Your earlier post is interesting, so forgive me for reproducing it here:


The problem as far as I can see it is that Chiltern has scrimped on track upgrades south of High Wycombe - they could have reinstated passing loops at High Wycombe, Beaconsfield and Denham, but instead have restricted new loops to South Ruislip (down) and Princes Risborough (up). I suspect this will restrict their ability to add stops for local and Oxford services whilst maintaining 100 min timings for Birmingham services.

Evergreen 4 anyone?

The commitment to a peak hour 92 mins London - Birmingham service seems to have eased to 98 minutes in the latest documents. However still impressive.

The draft timetables for phase 2 (i.e. the Oxford extension) are on the Network Rail website at:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browseDirectory.aspx?dir=\Track%20Access\2%20Completed%20Consultations\2009\2009.10.27%20Chiltern%20Railways%2073rd%20Supplemental%20Agreement%20-%20consultation%20closed%2023%20November%202009&pageid=4591&root=

Have your parents restricted your access?   

The Atkins Report on alternative rail upgrades has been published on
the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) 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^▸ (West Coast Main Line) 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^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) 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^▸ (Areas Of Natural Beauty)).
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 line will be built for 250mph (400km/h) . The trains will initially run at 225mph (360km/h)

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^▸ (United Kingdom). 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.'

I think you're referring to Mr Wolmar's article in the TSSA^» (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association - about) journal:

'Towards the end of this month, we will get the government^s White Paper based on the work by the HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) 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^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) 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^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) commuter services, East London Line, the PPP on the Underground and so on. So rightly, the MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) - 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.'

It appears that Captain Deltic's Chiltern Chairman Challenge may be
connected to further upgrade proposals from Chiltern:

This from TransportXtra 25 February:

'Delivering the Evergreen III project will see Chiltern^s franchise
extended from its current guarantee of 12.5 years to run for its full
20-year term, but Shooter said that he was continuing to work up
further investment projects for the network which he expected to
reveal shortly.'

The Chinese have - the Polaris, at a cost of around ^1 million per carriage, about half the price of a Super Express coach:

http://www.csre.co.uk/intercity.html

http://www.csre.co.uk/files/Download/2009%20Polaris%20Data%20Sheet.pdf

Following last month's announcement on Evergreen 3, Chiltern Chairman
Adrian Shooter is asking Modern Railways readers what Evergreen 4
should provide. Roger Ford likes the idea of a 4 track 125mph
electrified railway but reckons that this will have to wait for
Evergreen 5 (and a potential franchise extension to 2026, according to
the article!) !

Comments to Roger Ford at:  Evergreen4@alycidon.com

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.

The debt may be in Network Rail's name, but in reality it's public debt. Don't be surprised if the Conservatives rip up Network Rail's 09-14 settlement after the election.

Funny how the Conservatives will be able to afford the ^16 billion Crossrail project but not a ^1 billion electrification scheme.

The Conservatives will review: Electrification, IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), Themeslink replacement stock and Crossrail:

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/02/03-no-guarantees-about-major-rail.html

The Tories have been pretty consistent about HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) over the past year or so; good that they have now committed to Crossrail. Where that leaves funding for GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) electrification and Super Express is anyone's guess!