A personal idea on HS2/Chilterns

[Esker-pades]

Good essay.

Thank you.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Because it’s somebodys property. Taking property without paying is called theft.

As in why doesn't a hotel company (e.g. Hilton) pay instead for something that the government will make little to no profit from.

doesn't negate HS2.

No, CML should not negate HS2. I too (and every rail enthusiast, professional and journalist in the country) want HS2. The only problems (and I subscribe to the Lord Berkeley thinking) are the practicalities. Being realistic,

 

[ajs1981]

As in why doesn't a hotel company (e.g. Hilton) pay instead for something that the government will make little to no profit from.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I think the hotels concerned have, or will be, demolished so the government are buying them to remove them rather than constructing them for a commercial entity to profit from.

 

[The Ham]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I think the hotels concerned have, or will be, demolished so the government are buying them to remove them rather than constructing them for a commercial entity to profit from.

Even if there's going to be a hotel again in the future then it's likely to be sold off, or leased, to pay back some of the construction costs of the overall scheme (even if that's not much more than the cost of building the new hotel).

 

[adamedwards]

Perhaps we need a speculative thread on how to widen the West Coast main line instead of HS2:

Euston station still has to be enlarged for the extra trains
New tunnels at the top of Camden Bank to widen to 8 tracks
Massive property demolition along side the route to add 2 more tracks out to Watford (or put the DC lines in tunnel and take them over)
Extra tunnel at Watford
More property demolition in Watford and Hemel Hempstead (Move A41 out of the way)
Widen Tring cutting (without touching the woods!)
Then we get a nice open bit to Bletchley comperable to France
Property demolition in Milton Keynes. How to get past the Wolverton curve with the 2 extra tracks?
Straighten the alignment parallel to the M1 to avoid Weedon. Go over the top at Blisworth to avoid the tunnel?
More demolition in Rugby, Coventry and on the approach to Birmingham to add 2 more tracks.
Upgrade the Trent Valley 4 tracks to 186mph (300 kph)? Or widen to six tracks? (In which case Tamworth and Litchfield lose lots of property)
New straight bit at Atherstone.
Flyover junction at Colwich and new alignment to avoid the curve and tunnel
New alignment to by-pass Stafford (sharp curve)
4 tracking Stoke to Manchester (Bramhall and Poynton property demolished)
6 tracking Stockport to Piccadilly (more houses gone)
Major rebuild at Crewe (80 mph limit)
New alignment to avoid the Winwick - Golborne speed restrictions
etc etc
The do the same on the Midland main line and the East Coast Main Line (Digswell viaduct and tunnels would cost Grant Shapps his seat)

Now does anyone really think this will be much cheaper and easier to do than a new line in continuous tunnel from Euston to the Colne Valley.
Think about how easily HS1 was built v the West Coast upgrade to 140mph downgraded to 125mph.
HS2 makes perfect sense.

I'm a northerner living in the south in case you wonder.

 

[Bald Rick]

As in why doesn't a hotel company (e.g. Hilton) pay instead for something that the government will make little to no profit from.

No, CML should not negate HS2. I too (and every rail enthusiast, professional and journalist in the country) want HS2. The only problems (and I subscribe to the Lord Berkeley thinking) are the practicalities. Being realistic,

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I think the hotels concerned have, or will be, demolished so the government are buying them to remove them rather than constructing them for a commercial entity to profit from.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. The hotels are no more, they’ve been bought and paid for. There’s no difference between buying a lucrative* hotel that’s in the way of a new railway than there is to buying a farmer’s field, a golf course, an old peoples’ home, or a private residence.

Perhaps we need a speculative thread on how to widen the West Coast main line instead of HS2:

Euston station still has to be enlarged for the extra trains
New tunnels at the top of Camden Bank to widen to 8 tracks
Massive property demolition along side the route to add 2 more tracks out to Watford (or put the DC lines in tunnel and take them over)
Extra tunnel at Watford
More property demolition in Watford and Hemel Hempstead (Move A41 out of the way)
Widen Tring cutting (without touching the woods!)
Then we get a nice open bit to Bletchley comperable to France
Property demolition in Milton Keynes. How to get past the Wolverton curve with the 2 extra tracks?
Straighten the alignment parallel to the M1 to avoid Weedon. Go over the top at Blisworth to avoid the tunnel?
More demolition in Rugby, Coventry and on the approach to Birmingham to add 2 more tracks.
Upgrade the Trent Valley 4 tracks to 186mph (300 kph)? Or widen to six tracks? (In which case Tamworth and Litchfield lose lots of property)
New straight bit at Atherstone.
Flyover junction at Colwich and new alignment to avoid the curve and tunnel
New alignment to by-pass Stafford (sharp curve)
4 tracking Stoke to Manchester (Bramhall and Poynton property demolished)
6 tracking Stockport to Piccadilly (more houses gone)
Major rebuild at Crewe (80 mph limit)
New alignment to avoid the Winwick - Golborne speed restrictions
etc etc
The do the same on the Midland main line and the East Coast Main Line (Digswell viaduct and tunnels would cost Grant Shapps his seat)

Now does anyone really think this will be much cheaper and easier to do than a new line in continuous tunnel from Euston to the Colne Valley.
Think about how easily HS1 was built v the West Coast upgrade to 140mph downgraded to 125mph.
HS2 makes perfect sense.

I'm a northerner living in the south in case you wonder.

Good estimate. Also worth pointing out how many weekends of disruption this would take to achieve. Perhaps 30 years worth on the WCML alone.

 

[The Ham]

Good estimate. Also worth pointing out how many weekends of disruption this would take to achieve. Perhaps 30 years worth on the WCML alone.

You certainly wouldn't want to close another North South line at the same time, so any upgrades would have to be fine one after the other.

Compared with HS2 where there's likely to be lots of weekends which other lines could have works done at the same time.

It would be the same with the upgrade of the Chiltern Line, it would pause improvements on lots of other lines whilst it was ongoing, or else you'd have to lengthen the construction period to allow for other works. Other works would include essential maintenance.

 

[Peter Kelford]

The do the same on the Midland main line and the East Coast Main Line (Digswell viaduct and tunnels would cost Grant Shapps his seat)

Isn't this just moving the goalposts?

Now does anyone really think this will be much cheaper and easier to do than a new line in continuous tunnel from Euston to the Colne Valley.

A continuous tunnel from Euston the Colne Valley shouldn't be needed. Think about French HS lines which start at places like Villeneuve-Saint-Georges. Even the LGV Mediteranneé, which runs in a long tunnel out of town cost 5 billion (inflation-adjusted Euros) for 250 km, including the large triangle junction and several viaducts at Avignon. This works out at around 20 million euros. HS2 is rather over-the-top for what it needs to do anyway.

 

[Aictos]

Isn't this just moving the goalposts?



A continuous tunnel from Euston the Colne Valley shouldn't be needed. Think about French HS lines which start at places like Villeneuve-Saint-Georges. Even the LGV Mediteranneé, which runs in a long tunnel out of town cost 5 billion (inflation-adjusted Euros) for 250 km, including the large triangle junction and several viaducts at Avignon. This works out at around 20 million euros. HS2 is rather over-the-top for what it needs to do anyway.

It’s not moving any goal posts though, HS2 will be taking a number of HS services from the WCML, MML and ECML that has already been discussed in detail, all the poster was explaining was all the additional and hugely disruptive works over decades to deliver the same kind of benefits that HS2 as a new built line would deliver.

Plus does that 20 million or so Euros include planning and construction bearing in mind that it’s been explained that Europe has some rather creative accounting practices.

Also in two posts of yours, you seem to have conflicting views on HS2 as you seem to be against it in your opening post but then a few posts down you say you’re for it now that’s moving the goal posts!

Personally, I am of the opinion that HS2 London to Birmingham is not an appropriate project for the UK. However, there may be a case for a major upgrade to the Chilterns line. Starting at Marylebone, I would recommend a few new underground platforms (this has been done in Rennes, Brittany). The line would receive a comprehensive upgrade and LUL stock would not be sharing the line between Pinner and Harrow, unless some form of bi-current system running on OLE and 4th rail could be devised, creating a 100mph line through to Amersham, and then 220 km/h from there to Birmingham.

I wonder what others' thoughts are.

No, CML should not negate HS2. I too (and every rail enthusiast, professional and journalist in the country) want HS2. The only problems (and I subscribe to the Lord Berkeley thinking) are the practicalities. Being realistic,

 

[The Ham]

Isn't this just moving the goalposts?

HS2 will have services to Leeds, York and Newcastle, always has been expected to do so.

As such, by giving passengers the choice of HS2 or the ECML from some key stations along the ECML it will reduce the number of people wishing to use the line over what would otherwise be the case.

If there's enough of a reduction (for instance removing the trains which don't stop between London and York) then it would mean that there's then no longer a need to improve capacity on the ECML, or even if there is a need for improvements these improvements wouldn't need to be as extensive as if HS2 wasn't built.

As such there's no moving of the goal posts.

 

[Peter Kelford]

The ECML upgrade seems to me only to be of much use should TPR be built.

 

[The Ham]

The ECML upgrade seems to me only to be of much use should TPR be built.

Why does an upgrade to the Trans Pennine Route(s) help the ECML with or without HS2?

 

[Peter Kelford]

Why does an upgrade to the Trans Pennine Route(s) help the ECML with or without HS2?

Without it Newcastle, Edinburgh and the likes are not going to benefit properly and might be better off just going via the ECML.

 

[The Ham]

Without it Newcastle, Edinburgh and the likes are not going to benefit properly and might be better off just going via the ECML.

Only if the full HS2 scheme isn't built.

With HS2 the journey time from Edinburgh to London be quicker via WCML (North) and HS2, with journey times of 3:40 vs the current 4:20.

Whilst Newcastle would be 2:20 vs the current 2:50.

As such it's unlikely that many would remain using the existing services to make those journeys, based on journey time however there could be other reasons as to why people may wish to do so.

 

[adamedwards]

Anyone thinking we can avoid HS2 and upgrade the exisitng lines without major hassle may care to note that Kings Cross is completely closed for the whole of this weekend. I have no train service to London at all and lots of ads from Great Northern saying do not travel. (There is a very limited bus to St Albans)

This is being repeated over several weekends this year and then we get to several months of KX being 50% shut. That achieves an improved throat at KX, platform 5 at Stevenage (wiring when the power is off) and the Werrington dive under. No extra tracks up the ECML and nothing to widen the Digswell 2 track section (which would be a massive local political issue for Grant Shapps our MP if it was ever suggested again).

Not building HS2 will mean either years and years of this sort of thing as each section of line is rebuilt or even higher rail fares to price people off the tracks.

Of course we could double deck the M40, M1 and A1(M) instead...

 

[Peter Kelford]

Not building HS2 will mean either years and years of this sort of thing as each section of line is rebuilt or even higher rail fares to price people off the tracks

But for the foreseeable future more and more closures for something where the sole certainty is obsolescence before it's even open.

 

[The Ham]

But for the foreseeable future more and more closures for something where the sole certainty is obsolescence before it's even open.

Why would it be obsolete before it's open?

Given that in the last 10 years average broadband speeds have gone up by a factor of 10 and yet rail travel has grown.

Nationally rail growth has grown by 20% in the last 7 years (and whilst there's been a drop in 2017/18 the growth between 2016/17 and 2018/19 still comes out at 1.7%).

However on Virgin trains it's grown by 30% in 7 years, with 5% growth in the last year that there's full data for and 6.7% growth between the first half of 2018/19 and the first half of 2019/20.

30% growth, based on the 2.5% per year growth used in the HS2 model puts us at the year 2021/2022 rather than the actual year for those passengers numbers of 2018/19.

However the base year was 2008 and since then growth in the WCML corridor has been (2008/09 and 2017/18) 70%, that 70% growth is the equivalent to 21 years at 2.5% a year pushing the date further into the future with a comparable year of 2029.

That's beyond when HS2 phase 1 was planned to be opened and well on the way towards when phase 2 was planned to be opened.

Given we've already exceeded phase 1 passenger numbers for the WCML corridor how can you justify that phase 1 will be obsolete?

 

[Peter Kelford]

Obsolete because the next generation of transport technology will be quite apparent by 2030, or, failing that, at least a way of making trains a lot cheaper.

 

[adamedwards]

What is this magic next generation technology? Flying cars, the Musk car tunnel?

 

[The Ham]

Obsolete because the next generation of transport technology will be quite apparent by 2030, or, failing that, at least a way of making trains a lot cheaper.

Whilst the next transport technology could well be apparent by 2030 that doesn't mean that it would start to be rolled out until 2050, unless is something which is already fairly developed and uses existing infrastructure.

As is it needs new infrastructure than its going to take at least 10 years for anything significant to even get going.

Even then it would have to be so good that it totally replaced rail.

Therefore it would need to have the capacity to do so without being more expensive than rail is. It would also have to be as green if not greener (which would rule out electric cars).

 

[tbtc]

Obsolete because the next generation of transport technology will be quite apparent by 2030, or, failing that, at least a way of making trains a lot cheaper.

What is this magic next generation technology? Flying cars, the Musk car tunnel?

Or even some wobble about "smart signals" (Which seem to be the magic button for the anti-HS2 posters!)

Funny how this amazing next generation of transport technology is no reason not to re-open various rural lines that Beeching closed... these amazing leaps in technology (or the fact some people think we'll all be working from home in a decade etc (presumably eating all food in tablet form like they do in the future) are never given as justification of why we don't need SELRAP (or a main line from Okehampton to Tavistock or whatever)...

...must be something about this new generation of transport technology that only affects high speed lines on new alignments (but doesn't affect the business case for some fanciful idea like, say, Tweedbank to Carlisle)?

Funny that, eh?

Maybe it's a bit like the way that people say we shouldn't cut down any trees to build HS2 but are okay with widening existing lines which requires chopping large numbers?

Or the way that people say we shouldn't build HS2 because it's gone over budget, when *every* infrastructure project seems to have doubled in price nowadays - look at the cost of even modest things like a new platform at Leeds/ Coventry - but people's squeamish reaction to increases in HS2 costs never seem to get mentioned as reasons to abandon other projects with spiralling budgets?

(hard to get trains much cheaper on a per-passenger basis than a four hundred metre one that only requires one driver and can run so fast it can do several Manchester - London round trips each day - compare that to the cost per passenger of a DMU dawdling along some quaint branchline...)

 

[The Planner]

But for the foreseeable future more and more closures for something where the sole certainty is obsolescence before it's even open.

There are generally very few closures needed to build HS2. NR will be blocking the railway infinitely more times that HS2 require to and in most places you would integrate the work.

 

[Peter Kelford]

What is this magic next generation technology? Flying cars, the Musk car tunnel?

Funny how this amazing next generation of transport technology is no reason not to re-open various rural lines that Beeching closed... these amazing leaps in technology (or the fact some people think we'll all be working from home in a decade etc (presumably eating all food in tablet form like they do in the future) are never given as justification of why we don't need SELRAP (or a main line from Okehampton to Tavistock or whatever)...

Ex-Beeching lines serve places where there is previously no fixed public transport link (a bus running on a public road with a sign for a bus stop is not a real 'fixed and permanent' link). HS2 serves a place that is already served by a 4-track line. Considering that the 4-track line can be optimised, then do that first.

Or the way that people say we shouldn't build HS2 because it's gone over budget, when *every* infrastructure project seems to have doubled in price nowadays - look at the cost of even modest things like a new platform at Leeds/ Coventry - but people's squeamish reaction to increases in HS2 costs never seem to get mentioned as reasons to abandon other projects with spiralling budgets?

But should this be the case? No. If a £2b project doubles, it gets to £4b. If a £10b project doubles, it's an extra £10b to fork out. Thus the value for money may be different. It's not just proportions.

 

[JonathanH]

Considering that the 4-track line can be optimised, then do that first

As you suggest, they have optimised the 4-track railway already.

 

[Energy]

HS2 serves a place that is already served by a 4-track line. Considering that the 4-track line can be optimised, then do that first.

Not all is 4 track, quite a bit is only double track.

 

[Aictos]

Ex-Beeching lines serve places where there is previously no fixed public transport link (a bus running on a public road with a sign for a bus stop is not a real 'fixed and permanent' link). HS2 serves a place that is already served by a 4-track line. Considering that the 4-track line can be optimised, then do that first.

A bus running a service on a public road with the infrastructure such as bus stops etc isn’t a ‘fixed and permanent’ link?

Really?

So the Stagecoach service that connects Peterborough directly with Wisbech, Kings Lynn and Norwich for example isn’t a fixed link despite being advertised as one for longer then I can remember!

Or the Stagecoach service that links Peterborough with Northampton is also not a fixed link despite again being advertised as such for longer then I can remember!

You’re forgetting that HS2 is not just going to relieve congestion on the WCML but also on the MML and the ECML,

As to optimising the WCML, don’t you think the experts who work it day in and day out would have done it already?

 

[Peter Kelford]

Not all is 4 track, quite a bit is only double track.

Then 4-track it.

 

[The Planner]

Then 4-track it.

How does that create extra capacity south of Rugby?

 

[Peter Kelford]

How does that create extra capacity south of Rugby?

Moving block, cab signalling, grade separation, modified timetables (trains stopping in more regular patterns) new rolling stock, double-heading on freight services etc. It is also possible to build 6 tracks

 

[30907]

Then 4-track it.

Just to clarify, the only double track south of Weaver Jn is Shugborough Tunnel near Stafford which only carries just over half the trains passing Rugby. There is still a 3-track section south of Nuneaton which is 2tph busier.
On your following post, the only point that hasn't already been responded to is double-headed freight trains. Marginal benefit at most, as existing freights can keep up with the EMUs on the slows and making them longer would require lots of infrastructure work.