pablo
Member
After the consultation closed it became apparent that there is a seemingly unanimous degree of opposition to HS2’s proposals in Cheshire and Lancashire. Whilst conceding agreement in principle to the construction of the line, the responses reveal a wall of opposition to the published preferred route.
It seems that the LAs and local pressure groups are singing a similar tune. It’s obvious that they know their own patch better than HS2 and it’s making HS2 look something of a clod-hopper by bumping into every conceivable obstacle; SSSIs, SBI, recently planted woodlands, wetlands, eco centres. It will destroy recently created and thriving industrial estates, divide communities, clip landfill and impact upon about nine gradeII* listed buildings, not to mention proposing an additional enormous embankment to take the line over the MSC at 30m above water level. It ploughs through scarce grade 2 farmland destroying agri-businesses when there is still plenty of spoilt land to improve. The Lancashire landscape has received significant investment recently, is slowly recovering and no longer the total wasteland it might seem. HS2’s superficiality in deciding the route undermines that (no pun intended). They need to do what the Stephensons, Brunel, Telford, Brindley and many more did before them. Get out there and tramp the possible routes. I get the impression that designers these days sit at desks drawing lines on screens and only survey the one thrown out as optimal…..
There appears to be a consensus that HS2’s proposal does nothing for the area but is quite detrimental. The alternative is that it should parallel the WCML. They use the unfortunate terminology ‘upgrading’ but it’s not actually what they mean. Warrington BC certainly suggests that (together with a hub at BQ of course) and so do the pressure groups. Before you wail disruption, it’s as well to study the possibility on OS maps. It looks quite viable to me. Ooop north, paralleling is not anything like as problematical as doing the same south of MK, for instance.
Cheshire is largely open farmland adjacent to the railway, and where it impacts development, at Winsford and Hartford, there are suggestions for improvement. In Lancashire the proposal hops from farmland to brownfield to farmland to brownfield except just north of Warrington where some demolition is required. But if WBC is happy to propose that, who is to argue? Crossing the Mersey and the MSC was accomplished by the LNWR south of Warrington using topography to help. The embankments are nothing like as intrusive as HS2’s monstrosity. Stephensons’ GJR alignment, which was abandoned when the MSC was built, is still available! and, there is plenty of space south of Warrington for an RSD that the locals don’t want at Bamfurlong. Further, WBC argues that the ‘spur’ (sic) from the delta junction to Bamfurlong is unnecessary since its nett worth is simply to carry 3tph between Manchester and Scotland (assuming the WCML route proposal).
So, can I foresee the route north of Crewe being designed for HS2 by those with a more intimate knowledge of the area?
Here is a link to their WCML proposal put up for LENDF, a local pressure group, by an ex-railway manager. It’s pre-Higgins unfortunately, so Crewe hub is not taken into account and I’m not sure I’m happy with the Manchester spur proposals. Scroll to page 7 Appendix 1 for the route proposal.
http://www.lendf.co.uk/LENDF Response to HS2 Consultation.pdf
And here is a link to their ‘HS2 problems’ page which contains, in turn, links to LA’s responses and other articulate contributions. Scroll down a bit:
http://www.lendf.co.uk/HS2-TrainStation.html
It seems that the LAs and local pressure groups are singing a similar tune. It’s obvious that they know their own patch better than HS2 and it’s making HS2 look something of a clod-hopper by bumping into every conceivable obstacle; SSSIs, SBI, recently planted woodlands, wetlands, eco centres. It will destroy recently created and thriving industrial estates, divide communities, clip landfill and impact upon about nine gradeII* listed buildings, not to mention proposing an additional enormous embankment to take the line over the MSC at 30m above water level. It ploughs through scarce grade 2 farmland destroying agri-businesses when there is still plenty of spoilt land to improve. The Lancashire landscape has received significant investment recently, is slowly recovering and no longer the total wasteland it might seem. HS2’s superficiality in deciding the route undermines that (no pun intended). They need to do what the Stephensons, Brunel, Telford, Brindley and many more did before them. Get out there and tramp the possible routes. I get the impression that designers these days sit at desks drawing lines on screens and only survey the one thrown out as optimal…..
There appears to be a consensus that HS2’s proposal does nothing for the area but is quite detrimental. The alternative is that it should parallel the WCML. They use the unfortunate terminology ‘upgrading’ but it’s not actually what they mean. Warrington BC certainly suggests that (together with a hub at BQ of course) and so do the pressure groups. Before you wail disruption, it’s as well to study the possibility on OS maps. It looks quite viable to me. Ooop north, paralleling is not anything like as problematical as doing the same south of MK, for instance.
Cheshire is largely open farmland adjacent to the railway, and where it impacts development, at Winsford and Hartford, there are suggestions for improvement. In Lancashire the proposal hops from farmland to brownfield to farmland to brownfield except just north of Warrington where some demolition is required. But if WBC is happy to propose that, who is to argue? Crossing the Mersey and the MSC was accomplished by the LNWR south of Warrington using topography to help. The embankments are nothing like as intrusive as HS2’s monstrosity. Stephensons’ GJR alignment, which was abandoned when the MSC was built, is still available! and, there is plenty of space south of Warrington for an RSD that the locals don’t want at Bamfurlong. Further, WBC argues that the ‘spur’ (sic) from the delta junction to Bamfurlong is unnecessary since its nett worth is simply to carry 3tph between Manchester and Scotland (assuming the WCML route proposal).
So, can I foresee the route north of Crewe being designed for HS2 by those with a more intimate knowledge of the area?
Here is a link to their WCML proposal put up for LENDF, a local pressure group, by an ex-railway manager. It’s pre-Higgins unfortunately, so Crewe hub is not taken into account and I’m not sure I’m happy with the Manchester spur proposals. Scroll to page 7 Appendix 1 for the route proposal.
http://www.lendf.co.uk/LENDF Response to HS2 Consultation.pdf
And here is a link to their ‘HS2 problems’ page which contains, in turn, links to LA’s responses and other articulate contributions. Scroll down a bit:
http://www.lendf.co.uk/HS2-TrainStation.html
Last edited:
Should HS2 Ph2 follow roughly the WCML and be re-routed via Warrington, a ready-made HS alignment exists for the Manchester spur. All you have to do is partially fill the Manchester Ship Canal from Warrington to short of Salford Docks (pretty useless canal now despite Peel's efforts at revival) and then tunnel under Manchester to Picc or Vic. 
hock: 
That'll be another Stratford 'International' without the excuse of a few week's fun and games.
