HS2 Detailed plans and route

[Chafford1]

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.'

 

[LE Greys]

I think we need to remain focused on what the purpose of HS2 is. Firstly,it is to reduce journey times between major centres. Secondly, it is to increase capacity on existing flows. What we can do, is take a list of Britain's most major cities, and then work out which will be connected when and where. So that would give us:

London
Birmingham
Glasgow
Leeds
Manchester
Liverpool
Edinburgh
Newcastle
Sheffield
Nottingham
Dundee
Aberdeen
Bristol
Cardiff

and from this we can work out a basic plan for expansion of the HS Network

I like your ideas, Waverley, especially the tunnels (although it might be a while before passenger numbers are anywhere near high enough to warrant them). However, I would make Birmingham a lower priority, and go for where maximum benefit could be delivered for minimal new infrastructure (rebuilt not counting as 'new'). As a result, I would go for this system.

HS2: London-Brackley-Rugby-Leicester-Nottingham-Sheffield-Woodhead-Manchester/Liverpool-Glasgow
In two stages, London-Sheffield (otherwise known as the Great Central London Extension) and Manchester-Glasgow (super-quadrupling the WCML). You would have a massive West Riding electrification, and upgraded lines from Sheffield to Leeds and Bradford. The rebuilt Woodhead Tunnel would be a 125 mph conventional main line, also carrying freight and Trans-Pennine traffic. Cross Country could use the route between Brackley and Sheffield or Nottingham and Manchester, and there would be slow lines as far as Rugby to serve places such as Woodford Halse. A branch to Heathrow is an option.
HS3: London-Heathrow-Bristol-Cardiff/Plymouth
Super-quadrupling the GWML. The through station at Heathrow would actually be an upgraded version of West Drayton with a light rail link (probably the ULTra already in use at T5). The new line would begin at Didcot, with LGV stock using the old line east of there (Brunel's alignment can cope with 155 mph). Also electrify to Camarthen and Penzance, perhaps also Taunton-Reading, and use tilting stock.
HS4: London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough-Leeds-Newcastle-Edinburgh
Not neglecting the east. This starts from Stratford, and follows the Central Line, the M11 and the West Anglia route until it turns for Peterborough. It then follows the ECML or the A1, with regular on/off junctions to connect with the 'classic' route. Here, the East Anglia-North West XC route gets its second half. There is the possibility of a short-cut from Doncaster to York, but the route could miss York altogether and run via Ripon instead.
HS5: London-Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds
Essentially fills in the gaps and provides a relief to what will be a very crowded HS2 by now. The WCML already has a decent service and does not need a high-speed boost anywhere near as much as the East Midlands or Bristol.
HS6: Sheffield-Birmingham-Bristol
Essentially ties up all the other lines.
HS7: Edinburgh-Glasgow-Stranraer-Belfast
The Irish Sea Tunnel Rail Link. Potentially a branch to Carlisle as well
HS8: Glasgow/Edinburgh-Dundee-Aberdeen
More an extension of HS7 and HS4. Probably the most unlikely of all, but just possible.

The idea is to plumb the new lines into the network as much as possible, while also increasing freight traffic on lines such as the MML. You would then have a much more integrated system, closer to the German style, and areas would not lose out. I have tried to make sure that the WCML upgrade does not look like a waste of time, and concentrate on areas where the lines have not been upgraded since BR days.

I'm sure there are faults, so please let me know what you think.

 

[rb311]

Firstly, the announcement by Adonis is purely political. Less than 2 months before a general election, it sends out a nice warm message that Labour plan lots of nice new infrastructure projects that will deliver nice clean green transport. Infact, I very much doubt that this project will get any further than the printers.

As far as where £30 billion would be useful, and furthermore, green, is to invest in freight capacity on the railways. Improving the loading guage on mainlines so lorries can drive straight on to trucks and be taken off the roads would make much more sense.

high speed passenger services are a piece of icing on a pretty paltry cake. For the majority of people a high speed line between Lon and Brum would be a waste of time, as they would have to travel to the centre of both to use it.

Let's be realistic and try and get the railways do what they do best, and move heavy loads fast, free up the road capacity and let us travel in our cars as and when we need to, to precisely where we need to go.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

If only because we need the capacity, this must go ahead. The fast journey times will be a bonus. But why doesn't it connect to HS1?

Having two HS lines that come within less than a mile of each other at the London end, but are not interconnected, seems daft!

The WCML into Euston is already connected to HS1 via the North London Line. If HS2 follows the WCML route into Euston, as the plans indicate, the routes will already be connected.

 

[tomba]

Here is the proposed Birmingham end of the HS2 in Google Earth (GE):

The four black structures on the left appear to be escalators.

The GE .kml file is here. The first of the third-level entries in the folder is the map overlay. You can switch this on and off or, if you open it (Right-click/Properties), you can vary its opacity by moving the slider.

Tom

 

[Geezertronic]

I wonder whether it might be worth extending the Birmingham terminus to double the platforms so they could use it as a viable alternative to New Street and Moor Street for other (and connecting) services? It would mean reversing services (since tunnelling under Birmingham would not be viable due to cost) but since New Street cannot be expanded and Moor Street is going to be extended to capacity as part of Evergreen, could it be the only option?

I take it that the station will be raised so the buses can still go underneath where the station concourse will sit?

 

[Waverley125]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waverley125
I think we need to remain focused on what the purpose of HS2 is. Firstly,it is to reduce journey times between major centres. Secondly, it is to increase capacity on existing flows. What we can do, is take a list of Britain's most major cities, and then work out which will be connected when and where. So that would give us:

London
Birmingham
Glasgow
Leeds
Manchester
Liverpool
Edinburgh
Newcastle
Sheffield
Nottingham
Dundee
Aberdeen
Bristol
Cardiff

and from this we can work out a basic plan for expansion of the HS Network

I like your ideas, Waverley, especially the tunnels (although it might be a while before passenger numbers are anywhere near high enough to warrant them). However, I would make Birmingham a lower priority, and go for where maximum benefit could be delivered for minimal new infrastructure (rebuilt not counting as 'new'). As a result, I would go for this system.

HS2: London-Brackley-Rugby-Leicester-Nottingham-Sheffield-Woodhead-Manchester/Liverpool-Glasgow
In two stages, London-Sheffield (otherwise known as the Great Central London Extension) and Manchester-Glasgow (super-quadrupling the WCML). You would have a massive West Riding electrification, and upgraded lines from Sheffield to Leeds and Bradford. The rebuilt Woodhead Tunnel would be a 125 mph conventional main line, also carrying freight and Trans-Pennine traffic. Cross Country could use the route between Brackley and Sheffield or Nottingham and Manchester, and there would be slow lines as far as Rugby to serve places such as Woodford Halse. A branch to Heathrow is an option.
HS3: London-Heathrow-Bristol-Cardiff/Plymouth
Super-quadrupling the GWML. The through station at Heathrow would actually be an upgraded version of West Drayton with a light rail link (probably the ULTra already in use at T5). The new line would begin at Didcot, with LGV stock using the old line east of there (Brunel's alignment can cope with 155 mph). Also electrify to Camarthen and Penzance, perhaps also Taunton-Reading, and use tilting stock.
HS4: London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough-Leeds-Newcastle-Edinburgh
Not neglecting the east. This starts from Stratford, and follows the Central Line, the M11 and the West Anglia route until it turns for Peterborough. It then follows the ECML or the A1, with regular on/off junctions to connect with the 'classic' route. Here, the East Anglia-North West XC route gets its second half. There is the possibility of a short-cut from Doncaster to York, but the route could miss York altogether and run via Ripon instead.
HS5: London-Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds
Essentially fills in the gaps and provides a relief to what will be a very crowded HS2 by now. The WCML already has a decent service and does not need a high-speed boost anywhere near as much as the East Midlands or Bristol.
HS6: Sheffield-Birmingham-Bristol
Essentially ties up all the other lines.
HS7: Edinburgh-Glasgow-Stranraer-Belfast
The Irish Sea Tunnel Rail Link. Potentially a branch to Carlisle as well
HS8: Glasgow/Edinburgh-Dundee-Aberdeen
More an extension of HS7 and HS4. Probably the most unlikely of all, but just possible.

The idea is to plumb the new lines into the network as much as possible, while also increasing freight traffic on lines such as the MML. You would then have a much more integrated system, closer to the German style, and areas would not lose out. I have tried to make sure that the WCML upgrade does not look like a waste of time, and concentrate on areas where the lines have not been upgraded since BR days.

I'm sure there are faults, so please let me know what you think.

I do disagree, with some major and minor points.

Firstly, while there should be junctions with conventional rail to allow services to run on via the 'classic' lines, as is the case in France, i think it's key that most of the network is kept separate. I also disagree entirely with the HS4 idea. Cambridge & Peterborough are far too close to London and each other to justify sending the route that way in view of the extra cost and time lost.

Here's a more detailed version (& integrated plan). HS stations in capitals.

HS2:

LONDON EUSTON-Brent-Harrow-Rickmansworth-Bovingdon-Miswell-Buckingham-Warwick-BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL-Tysesley-BIRMINGHAM NEW STREET-Chasetown-Colwich-Calverswall-Gawsworth-Hazel Grove-Woodley-MANCHESTER VICTORIA-Farnworth-Lostock-PRESTON-Winmarleigh-Stodday-Ackenthwaite-OXENHOLME-Langwathby-CARLISLE-Moffat-Limekilburn-Glasgow Central

HS3:

Rickmansworth-Hemel Mepstead-Dunstable-Stagdsen-Corby-Wyfordby-Clipston-NOTTINGHAM-Newstead-Calow-Dore-SHEFFIELD-Meadowhall-Jump-Newmillderdam-Ossett-Beeston-LEEDS-Scholes-Sharrow-Shildon-Blaydon-NEWCASTLE-Wideopen-Coldstream-Dalkeith-EDINBURGH

will post more soon

 

[Geezertronic]

HS2:

LONDON EUSTON-Brent-Harrow-Rickmansworth-Bovingdon-Miswell-Buckingham-Warwick-BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL-Tysesley-BIRMINGHAM NEW STREET-Chasetown-Colwich-Calverswall-Gawsworth-Hazel Grove-Woodley-MANCHESTER VICTORIA-Farnworth-Lostock-PRESTON-Winmarleigh-Stodday-Ackenthwaite-OXENHOLME-Langwathby-CARLISLE-Moffat-Limekilburn-Glasgow Central

Birmingham New Street and Birmingham International are not viable to be High Speed terminals in my opinion - there is no scope to extend New Street and International could only fit another platform in at most so capacity and throughput would be serious issues at both. I assume that part of the planning for HS2 would have taken these facts into consideration, including the routing of HS tracks in and out of both stations which is why the plans are for two new stations in Birmingham, particularly the new station currently known as Birmingham Fazeley Street which is a terminus rather than a through station.

Who knows whether the same will apply for stations North of Birmingham when (or if) HS goes further North.

 

[The Planner]

HS2:Warwick-BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL-Tysesley-BIRMINGHAM NEW STREET-

Did you actually check a map when you looked at that ?? thats one hell of a deviation.

 

[Christopher125]

Firstly, the announcement by Adonis is purely political. Less than 2 months before a general election, it sends out a nice warm message that Labour plan lots of nice new infrastructure projects that will deliver nice clean green transport. Infact, I very much doubt that this project will get any further than the printers.

I dont think your argument makes much sense to be honest. Adonis has been working on this as soon as he got the chance, commisioned an independent study into the route specifically to avoid political interference, and has been striving for cross-party consensus from day one.

If your looking for political point scoring, look no further than the idiot Villiers and the rediculous non-argument that is 'its useless if it doesnt go slightly nearer Heathrow, but still require people to change trains'.

Regarding freight - the WCML is the countries most important artery for freight, and it is going to run out of capacity. One of the principle benefits of HS2 is to increase capacity for more, slower trains. While HS2 is expensive, so long as the benefits are good enough it is justified.

Chris

 

[Mojo]

The Conservatives, first under Chris Grayling (to lose him was a shame, for once the opposition actually had a shadow transport secretary who knew what he was talking about and was able to frighten the government into getting something done) and then the rail policies were further being developed under the leadership of Villiers have been championing a highspeed line far longer than Labour.

 

[Moog_1984]

If your looking for political point scoring, look no further than the idiot Villiers and the rediculous non-argument that is 'its useless if it doesnt go slightly nearer Heathrow, but still require people to change trains'.

Regarding freight - the WCML is the countries most important artery for freight, and it is going to run out of capacity. One of the principle benefits of HS2 is to increase capacity for more, slower trains. While HS2 is expensive, so long as the benefits are good enough it is justified.

Chris

Agree on villiers idiotic comment: B4 padd-heathrow you probably did 2 tube changes as an average punter and it took longer.

On value for money: high estimate there of 12 billion for 3 extra tph and 15 mins off a mancheseter run? WTBH?

12 billion would get a lot of 170mph tilting trains running on upgraded existing routes with more quadruple track to allow for overtaking.

 

[the sniper]

Firstly, the announcement by Adonis is purely political. Less than 2 months before a general election, it sends out a nice warm message that Labour plan lots of nice new infrastructure projects that will deliver nice clean green transport. Infact, I very much doubt that this project will get any further than the printers.

Christopher and Mojo have pointed out why your wrong already, but I might as well point out that the Conservatives seem to wish to build a HS line that will almost definitely be more expensive then the one recommended in the report (though their fag packet planning has lead them to believe it would cost the same as Adonis' line). They also want to start in sooner (2015 instead of 2017), so it'll overlap the Crossrail construction program, thus stretching resources.

Admittedly, from the above it looks likes the Conservatives are either desperate for HS2 or they're trying to set up excuses for cancelling it at a later date (the ridiculous Heathrow diversion stubbornness being a prime example). If they were to cancel it though it'd be a TOTAL turn around in their policy. Only in the house of commons on Thursday were they lambasting Labour for it's prior lack of support for domestic High Speed lines. Surely they wouldn't make such a fuss if they were planning to cancel it themselves?

Also, the Liberal Democrats support the report and were quite outspoken about the Tories ill thought out vision of how it should be done.

 

[Geezertronic]

On value for money: high estimate there of 12 billion for 3 extra tph and 15 mins off a mancheseter run? WTBH?

12 billion would get a lot of 170mph tilting trains running on upgraded existing routes with more quadruple track to allow for overtaking.

You're missing the point. It would be very difficult to add extra capacity to the WCML South which is already quadrupled without causing serious disruption - the WCML "upgrade" was bad enough and to upgrade the existing line for a higher speed would not be cost effective given the disruption it would cause. If HS2 can be built and space freed up on the WCML, that will allow more freight to be carried and more "local" services to be run.

It would be difficult to quad Coventry-Birmingham New Street anyway, so in the long run (IMO) it makes more sense to build a new line specifically designed for high speed.

 

[The Planner]

As I think it has already been mentioned, it is easier to build from scratch than to upgrade as there is nothing running over your worksite.

 

[tbtc]

As I think it has already been mentioned, it is easier to build from scratch than to upgrade as there is nothing running over your worksite.

Shame they couldn't have done this on the WCML to avoid all the disruptions.

Like the Virgin plan for the ECML, I like the idea of building brand new lines, that don't mean years of replacement bus services on existing lines.

 

[Christopher125]

The Conservatives, first under Chris Grayling (to lose him was a shame, for once the opposition actually had a shadow transport secretary who knew what he was talking about and was able to frighten the government into getting something done) and then the rail policies were further being developed under the leadership of Villiers have been championing a highspeed line far longer than Labour.

Im not disputing that, and its a real shame that after Prescott and until Adonis the DfT was given ministers who acted as little more than caretakers desperate not to rock the boat.

The problem is that the roles have reversed - we now have Adonis who 'gets it', but with the polls getting closer the tory election strategists seemingly ditched the consensus to create a completely pointless 'division' between the two parties, based on a non-issue, to score political points. In my mind they've surrended the political high-ground over HS2 by sinking to irresponsible electioneering before the route had even been publicised.

Chris

 

[starrymarkb]

Well they ARE politicians

 

[Mojo]

I take it that the station will be raised so the buses can still go underneath where the station concourse will sit?

Have a look at pg115 of http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/routeengineering/pdf/Chapter5.pdf which has a visual impression of it and will give you an idea!

 

[Fincra5]

The thing is, is the cost worth the 15mph per hour. I know that it will be faster as it will basically all "High-Speed". But around 1hr to b'ham right now really isn't that bad.

 

[TinManDerby]

Which Way North Of Birmingham for HS2

I was pondering ideas with a friend which route the HS2 extension east of the pennines would go, has to get from Birmingham area to Shefield, thoughts on would they use Erewash Valley Line routing or even the Great Central route near Sutton In Ashfield, have any ideas.

Understand this is the state of the line planning north of Birmingam:

"After Birmingham, the Government's proposed strategy would see the new high speed line running on to Manchester and separately to the East Midlands, Sheffield and Leeds. Connections onto existing tracks would be included, allowing direct high speed train services to be operated to cities including Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle and Liverpool as soon as the line opens. Further consideration will also be given to extending the network subsequently to these and other major destinations.


HS2 will now begin planning work on the route options from Birmingham to Manchester and to Leeds, to be completed in summer 2011, with a view to consulting early in 2012"

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Is there any talk in all of this of high speed railfreight? Hs1 was built to be dual role, are these lines going to be the same?

 

[Geezertronic]

Have a look at pg115 of http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/routeengineering/pdf/Chapter5.pdf which has a visual impression of it and will give you an idea!

That is a very interesting document throughout, thanks for posting the link

 

[Chafford1]

Is there any talk in all of this of high speed railfreight? Hs1 was built to be dual role, are these lines going to be the same?

Only high speed postal services and the like. Regular freight will continue on WCML.

 

[rb311]

It's interesting that one or two people have quoted the political side of my argument but no one has focussed on the freight side. We live in a world now where passenger rail travel is simply not suitable for the majority. We work flexible hours, we have to travel to work where there are no rail connections and even if they are they are usually unreliable, and don't run when we need them. And in any case who wants to play sardines twice a day with loads of sweaty strangers?

Concentrate on getting freight back on to the rails and off the roads, so that roads can be used for passengers to get to where they need to go.

Moreover, a high speed line that rips up an area of outstanding naural beauty, when viewed in the context of climate change and environmental awareness is simply a none starter.

This project will never go ahead, why spend £30 to shave off a few minutes on one narrow journey corridor, at the expense of huge amounts of environmental damage?

Focus on making the existing network more freight friendly as already mentioned and get lorries off our roads.

Rb311

 

[Christopher125]

Rb311, no one is saying that with HS2 you dont need to invest in the current network, but you cant just ignore the growth in inter-city passenger traffic or ignore the benefits of a high speed network to the wider economy - both more freight and more passenger traffic needs to be carried and the greatest demand for that now and into the mid-term is going to be along the southern WCML.

The best way to increase capacity for both? HS2.

Chris

 

[Waverley125]

passenger rail is faster, safer and more environmentally friendly than road travel. Of course we still need it.

 

[Geezertronic]

It's interesting that one or two people have quoted the political side of my argument but no one has focussed on the freight side. We live in a world now where passenger rail travel is simply not suitable for the majority. We work flexible hours, we have to travel to work where there are no rail connections and even if they are they are usually unreliable, and don't run when we need them. And in any case who wants to play sardines twice a day with loads of sweaty strangers?

Concentrate on getting freight back on to the rails and off the roads, so that roads can be used for passengers to get to where they need to go.

Moreover, a high speed line that rips up an area of outstanding naural beauty, when viewed in the context of climate change and environmental awareness is simply a none starter.

This project will never go ahead, why spend £30 to shave off a few minutes on one narrow journey corridor, at the expense of huge amounts of environmental damage?

Focus on making the existing network more freight friendly as already mentioned and get lorries off our roads.

Rb311

Again, you're not looking at the bigger picture... if the WCML "upgrade" taught us anything, it taught us that higher capacity and speeds cannot be achieved without vast amounts of significant rebuilding and re-engineering which in turn would cause massive distruption to the current passenger and freight services that use the length of the WCML over a long period of time.

 

[Waverley125]

ok, to add on to earlier posts:

HS4:

Brent-Hanwell-HEATHROW (direct interchange)-Eton-Dunsden Green-Aldbourne-Allington-Kingswood-Barton Hill-BRISTOL TEMPLE MEADS-Ashton-Sheepway-Redwick-Uskmouth-Rumney-CARDIFF CENTRAL-Mywndy-Maesteg-SWANSEA

HS5:

LEEDS-Cottingley-Thornbury-BRADFORD INTERCHANGE (Crossrail)-Buttershaw-Hipperholme-Sowood-Delph-Bardsley-MANCHESTER VICTORIA

HS6:

BIRMINGHAM NEW STREET-Kings Norton-Ashchurch-Webeath-Bentham-Rangeworthy-Barton Hill-BRISTOL TEMPLE MEADS

HS7:

EDINBURGH WAVERLEY-Haymarket-Craiglockhart-Murieston-Hareshaw-Pollokshieldds-GLASGOW CENTRAL

HS8:

EDINBURGH WAVERLEY-Haymarket-Craigiehall-Aberdour-Balfarg-Raithlet-DUNDEE-Brechin-Stonehaven-ABERDEEN

 

[Moog_1984]

Again, you're not looking at the bigger picture... if the WCML "upgrade" taught us anything, it taught us that higher capacity and speeds cannot be achieved without vast amounts of significant rebuilding and re-engineering which in turn would cause massive distruption to the current passenger and freight services that use the length of the WCML over a long period of time.

I appreciate your point about disruption: my point though was that the high estimate is 12 billion for what looks like 15 mins faster to manchester plus only 3 trains more per hour.

In comparison to the APT , which took an hour and a bit off the glasgow run on existing track bed.

So it seems a large investment for small benefit.