HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general discussion

[whole diary]

[RailCornwall]

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^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel), 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^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) from the start and the relevant integration work done as part of NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'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^▸ (Great Western Main Line)/Crossrail/HEX interchange station looks far too small, I would assume the GWML TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot))/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.

[RailCornwall]

.... 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^▸ (Great Western Main Line) could, with HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) be down to OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)), and then onto the GWML. timings could be quite competitive and open up the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) paths south of Birmingham for use by the GWML TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company).

[eightf48544]

Did anyone notice that on BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) 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^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel).

[Chafford1]

Did anyone notice that on BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) 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^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel).

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

[Chafford1]

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.'

[RailCornwall]

The problem is that the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) 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?

[eightf48544]

I don't think the people who think HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) is not all it's cracked up to be are dinosaurs.

For example I would like to see the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) 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^▸ (Large Goods Vehicle) 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^▸ (West Coast Main Line) 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^▸ (Great Western) 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^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) would relieve a lot of the overcrowding experienced on many exisitng routes by giving more seats per train rather then more trains per route.

[paul7575]

Maybe this will see the end of a Cross Country franchise. The Norm NE to SW route given electrification of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) could, with HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) be down to OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)), and then onto the GWML. timings could be quite competitive and open up the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) paths south of Birmingham for use by the GWML TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company).

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

[paul7575]

I don't think the people who think HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) is not all it's cracked up to be are dinosaurs.

For example I would like to see the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) 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^▸ (Large Goods Vehicle) 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.

I don't think that can be assumed from the reports. AIUI^▸ (as I understand it), 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?

[paul7575]

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

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^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services)) running, many of the GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) 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

[Btline]

For example I would like to see the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) lines electrified  with cross Pennine links following before HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) 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^▸ (Large Goods Vehicle) 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^▸ (West Coast Main Line) 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^▸ (Great Western) 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^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) would relieve a lot of the overcrowding experienced on many exisitng routes by giving more seats per train rather then more trains per route.

Well said that person!

[Deltic]

Can you imagine the disruption to services on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) 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.

[Trowres]

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

[Btline]

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^▸ (United Kingdom) roads, so your home is probably on now!

[Btline]

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!