each side affected. This compares with a 3 lane motorway width including verges of 35.6m.

A classic two track railway could fit in an 8.5m strip.

Perhaps the towns to have great swathes cut through them could have the tunnels planned for  Buckinghamshire farmland and villages.

As an exiled Northerner, I recall that transport  links can cut two ways, often draining the life out of the Regions.

Liverpool used to have its own Stock Exchange and Insurance Industry.

I'm not against HS2, just think we should concentrate upon outcome not process, the service to be delivered, not the "way and works".

Regards,

OTC

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. 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.

As another exiled Northener, I agree with OTC's point about the two-way flow. But why the big need for speed? Patrick McLoughlin was recently interviewed by The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3797639.ece). In that, he said:

It seems that the reason for a high-speed line is not the need for a high-speed line, but the need for a line, which might as well be built to high-speed specification. On that basis, the West of England Partnership's rubbish Metrobust scheme might as well be a rapid tram system.

I agree that Something Must Be Done. Railways are very much in the ascendancy again, and money spent now will be money well spent for the future. I would hope that this will not soak up all the available cash to the detriment of smaller projects like Portishead, Greater Bristol Metro, and one dear to my heart, Four Track Now! at Filton Bank.

Oh dear. Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way, but oh, how I wish you were here! I feel comfortably numb, and my eldest daughter is called Emily.  This whole thread has Echoes, and is costing me Time.

Now, when I see Emily play with her 14-month old son and month-old daughter (yes, I know it's quick, but one of us was in a hurry) I have to ask: "By the way, which one's pink?".

FTR, I spent my 21st birthday at Bingley Hall, Staffordshire, watching Pink Floyd for the second time, doing the "Animals" tour. The first time was Knobworth, where "Wish you were Here" was brand new.

Set the controls for the heart of the sun, somebody, whilst I apologise for a momentary lapse of reason.

I had liberal Pink Floyd music on the car stereo when I was Learning to Fly, but that is enough for now. I have hit The Wall. If I open up much more, I may reveal a Saucerful of Secrets, and would have to make sure they were Obscured by Clouds, lest anyone feel tempted to Meddle. Up and Atom, heart Mother!

In amongst all the uncritical reporting of Dr Richard Beechings' IEA report on HS2, it is good to see at least one voice questioning his figures:

Its really unfortunate that the proposal is called High Speed 2, a more imaginative name might have got the public and business more engaged, the High Speed 250 mph tag is not all of what this railway is about

Tend to agree.  In hindsight renaming CTRL as HS1 did sort of paint them into a corner a bit...

Paul

From The Guardian: (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/21/hs2-high-speed-rail-cost-fears?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487)

A view held also by the Transport Minister.

Maybe we should suggest a new name ............. errrrrrrrrrr  ??? let me think ...................

 ???

mmmmmmm how about .......


The Great Central  :o

Be careful what you wish for. If the government or the promoters really believed a new name would be better, they would hire consultants and then we would end up with one of those silly invented names.

The New North West & East Main Line...

Another thing that niggles with me is the smaller scale 'own goal' of describing and continually referring to the Birmingham terminus as being at 'Curzon St'.  That just allows opponents to exaggerate the distance to New St, whereas the actual entrance will be next door to Moor St.

You might as well describe Paddington's position as being on Bishops Bridge Rd, or Waterloo as on Leake St...

Paul

Forget the naming, the basic fact the central Birmingham station (and the London and, to a lessor extent, Manchester ones) are planned to be termini sounds almost madness to me. For example, I think Virgin currently run Wolverhampton - London services, they couldn't use HS2 if the station is a dead-end, and there is talk about wires to Holyhead to enable running north Wales trains onto HS2. A HS2 train would probably be alot longer than the Voyagers currently used to noth Wales, you'd get much better loadings in north Wales if you could call at Central Birmingham HS2 station en-route to London. Similarly, you could run London - Birmingham services through to Manchester and Liverpool if the HS2 station wasn't a terminous.

I'm also in favor of the 'Euston Cross' proposal outlined in Modern Railways a while back, linking HSR from Birmingham/Manchester through to Ashford and the Channel Tunnel. In fact, I think Stratford - Old Oak Common should be 4-track. That way, if it is decided Heathrow should be connected to the HSR network it could be done by extending two of those four tracks to the airport (the other two would, obviously, already be heading for the north-west). That could free up some paths on the GWML by taking some Heathrow Express trains. Later still, you could extend that line from Heathrow as a HS3, either down to Southampton/Portsmouth to releive capacity on the SWT network or west to Reading and Bath (maybe even from there south towards Devon and Cornwall) to releive the GWML.

Through stations would of course add to the cost of the scheme, but by small amounts compared to the huge total cost. If we're spending so much to build a new line we may as well spend a little more to do it properly.

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 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')

I have some new alternative money saving scheme to avoid building HS2. 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 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 lines) would be closed to allow capacity for Fast, semi fast and freight services. 

Which one would you choose?

Why no option 4 for diverting freight?


OTC

Why not stay with option 0 .............. build HS2

The UK's Victorian railway infrastructure is getting to capacity, yes we can tinker with things like ETCS to reduce headways, add the odd fly over/under to eliminate flat junctions.

Remember the WCML upgrade last decade came in a ^9B and there was still working being done through CP4 and more planned in CP5 both control period spends were several B^ each, and the WCML will still not have ETCS.

Even with HS2 the WCML MML and ECML will need large investments the forcast traffic growths are predicting that UK PLC needs to invest in its transport infrastructure the other alternative is a Toll Motorway!

Good point, but I am not sure where that leaves you since you would still be left with three incompatible traffic types on two railways.  Also there is nowhere to divert it to. the ECML and the MML are both full - space is being made on the line up through Spalding. So the option would be to kick the freight off onto the roads.  I suppose my option 3 involved kicking the local services onto the roads.  However there is little road capacity so at least with option 4 we are saying build another Motorway to the North. Now I wonder how much that would cost?

So

Option 4) Divert all freight off the WCML onto the roads, cancel the electric spine and invest in a massive programme of road improvements.

So as a first stage how do we improve capacity from London & Southampton to the Midlands.  Ah yes widening the M3 from Southampton to Winchester (shouldn't be any opposition to widening that cutting through Twyford Down - no one objected the first time), a new M34 from Winchester to Oxford and a widening programme on the M40 to 5 lanes (through the Chilterns of course should be no problem).  Since it is for freight perhaps we should ban cars. 

I'm not suggesting that ALL HS2 trains would extend onto the classic lines. Manchester services for example would still be captive to HS2, just they would call at Central Birmingham on the way to London/Kent. Personally, I think that'd be a much better use of the new capacity than the branching network of seperate trains for each destination currently proposed.

Ok, so doubling the tunnels under London would be expensive, but would it be cheaper to do it now or wait and see if we ever build a HS3 and/or Heathrow HSR link and then build the extra tunnels?

However, this part of my message:
, if you assume a 2-track Euston Cross, is probablly true. The additional cost may look expensive if quoted in isolation, but compared to the total cost of HS2 wouldn't be much.

I don't understand what you are getting at there. You seem to be suggesting that four-tracking HSR from Old Oak Common to Stratford is a scheme for London to benifit London. I don't see it like that at all.

The main (and almost the only) reason I support a new HSR line is capacity, the classic network is filling up and a step change in capacity is needed. The WCML is supposedly the 'most full' and serves some of the largest cities, so it makes sense to start there. However, that still leaves the GWML, the lines out of Waterloo and, to a certain extent, the ECML with a capacity problem. Sooner or later, we might need a HSR link to relieve GWML capacity and that would need somewhere to go at the London end, that's what the 4-track Old Oak to Stratford suggestion is for.

You could even get the western rail access to Heathrow and capacity relief on the GWML east of Reading by building the Reading - Heathrow - Old Oak leg, selected trains could then run that way to Euston Cross (and perhaps extend to Kent on HS1) instead of along the GWML and hence release paths into PAD. If the border-controls pepole can work something out, it would also be possible to use the Euston Cross link to provide one or two services a day from mainland Europe to Bristol, joining the GWML at Old Oak Common.

One of the very earliest publications explained quite clearly that a through station in the middle of Birmingham was impossible to build without huge amounts of demolition.  It is where it is (on a brownfield site) by a process of elimination.

Paul

Sorry I was not clear.  What I was trying to say was that there are already those detractors who while making the case for massive investment in London, begrudge every penny spent elsewhere.  Every hint of extra cost at the moment give power to their arguments. 

I'm confused.

4-track railways handle  fast, semi-fast and stopping trains, vide the SWML and the elegant way the timetablers interweave the three types of service, mostly without conflict.

It's true that most railways approaching London are heavingly full but further out the grass grows longer, speech is slower and even the trains thin out. The capacity problem is essentially how to get North of Rugby, present soutions being the electric spine to Nuneaton and HS2.


HS2 goes past Aylesbury to Rugby as does the extant Great Central trackbed. South of Aylesbury there are two routes into London. It would probably even make sense to reinstate the GCML as well as building HS2, making it effectively (and economically) 4-track.

I don't understand why putting freight back on the roads should be an option.

OTC

Ah, right. Thanks for the clarification.

What's wrong with using the proposed station site with a tunnel portal at the other end?

My idea is to use the same route into Birmingham and the same station site, with a new tunnel out of Birmingham.

It would have to be quite a deep tunnel as it would have to go under the current lines (as above is occupied by the GW route). The question is how far you have to go in tunnel before you find a surface route.  Tunnelling particularly tunnels of this size are really expensive.

Interesting the terminal question. Maybe we should learn from elsewhere. The old Germany system relied heavily of single town terminal Haiuptbahnhofs.

With the adfvent of High Speed lines they are actively looking at making some exisitng termnal Stations Through ones. It's already been done in Kassel where a through station has been built just out of town think Bristol Parkway.

There might even be a thread on here about the fuss in Stuggart building a through station under a park!

To build additional terminal stations in Birmingahm Manchester and Leeds seems very outdated.

I don't know about Kassel, but the other project of tis type in Germany has been Berlin hbf.  However, this should be viewed in the context of a whole city that has undergone massive rebuilding over the last 20 years. With good planning therefore it has been possible to make space for the new station.  I know on no UK city that has been rebuilt to this extent in the same period. 

The route I've plotted on Google Earth seems to require a tunnel of around 3.8 miles to leave the built-up area just south of the M5/M6 junction. Of that, I've routed about 1.5miles under the B4100 and A41, on the off-chance that following a road alignment rather than running under buildings make it marginlly cheaper (cut-and-cover perhaps? I doubt it though). From there my route follows the M6 (tunneling is so expensive that I'm guessing even if there isn't enough space to run alongside the motorway it would be cheaper to build a deck above the motorway than do more tunneling) out to the M54. I've also plotted a possible twisty chord, using what appear on the arial photos to be former rail alignments, from the main route north to a point on the Wolverhampton - Bescot Stadium line (for trains from Wolverhampton to access the HSR).

This will be a long post, so sorry in advance. I'll try to stay firmly on track, but there are a couple of big quotes.

No shovel has yet turned a single sod in the HS2 construction, and already there is political trouble afoot. The project has hitherto enjoyed cross-party support within the coalition and the Labour opposition, as it had done when Labour was in government. The coalition called in the plans in 2010, but the task before Lord Mawhinney was not to decide whether or the not the scheme should proceed, but whether it should route not from Euston to Birmingham, but from St Pancras via Heathrow, something the Conservatives in opposition had argued for. IMO, the depth of the consensus on the need for a new route is adequately demonstrated by the result of the Mawhinney review. Though he had been transport secretary under John Major, his review supported the route put forward by HS2 Ltd, the company formed under Lord Adonis to develop the project.

Cross-party agreement is essential for a project of this magnitude, as it was with the Olympics. Without it from the get-go, I do not think we would have made it as far as we have by now. Planning and construction will take the lifetime of at least four governments. The Edinburgh tram system shows the perils. The previous Labour Scottish administration started the scheme in the face of hostility from the SNP opposition. It is only going ahead now because cancellation would cost more than completion (or because the SNP secretly always thought it made sense, but didn't want to be blamed if it went wrong). No-one would risk starting a project costing tens of billions if he thought it would be cancelled after years of work. Uncertainty causes delay and expense, as it did with Edinburgh, Crossrail and the Great Western electrification, announced and cancelled at least twice, though thankfully unstoppable now.

There have been grumblings from the back-benches, particularly those MPs with rural constituencies that will be bisected, but not served, by the line, but support has been strong at higher levels until now. Alistair Darling, former Chancellor and Transport Secretary, took to the Times (http://big quotes.) to argue for cancellation.


The effect of this volte face is potentially enormous. Darling left front-bench politics after the Labour defeat in 2010, to spend more time with the Buds of May. His voice remains a big voice. Only two other people served in the Cabinet continuously throughout the Blair and Brown premierships (Gordon Brown and Jack Straw). Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are quoted as saying they support HS2, but will not do so if costs spiral. Two Eds may be better than one, but this is equivocation, surely.

Patrick McLoughlin has led the charge to shore up the project. He is quoted in today's Times:


My own view is that they are both right, but McLoughlin is much more right than Darling. I say this even though my general political stance is closer to Darling's than McLoughlin's by a good cheap-day return.

Darling talks about "visionary" projects being glamorous, but says that transport works best when it is boring. I know what he means, but he has got it wrong. If a new railway is a necessity, then it ceases to be visionary unless the proposed vehicles are powered by Dilithium crystals or anti-matter. The high speed aspect could be visionary, but it makes perfect sense to me, at least, to future-proof and get the maximum benefit from the new line. I find support for this view from McLoughlin, again in a Times interview (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3797639.ece), this time from 22 June:


Darling's view is more cautious, more small-c conservative. It is the same caution that scrapped the Bristol tramway and gave us instead a half-assed road building scheme in the Trojan horse of Metrobust. Darling, remember, was the man who agreed with Atkins' suggestion to rip up the Severn Beach line for a busway. He also turned down Manchester's Metrolink extension, although he relented in the face of the campaign of obstinacy that was mounted. The success of the latter two shows that he was wrong in those instances.

Darling says correctly that the business case for HS2 is crucial. This approach is exactly what got us Metrobust in Bristol rather than improvements to public transport, but he has a point. He destroys it by saying that people are productive on trains because they can work during the journey. He doesn't mention that they can't if the have to stand outside the toilet for the whole journey because of overcrowding. Capacity, not speed, is the clever bit of HS2. More people will be able to work on trains if it is built, because there will be more of them.

The cost is a bit of a red herring. On a project of this size, we will probably only be able to estimate the full cost about two years after the route is complete. Any figures quoted now will be the roughest of guesstimates. This is not to say that we should not control costs - far from it. Every stage of the route should be scrutinised with an intense scrute, and every best practice implemented.

On the terminal matter, the proposal is to use the former Curzon Street station. It was originally called Birmingham Station, but was renamed in 1852 as other stations opened. Although the Grade 1 listed former entrance is the only building to survive, the area has not been heavily developed since closure in 1966. It was then used as a Parcelforce depot until 2006. Birmingham City University have (had) plans for a new campus using some of the site, and Birmingham City Council planned to refurbish the entrance hall for rental to a quality tenant. iIt is, BTW, the oldest surviving example of monumental railway architecture in Britain. Continuing the line to New Street, Moor Street, or any other station would involve considerable demolition and/or tunneling, plus significant enlargement of the chosen station to reduce congestion. Birmingham Curzon Street ceased to be viable for passenger use because of being on the eastern edge of the city, giving rise to traffic problems even in the 1850s. It ceased to be a major interchange when New Street opened in 1854, but ceased passenger use in 1893. It has my support as the new terminus, but will need links to the other nearby stations.

The new Berlin Hauptbahnhof is superb and on many levels (literally) outstanding in Europe (not been outside myself - yet).  However, as has been stated, tunnels would probably be the answer in this country in our big cities.  The problem is, as with HS1 near London, we will end up with a High Speed Underground service if we're not careful.  The London Underground is very good for speed and getting across the centre of the city - but boring.  Austrian railways are now beset with so many sound barriers, cuttings and tunnels on their 'improved' inter-city lines, they have become frustrating for those of us who rather liked the scenery.  Admittedly there are still many slower, attractive routes in that lovely country.

In this crowded isle, we will almost certainly sacrifice the traditional pleasant view from the train window in order to protect (rightly) neighbours to the railways.  HS2 will be an expensive way to transport business people around the country, but less attractive than the current lines for the leisure traveller, other than to get them to the 'nice' lines more quickly.

**Declaration of (lack of) interest: I shall probably be dead before it gets started let alone finished. (Aged 61 before you ask!)

[FTN posted as I wrote so apologies for not taking any of his substantive (and substantial) points on board, but I think he adds weight to my thinking about when/if it will ever happen]

I wonder what the voter in Edinburgh South West makes of the plans to spend money on HS2?  What will it bring to him/her?  Will he / she be impressed by a sitting MP who is prepared to take a line away from the party mantra?  Is HST2 a potential differentiator between Mr Darling and his opponents in 2015? What does the voter in a Labour party leadership election think of it?  I'm not a politician and I wouldn't know the answers to these questions, but I do wonder if the merit (or otherwise) of the project for the UK as a whole is only a part of what's driving support, or lack of support, in  number of quarters.

A project that's a vote winner when it's visionary and the major spend is many years away becomes far less pallettable as it gets closer to, especially if austerity on other projects at around the same time makes it viable to suggest that project "x" has been canned because the money is being spent on it.

My major concern is the ever rising project cost and the marginal BCR.

Current Goverment utterances on the project's total cost nearly always use the figure ^42.6bn. At least Alistair Darling is using the correct current figure of ^50.1bn. This includes the ^7.5bn for rolling stock. It is a little disingenuous of Ministers to omit this figure when stating the project cost. You can't have a railway without trains (pipe down TransWilts  :P). I guess ^50bn is a headline grabbing watershed figure that the Govt. would rather folk didn't concentrate on.

I agree with many that the IEA's figure of ^80bn was somewhat fanciful, seeing as it included so many irrelevant costs. However, a Financial Times article this week is quoting unnamed Treasury sources who put the current figure for phases one and two and rolling stock at ^73bn.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f331cde-0988-11e3-8b32-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz2cvOTzwjw
(free registration may be required to view the article)

I'm still on the fence. I was leaning toward the anti- camp, but with ever increasing cost projections I'm now climbing down their side of the fence. I'm just not sure UK PLC can afford it.

I don't have any answers on the capacity issues, more reading up on that needed. But the cost concerns me.

The ^42.6 bn is still the estimate. ^50.1 bn is the budget. The difference includes contingency. In setting this budget the Treasury is saying this far and no further. They have done this with the Olympics (and the project came in under budget) and Cross rail (so far on or under budget) and it has worked well.  It stops people sayign wouldn't it be nice if .... and continuing to add numerous small sums to the estimate that add up to a large sum.  Hence my comments earlier when people say changes would not cost much (even though some of them would have cost a lot).

So it is perfectly valid to still quote the ^42.6bn figure for the cost of the line as that is still the estimate. 

My concern over HS2 now is not the cost, most accept its going to be in the order of ^40B +- the odd ^10B (ish), the real risk to HS2 is politicians posturing in the lead up to the next general election they all see it being fought on low public spending so none of them will want to commit to large price tag public items, I fear we are going bag to the 1980's of patch up and make do and mend

The difference in those figures isn't contingency. An additional ^7.5bn is for rolling stock. Whilst public utterences from Ministers regularly fail to include the rolling stock cost in the total, it is there in HS2 Ltd's figures and in Hansard.

The total cost of phases one and two plus the rolling stock is ^50.1bn, which includes ^16.1bn of contingency. That would make the estimate ^34bn which does, on paper, look a lot better. But with Treasury insiders forecasting a total cost of ^73bn (unknown if contingency is included in that) the project could well exceed the current forecasted ^50.1bn.

The problem with large contingency is it can lead to a lax control over spending, rather than a tight control on budget and with little incentive to identify cost savings. "The money's there, so we can spend it."

As for the Olympics, final accounts won't be released until the Olympic Delivery Authority is wound up in 2014. Latest figures, released in July 2013 predict that the final cost to the public purse will be ^528million under budget. Contingency for the Olympics was just over ^1bn. So based on current predictions over half of the contingency fund will have been spent. And there's still a very large chunk of the sale price of the Olympic Village (over ^400million) that has yet to be paid.

Exactly my point. We either need a new railway or we don't, and the evidence is firmly that we do. Not building something would be irresponsible, since the need would not go away, so would need to be done another day, and will inevitably cost more.

Is it a large price tag with marginal BCR? The cost will not be evenly spread over the years of planning and construction. Land acquisition will be done at the start, and will be a sizeable chunk. Phase 2 is planned to be up and running in 2033, so the annual cost, if the whole costs ^70 billion, will be ^3.5 billion. The risk is clearly of spiralling costs eating up resources so that this becomes the only railway project in the country, and that would be awful. But Network Rail is proving to be better at managing costs than Railtrack before it, and projects are being finished on time and on budget more and more these days than before. That gives me hope that the total cost will not come as a shock, whatever it is. Planning for other projects can then be done with this in mind.

I too remain definitely undecided on HS2 - if I'm going to take a position I like to do it from a strong and balanced knowledge which I feel I lack in this case. I do note that Andrew Adonis is speaking very strongly in favour ...

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/08/exclusive-adonis-hits-back-hs2-critics-and-warns-labour-not-abandon-support?

I have a huge respect for Andrew - he's a former secretary of state for Transport and from initial concerns when he came to that role, he rapidly gained a very great deal of respect in many quarters. 

And so have I. My respect increased as I read the article, and thank you for the link, grahame. The New Statesman is not my chip-wrapper of choice.

Lord Adonis showed that he is more than just a political animal when he took the transport portfolio. His tour of Britain by train, and the subsequent published musings served to show that he has knowledge, passion, and pragmatism in the correct proportions, and was a safe pair of hands for such a crucial role. He is a skilled communicator, and is not afraid to point out the earlier failings of his own party.

I am also developing respect for Patrick McLoughlin, and not just for his humble origins. The arguments he made after the Darling outburst are exactly the ones made by the noble lord. He speaks for the coalition as well as the Conservative party, and despite Lord Adonis' criticism of the slow pace of action, and his gentle dig about Labour having much to do in 2015 to get the project firmly established, there is clear unanimity at the top level of the three parties. 

So a project with more history than the Labour announcement in 2010 was called in by a cash-strapped coalition looking for big savings, examined by a Tory grandee and still found to be essential. This episode shows just how much transport policy has to rise above politics. If I ever get the chance to found my National Infrastructure Authority, I shall ask Lord Adonis and Patrick McLoughlin to head it.

For my two penn'orth, I surprise myself with my ambivalence about this project.

The cost, oddly, is not my main concern. We either need it or we don't; if we need it then we have to find the money. I am however intrigued by the change in emphasis that has taken place (it's no longer about speed, it's the capacity stoopid); I am always a bit suspicious when arguments change. However I'm also aware that adding capacity to existing parallel routes has already been done at huge cost and disruption, and that adding more capacity to those routes would be even more expensive and disruptive.

What bothers me is that ever since Beeching, the railway has focused on getting people in and out of London. London, uniquely, kept almost all its commuter lines; the further you got from London the deeper Beeching's cuts were. This has amplified the process of centralisation that has damaged the ecomony of most of the country outside the southeast. I worry that HS2 could be an extension of the London-centric mindset. If it is then it is without doubt taking us in the wrong direction.

I have taken a certain amount of flak on this forum for applying the simplistic 'Squirrel Formula' to cost re-opening various provincial routes. Often the strongest argument against a potential re-opening is that funds are limited, and we have to prioritise. But a major problem for this country is the under-supply of housing, leading to hugely inflated house prices. Meanwhile all over the country are communities that have become moribund as a direct result of the Marples/Castle axe. I suggest that the argument for reconnecting them to quality public transport (===rail) is a strong one, especially if fibre broadband was run along the tracks at the same time.

All rail investment is a punt; always has been. But investment in new provincial rail connections could actually reduce the requirement for commuting into London, which would free up capacity on the overcrowded routes, as well as making better use of skills and labour currently sitting on its hands in the regions.

Edit: typo

I hope other contributors are appreciating FTN's input, grasp of the complex issues involved in this project and his clarity in explaining things so well!  I find his contributions are like shafts of brilliant sunshine cutting through an impenetrable fog. Long may they continue ! They could do with him on board ! Are there any other members of the FTN fan club out there ?

Much food for thought there RS. Might be climbing off the fence fully into the anti- camp after reading that.

I have found FTN's, BNM's and indeed other contributions helpful in making me realise that HS2 demands a far from simplistic 'yes/no' response as long-term vision, short-term economics and practicality all vie with each other for the clinching argument.  The fence is getting rather crowded as I have climbed up it from a strongly pro start and I am now definitely sitting astride with others.

Capacity can be addressed with cheaper solutions and, IMHO, very few journeys perhaps need a vastly reduced journey time.  Eurostar, TGV, ICE, Thalys etc, all offer a step change in travel from that which we have domestically, but they link cities across long stretches of comparatively low-density population.

If it ever arrives, I suspect I would be one of the first on it, though.  :)

The need for capacity has always been the corner stone of HS2, it's just that the speed has been emphasised the thought that 200 mph trains would sell.

I am sure through Busk, Herts, Warwick where the existing WCML runs selling HS2 as an increase in their train services would change the campaign. 

The starting point for HS2 was when, after the experience of the WCML route modernisation, it became clear that making alterations to a live railway was incredibly expensive.

There are schemes that can be done to provide additional capacity on existing lines for example (yes I will have missed some). 

• On the ECML there is 4 tracking the Welwyn viaduct and from Huntingdon to Peterborough, grade separated junctions at Peterborough, Grantham etc (Hitchin has just been completed). A bridge to replace the flat crossing at Newark. Better use of the route through Lincoln.
• On the WCML there might be completing the 4 track on the Trent Valley (adding one extra track), Grade separation around Stafford and at Rugeley. Possibly even 4 tracking from Rugby to Birmingham.

Some of these are already planned and some are even in progress.  Fundamentally though they will not provide the amount of additional capacity required.  To provide the amount of additional capacity required you need another pair of tracks to the North.

The main lesson from the WCML route modernisation was that if you are going to do provide another pair of tracks it is going to be cheaper to do this on a new route. If it is to be on a new route it either needs to be a line for fast passenger services or a freight route as these do not have to go through so many of the existing places on the current route.

Since the speed of freight fits in quite well with semi fast passenger services without loosing capacity (remember a line is at its highest capacity when all trains travel at the same speed), the obvious choice is the fast passenger services.

Up to this point I think there should be a consensus.  The question that is open to debate, in my opinion, should be what speeds do design this line for. 

Other European Countries have addressed the capacity issue by building high speed lines.  The density of population issue is an issue in France, Germany and Spain, but clearly not in Belgium and the Netherlands, though you could argue that Belgian High Speed lines are just routes to Netherlands and Germany.

I believe the question we should be asking is how much is the extra speed on the route costing and what are the benefits of that?  The cost of a high speed line is not ^42.6 bn. We should say that of the ^42.6 bn estimate for the line, ^x bn is to provide capacity and ^y bn is to increase the speed above 125 mph. (NB I deliberately use ^42.6bn estimated price of the line see my earlier post)

I would be very interested in the answer.

Picking up on the point Red Squirrel made earlier....

Addressing the current need to travel to and from London by targeted regional investment (a broad investment plan, not just rail) will address capacity on the WCML. I believe it's only south of Rugby where capacity is the issue.

Job creation, housing, other public transport. Greatly improve those in the regions and you cut the need to travel to and from London.

This is the case now but other points on the network the problem is not far behind. HS2 (if we are still to call it that) is to address capacity requirements further into the future. There is also capacity issues on the ECML which I think go further North. 


Couldn't agree more, but I don't see any politicians in Westminster of any party with serious proposals to make this happen.  Now perhaps if we moved the capital to somewhere further North...

So, Brennard Farm in the Forest of Bowland, Lancs, then?

http://blog.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/2012/01/where-is-the-centre-of-great-britain/

Isn't is reassuring to know that this Executive Agency of HMG has spent time in attempting to answer this very important question?  :-X :P ;D

Somewhere around there would be fine by me.  Perhaps a bit nearer to a main railway line though. 

A very good summary of the present political situation, from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23823484):

There are teams in NR working now to produce the HS2 NR interfaces input to the hybrid bill planned for 2015 not to mention a number of consultancies that are working on the main route of HS2.

The planning for HS2 is actually quite advanced, the challenge will be 2015 which in May sees a General Election so which side of this will it be, current Government ........ may not want to rock the boat with its heartland through Bucks and War, incoming Government could use the excuse not enough Parliamentary time, if its a collation it will take several months for them to agree how many spoons of sugar to have in their tea let alone anything else, even worse if its a hung Parliament

From The Telegraph: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10265650/HS2-has-the-power-to-inspire-a-generation.html)

Nice place. I used to take Sunday afternoon motor bike rides around the Forest and the Trough of Bowland.

EDIT: I have now read through the Pete Waterman piece. He may have given us Kylie Minogue's "I should be so lucky", but there is some good in the man, even so.

He makes points that should be coming from Government, rather than record-producing rail enthusiasts. There are rumours flying around, about the massive effect on communities that are exaggerated or just plain wrong. The same goes for the cost, leading the Labour party to announce a ^50 bn cap on the project. Whether, if they win power in 2015, they will be able to keep to that figure is a moot point, because no-one knows what will happen to the costs of materials, or what snags will be hit, or what a whole lot of other things will do. It is a good move to make it obvious that costs will not be allowed to rise uncontrollably. Previous projects have had a tendency to cost whatever the budget is, plus 10% or more. I think government in all its guises is getting better at managing that aspect, and there is greater cause for optimism on the financial front. Plus, Chief Executive of HS2 Alison Munro said:


As to the value of the project itself to the national good or bad, I simply don't have the knowledge or expertise to offer an opinion independently, so rely on reading the experts' views as impartially as I can. In doing so, I look not just at what is being said, but at who is saying it, and his previous track record. I place greater value on the views of Lord Adonis, Patrick McLoughlin and Pete Waterman than I do on the utterances of Alistair Darling mainly because of the latter's timid attitude to rail projects, and over-obsession with costs. Rail projects are hugely expensive, but tend to give real benefits far beyond the projections assumed in planning. The possible exception to that is the Channel Tunnel, where more optimistic forecasts needed to be used for political expediency, but even now, there is talk of building another.

Come what may, we will still need to transport people and goods around the country in 20 years time. In the post-Beeching era, we built roads rather than railways, and watched them fill up as soon as the ribbon was cut. In the post-post-Beeching era, we realise that roads can cause as many problems as they solve, and we are turning again to building railways. Railways are sustainable, according to Waterman and the CPRE. By that, I assume he means that they cause less damage than roads for the quantity delivered, are more energy efficient, and can use a variety of forms of generating motive power. No-one is suggesting that we reopen every line, but surely HS2 would not have gained the support it has if it were nothing more than a political vanity project?

I have a suggestion for Patrick McLoughlin. He needs to demonstrate that HS2 will not simply suck up all the available money for transport. There is no better way to do this than to bring forward some other much-needed rail projects. In my local area, I suggest Portishead, improvements to capacity on the Severn Beach line, and on Filton Bank, of course, Four Track, Now!

From The Guardian: (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/25/hs2-trains-northerners?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487)


Here are some Letters (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/26/alternative-routes-nationwide-rail-upgrade) containing more views on HS2, including reaction to the above article.

From The Guardian: (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/27/hs2-high-speed-rail-project-grand-folly)

The IOD claims 35,000 members.  This survey got a mere 1,323 responses, less than 4% of the IOD's membership - I don't know whether they had massive abstentions, or whether it was a random sample they surveyed, but either way it seems statistically flawed as a basis for the assertion that the outcome represents the views of the IOD's membership.

The cover this small survey has received in the media is totally overblown, but is of course a credit to the IOD's publicity machine!

Ehrem; it's still August. Roll on the end of the Silly Season.

That's a good point, Red Squirrel. Not only is there not much coming out of parliament, but the MPs who aren't on fact-finding missions in the Caribbean are at home, doing their own thinking without aides or whips (well, parliamentary whips, at least - what goes on Summer recess stays on Summer recess).

Good point too, Gordon the Blue Engine. Gallup polls and the like are often conducted with a sample of 2,000 or so to represent the whole 60 million of us. But they are a chosen cross-section, and are asked an open question. The members of the IOD are presumably all directors, and may not have had such detached neutrality in the survey.

The IOD report tends to suggest that they have made a couple of fundamental mistakes. The first lies in repeating the IEA's figure of ^80 billion, when the directors of HS2 Ltd assure us that they can work within the ^42 billion budget, plus rolling stock. The second mistake is to assume that the prime purpose is speed, when those of us who have been paying attention know that it is capacity. If I was a director of a manufacturing or engineering company, or even something peripheral transport or catering, I would be looking to see if there was anything in the project that I could tender for rather than poo-pooing the whole shebang.

The Bristol Post (http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Billions-wasted-HS2-better-spent-Bristol-s/story-19712968-detail/story.html), on seeing this bandwagon rolling past, jumped right onto it. With typical Post-like accuracy, they tell us that:


This means the Post either a) does not know where London is; b) can't divide; or c) didn't check its facts by reading then Transport Secretary Philip Hammond's statement of 1 March 2011, which put the cost at ^704 million. I suspect a combination of all three.

I will continue to fight HS2's corner until Lord Adonis and Patrick McLoughlin change their minds. We have waited 26 years since the first announcement of GWR electrification, and the cost will be much higher than it would have been in 1977. As I said earlier, if we need capacity now, we will need it even more in 20 years time, and will suffer economically for the lack of it. Costs must be controlled at every stage, but the signs are that that is happening. The final specification should be chiselled in granite, because changes in design during construction are the source of higher bills. HS2 Ltd, like its project, must be capable of surviving a general election on its merits, not political expediency

A poll with 1,323 respondents is actually quite good. The ICM's, YouGov's and Ipsos-MORI's of this world tend to canvas around 1,000 people when seeking opinion on political matters. And that is 1,000 out of an adult population of over 50 million. 1,323 out of 35,000 is, I'd contend, much more statistically robust.

MPs? Doing their own thinking? Whatever next?

They'll be suggesting ideas that are good for the country as a whole...  ::) :P ;D

That is what lobbyists do these days, aided by journalists who no longer have the time (or perhaps the inclination) to check the facts.  They get a so called expert to publish some fabrication and get it published.  They then get others to quote it as if it were truth later on.  They even use it in surveys to find out what people think if the are fed the fabrication as if it were a fact. So eventually enough people believe it to be true.

There is a huge difference between a survey in which 1,000 people from a membership of 33,000 are randomly selected (say every member who's membership number ends in 01, 34 and 67) and a survey in which all 33,000 members are invite to take part and 1,000 actually do so.  There is useful information to be gained from the latter but it's can't (or rather shouldn't) be extrapolated to suggest that "xx% of our members think that ..."

Which methodology did the IOD use?  Which do those other organisations use?

As a sample of a random or carefully selected cross section, yes it would be. As a poll of members of a society composed of members with identical job titles, and no-one else, it tends to suggest that 96% of the members didn't think it worth bothering to answer, didn't know, or weren't around to be asked.
To find out how the survey was done, including whether it was a poll of all members or just a sample, I had a look at their website, finding that:

 

I must admit to being little wiser about the import of the results after looking at the press release. (http://www.iod.com/influencing/press-office/press-releases/institute-of-directors-calls-on-the-government-to-abandon-hs2) This tells me that:


So although only 27% of respondents felt that HS2 was good value for money, 42% see it as important to their business. This presumably means that a significant number of IoD members think that even though they don't support it, they are still willing to engage with HS2 to make money.

I also find that:


Patrick McLoughlin was right. Had this project not been tarred with the brush of a high-speed moniker, support for HS2 (or HC2 as it might be called, the C-word in this case being 'capacity') would have been 50% higher. Had the money been earmarked for another 10-year campaign of disruption whilst the WCML, ECML, and others were upgraded yet again, four out of five directors who expressed an opinion would have approved.

Or if it were possible to have your cake and eat it, the IoD would be at the front of every queue, plate thrust outwards. Or at least 72%* of them would be.

(*That figure was plucked out of thin air. 67% of statistics are made up on the spot)

I may have given the impression that I'm off the fence as far as HS2 is concerned - I'm not. For visceral rather than logical reasons, I'll probably wait for Adonis, McLoughlin and FT, N! change to change their minds before I join the anti camp.

Having said that, I do hope HS2 limited are just keeping their PR powder dry at the moment - because they don't seem to be on the front foot. It is very frustrating that when the press gives blanket coverage to the risible Dr BeechWellings, HS2's response seem to be a muffled whimper.

It possibly would not do HS2 Limited any favours joining in the "political squabble" they have a mater of fact task to do at the moment, their PR team I suspect is quite small and will be focused on local areas where they are carrying out surveys

I am still on the fence about HS2 whilst I love high speed trains there is no point in building and expensive LGV if it doesn't provide better faster through transport.

Take London to the Birmingham it's to a Terminal Staion away from New Street which is the hub of the Network. I believe it's the same in Manchester and Leeds terminal stations isolated from the existing Hbf.

So if I'm travelling from say Wolverhampton am I going to change and waste time in Birmingham and get HS2 to save 30 minutes or stay on a Pendelino on the WCML? Even if I'm starting from a local West Midlands station am I going to change from New Street to Curzon Street rather than just at New Street.

Or will I be forced to change as there will be no through trains from Wolverhampton/ Birmingham New Street to London?

What will the fare structure be? Will it be premium service? In which case the competing TOCS are likely to offer lots of cheap fares for their slower journies. Are there really that many business travellers from London to Birminghm?

Or am I raising stupid questions, lets just build the line and watch the passengers flock to it!

You can cross me off the list, because if Adonis and McLoughlin decide against it, I shall trample the weak in the rush to grab a parachute. My opinion is largely informed by theirs.

Like Electric Train, I don't think a PR offensive by HS2 would do any good at all. The detail of the project is theirs to explain, the vision behind the route and the justification for it is entirely the responsibility of Government and DafT. This a Government requirement, answering a need identified by Government, and paid for by the Government on our behalf. They have work to do when Parliament reconvenes, and other major distractions may occupy MPs for some large part of the first session

Fair point - I should have said 'the pro-HS2 lobby'.

As to things the next Parliament may have to think about; let's hope the monkey knows how to handle a hand grenade - else all bets may be off.

I think the pro-HS2 lobby have conducted themselves pretty well over the last couple of years. Pete Waterman, all credit to him I think has been doing a pretty good job popping up on BBC2 news etc and not being afraid to take the fight to the Nibbies who are against HS2.

A perfect example of this was when Pete Waterman was in a debate on a tv show against someone opposed to HS2.  The anti-HS2  lobbiests dont like it when you show how misleading some of their arguments are. As for any costs increasing, the whole legal cases againts HS2 are  one reason why.

I will be glad when construction on HS2 starts maybe then we start looking at HS3 which can bring some relief to the GWML which I suspect will be one of the next  mainlines needing extra capacity due to large increases in freight and passenger traffic.

I may have done myself a disservice in my use of the word "informed". I read every argument, on both sides and in the middle, and hope I do so relatively impartially. Even discounting my bias towards rail, though, I find their arguments - and Pete Waterman's - to be persuasive above the others. The transport portfolio seems to be special in Government, in that it can breed long-term interest and even expertise in the right incumbent, far beyond the usual ministerial span of attention.

From The Guardian: (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/01/osborne-defends-hs2-protests)


And: (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/01/hs2-economic-geography-george-osborne)

Bad choice of words there. If HS2 is about economic benifits not about capacity then I too will climb off the metephorical fence into the metephorical camp of the anti-HS2 brigade.

If you have read George Monbiot's article, "The Open Veins of Wales" (http://www.monbiot.com/2008/12/30/the-open-veins-of-wales/) maybe you will understand what I mean. If your only objective is to tackle the ecconomic north-south divide then, in my view, you create (either by upgrading or building new lines) a conventional Intercity railway like the GWML, WCML and ECML (with maximum speeds no faster 125/140mph, if you even need that) from Liverpool to York via Manchester and Leeds. I can only guess, wildly, but I suspect that would do more for the ecconomic suituation (if transport links really effect that at all) for alot less cost than HS2.

"We have set a budget of ^42bn....."

No, George it's ^42.6bn for the phase one and two construction costs. But what's ^600 million between Govt. and taxpayer?  ::)

No mention whatsoever of the ^7.5bn for rolling stock. Again.

Still, this is only the Chancellor of the Exchequer communicating to the public how much the project will cost in total (currently...), can't expect him to give accurate figures. Can we?

I am normally the first person to attack the chancellor, but I think you are being unfair here. 

OK so he rounded the numbers.

He was however quite clear that this was the budget for construction costs (he did not say it included rolling stock).

He was also quite clear that it included contingencies. 


A budget that includes contingencies.  So he is saying this is not just the current cost it is the total budget for construction.  That is what a budget is.  It has to include all those extra things that you think will be added.  That is what a budget is.

You may think that HS2 will not work to the budget - but the Olympics was completed on budget (budget ^9.29bn cost ^8.77bn (source http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/20041426 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/20041426)).  The mistake is not to include a contingency sum.

I was taught that 0.6 should be rounded up if rounding is to be used. So if George was rounding then he should have said ^43bn.

Consistently leaving out the cost for rolling stock for HS2 is just wrong. I fail to understand why ministers and civil servants continue to do so. Every time a layman sees the figure ^42.6bn for HS2, I contend that that is what they will think is the total cost.

If HS2 Ltd and it's supporters want to get people on side, one of the first things they can do is be upfront about all the projected costs.

As for the Olympics, the budget was ^9.29bn including contingency of just over ^1bn (I'm correctly rounding down there) and just under half of that ^1bn has, to date, been spent. There's a large land sale contract worth over ^400 million that has not yet been signed off and the Olympic Delivery Authoirty is holding, "unreleased contingency against future cost pressures and a quantitative risk assessment of issues that may arise during the delivery of the remaining programme and final dissolution."* So it's to early to say definitively that the Olympics were in budget, or that all of the contingency will not be spent.

*Olympic Delivery Authority Annual Report 2012-2013 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223522/ODA_Annual_Report___Accounts_2012-2013.pdf) (.pdf)


Olympics contingency was approximately 11% of total budget. HS2 contingency is 33% of the total budget. Academic studies show that contingency is expected to be expended. One third contingency may well have been arrived at by expert analysis of similar projects in the UK and elsewhere, but I'm struggling to find any examples. The closest comparison is probably HS1. That had an 18% contingency, all spent, with a further ^357 million spent by the DfT on Temple Mills depot, the cost of which was outside the original contract.

http://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-completion-and-sale-of-high-speed-1/

I never thought I would be supporting George Osborne but on this occasion I thought he was being unusually transparent for a politician.  Yes in science we were always told to round numbers to the nearest integer, but politicians are not scientists (regrettably). 

I don't know if you have ever run a capital programme but the idea is that you set a contingency based on the risks. The earlier in the design and planning process you set the budget the higher the risks will be. 

Academic studies by whom?  I am sorry, but I have no confidence in so called experts in something else meddling in things they do not understand or have even tried to understand, but get credibility just because they have Prof of Dr in front of their name or work for something called and institute.  The recent report by the IEA is a classic example of this.

You say that budget will always be spent. If the contingency is based on risk perhaps that is a sign of good budgeting. 

I am sorry you have no confidence in my profession to work to a budget.  Just because Railtrack failed that does not mean that civil engineering projects cannot be done to a budget.  They committed themselves to a scheme without working out the scope.  They decided that they were an asset management business. Unfortunately no one has decided what that means yet. So they decided that accountants and economist were quite capably of running a hugely complex technical business.

Network Rail and HS2 on the other hand is very well staffed with Civil Engineers. 


The main problems with public sector projects is that politicians (and others) try and meddle with the specification too late in the process.  Sometimes they think they are trying to save money as it would be a shame to have to pay to change something later. When in fact that would be the cheapest thing to do. 



 

The current projected cost for construction would actually be ^42bn and not ^42.6bn if it weren't for an alleged change to the route costing ^600million so that it avoided a more affluent part of one MPs constituency.

That constituency? Tatton. The MP? George Osborne.

Could of course be a total coincidence that the proposed route was changed in this way, adding six miles of track. But the dogleg in the route to Manchester is rather curious, particularly when you note that the area to the south and east of the dogleg is sparsely populated. Going from Crewe between Knutsford and Wilmslow to Manchester is straighter (folks in the area of Phase 1 were told the line had to be straight) and shorter. Instead there are two massive curves taking the line to the very west and north edges of Mr Osborne's constituency.

Coincidence can be so fortuitous sometimes.

Interresting nobodies's answered my question regading the Wolverhampton passenger will they expected/forced to use HS2 because of lasck fo through trains to London?

What about Derby Nottingham to London passengers are they expected to drive to Toton Parkway when they might live quite close to town stations. I used to go to Derby a lot and catch a bus down London Road to the computer centre. Would I have gone HS2 and be dumped at Toton for sake of a shorter journey which even with a taxi the time saving would have been eaten up by the extra time for the onward journey.

Beggining to have my doubts!

 

I don't think all the detail has been worked out yet, after all we are still a long way a way from Phase 2 in 2032 regarding your Toton question. I think I did read somewhere that the Nottingham Tram system could/would be extended to Toton Parkway, but I can't find a link.

There is some interesting work coming out from Network Rail regarding the integration of HS2 with the existing network:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/improvements/high-speed-rail/ (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/improvements/high-speed-rail/)


This is good bedtime reading, but they are all worth a read. If you look at the "Better Connections",  then go to the tables starting on page 18 you start to see some of the thinking and some of the concerns raised seem similar to your own.

On page 25 it notes:


I think for the next few years it will be a question of 'Watch this Space' as connections and new/revised services are worked out and refined. You might even end up with a Wolverhampton to Derby direct train!!


ST

No answers because we do not know what is planned. However through trains for more people or faster trains is always a thorny question.  It does rather depend on individual taste. The more places a train stops the slower it is.

It also depends what sort of service is provided to connect Wolverhampton to Birmingham.

If there was a semi fast Stafford, Wolverhampton, Birmingham service that got you to New Street with a short pedestrian connection to Moor Street (aka Curzon Street) for a High Speed train to London, then some might argue that is a better service than now if you got to London in less time.  If you had to catch the local dmu that stopped everywhere on route then you would not.

Some might prefer to take a semi fast all the way to Euston stopping (say) at Coventry, Rugby, Milton Keynes and Watford Jn. rather that change at Birmingham. However many people make this choice anyway. For them a direct semi-fast might still be a better service than you get from (say) Sutton Coldfield where you don't expect a direct service to London.


I have more experience of the East Midlands. As someone who was quite used to using the Nottingham Derby shuttles, using them to get to Toton to catch a High Speed Train seems to be no problem. After all not many people live in the City Centre.  I used to catch the train from Beeston to Nottingham to catch a London Train. So catching a Beeston Toton Train would have made no difference to me. As long as Totton does have heavy rail and tram connections from all parts of Nottingham and Derby I see no difference than trying to get to stations in the centre of Nottingham or Derby. The station that would seem to have no future is East Midlands Parkway. 

Having had a further root around this document may be of use:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69743/updated-economic-case-for-hs2-_august-2012_-explanation-of-the-service-patterns.pdf (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69743/updated-economic-case-for-hs2-_august-2012_-explanation-of-the-service-patterns.pdf)

It was published in January 2013 as the explanation of the service patterns accompanying the August 2012 updated economic case for HS2

note paragraph 1.1.2:


Going to page 11 of 13 you will see that the West Coast service from Liverpool to London is proposed to be via Wolverhampton.

The 'Do Minimum' is virtually the current calling pattern of Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Dudley, Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International, Coventry, Watford Junction and Euston by 20 trains per day and will be replaced by 16 trains from Liverpool Lime Street, via Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Crewe, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Dudley, Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International, Coventry, Rugby, Milton Keynes and Watford Junction to Euston.

There will also be a 16 trains a day LM 'slow' or at a pinch 'semi-fast' service from Wolverhampton to Euston via Northampton as shown on page 10 of 13.


Finally, on Page 10 you will also see that the 18 trains a day on the Matlock and Derby to Nottingham route will divert via 'East Midland HS (Toton)', plus Nottingham - Derby slow services. 

ST 

 

http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/local_transport_today/news/?ID=35693

From Railnews: (http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2013/09/06-government-steps-up-hs2-campaign.html)

I'm glad they have been paying attention to our comments here. Sir Albert Bore sounds interesting.

I am also pleased that the slant has been taken away from pure speed to increasing capacity, improving connectivity between the Southeast and the other major conurbation in England.

Thanks to ellendune and Sapperton tunnel for answering my qusestion about Wolverhampton and Derby/Nottingham passengers.

I take the point about Beeston passengers who would presumably go to Toton Parkway rather than Nottingham, however I'm still not convinced regarding Wolverhampton passengers. If it's only the Matlock Nottingham trains that are being diverted what about people from Burton who might well change at Derby for London will they want to change twice?

One other thing that came up at SWRS last night was thai it is beleived HS2 will be continental gauge therefore its trains will be very restricted where they can run on the exosting network unless a lot of work is done on linking routes or two types of train are used.

Apart from Japan as far as I can see most LGVs have services which serve places off the high speed line the dreadful crash in Spain highlighting the problems of running high speed trains on exisiting networks,

However, it looks like HS2 trains will solely run on HS2 requiring a change to onward destinations. Rather than HS2 having more conections to the existing network and services to non HS2 stations using HS2 for the maximum distance.

Am beggining to wonder what HS2 actually adds to the rail network as an interconnected  whole.

HS2 is planned as UIC gauge GC - the same as HS1. This is the "biggest" UIC gauge, so other UIC gauges fit inside it - rolling stock can be smaller.

The final fleet as costed is: 92 HS train sets (200m long), and 79 "hybrid" train sets of which 15 are 260 m long. The hybrid (or classic-compatible) trains fit a standard British gauge (presumably C1). The HS trains are to be chosen from standard offering for the European market, which must be within gauge GC.

Blimey...how unpleasant would that be with trains every 5 minutes or whatever the headway is proposed. Whose daft idea idea is that?...and you need a lot of tree density to attenuate the noise!