Detailed Route of HS2 - 20th Dec 2010

[Striker]

Launched today is the detailed route of HS2.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/proposedroute/

 

[pauljam20]

Launched today is the detailed route of HS2.

It looks from the second map page that it goes through Old Oak Common which is GWR, but in tunnel - which means that although HS1 has a link to HS2, it would not be possible to go from HS2 onto GWR. Am I right?
Obviously this is for the future when we eventually get electrified...

 

[lancastrian]

I have not seen the confirmed route yet, but I am sure that there will have been some carefully thought out changes to tone down the complaints from 'Conservative Voters" who are upset about the previously suggested route by the Labour Government.

How ever I would have thought that there exsists a route that could be used to some degree for some of the length. That is the old great Central route between Carlvert Juntion and Rugby. The route was orginally built to the 'Berne' gauge. It was well engineered and it already exsists to some degree. So the impact would be limited more if this old route was used.

I am sure that others who know the area better than me, could well correct my asumptions or be able to confirm that it is practicable to use the old Great central route.

 

[swt_passenger]

I am sure that others who know the area better than me, could well correct my asumptions or be able to confirm that it is practicable to use the old Great central route.

They do use some of the broad route of the old GC, but nothing like as far as Rugby, because that would be in completely the wrong direction to get to just east of Birmingham, which is the aim. They end up on an alignment north-west of Brackley IIRC.

Unfortunately though, the GC route's typical curve radii are far too tight for a HS alignment, so if you do get round to looking up some of the maps, eg this at Quainton: http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/assets.dft.gov.uk/hs2-apr-00-dr-rw-04012.pdf , you'll find that the HS2 route eases nearly all the bends anyway.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It looks from the second map page that it goes through Old Oak Common which is GWR, but in tunnel - which means that although HS1 has a link to HS2, it would not be possible to go from HS2 onto GWR. Am I right?
Obviously this is for the future when we eventually get electrified...

The purpose of the OOC station box ibeing introduced into the route was to allow for interchange with Crossrail and via new platforms on the GWML fasts. This decision was reached a while back, and isn't new today by any means. I don't think there has ever been any intention to link the routes for through rail services.

 

[Nevasleep]

From the BBC website it sounds like the Secretary of State for Wales cares far more about this project, than anything to do with improvements (or lack of) in Wales.
Bloody hell :roll:

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I am thinking that it would confuse the very hot place out of all the NIMBYs in the Chilterns if everyone on here started enquiring about buying properties that would have a view of the new line.

Then again, I don't want to have to wait 15½ years to get a bigger house...

 

[A0]

I have not seen the confirmed route yet, but I am sure that there will have been some carefully thought out changes to tone down the complaints from 'Conservative Voters" who are upset about the previously suggested route by the Labour Government.

How ever I would have thought that there exsists a route that could be used to some degree for some of the length. That is the old great Central route between Carlvert Juntion and Rugby. The route was orginally built to the 'Berne' gauge. It was well engineered and it already exsists to some degree. So the impact would be limited more if this old route was used.

I am sure that others who know the area better than me, could well correct my asumptions or be able to confirm that it is practicable to use the old Great central route.

I suspect if the route were using the old GC north of Brackley to the edge of Rugby there would be less resistance to it. The problem is that the proposed route after Brackley is through un-touched countryside. It's not even like HS1 which shadowed an existing transport corridor (A2 / M2).

I agree the GC was built to the Berne loading guage and that it would make sense to use it. I don't believe destroying untouched countryside from Brackley to Coventry is a sensible thing to do - be it for rail, road or air transport.

 

[tbtc]

I'm just impressed they are still going ahead with it (given the other cuts)

 

[jopsuk]

I agree the GC was built to the Berne loading guage

Common misconception- the line was opened nearly fifteen before the Berne Convention happened- and HS2 is being built to the much more massive UIC GC static gauge AND to a larger kinematic gauge beyond that (as all HS is).

 

[Solaris]

I would challenge the assertion that we have a UK Strategy. While the scheme proposed promises journey times of 1hr 20 min from Manchester to London and onward links to Europe there is nothing for >6M people in S Wales and SW England. We haven't even got electrification and journey times to London from Cardiff are over 2 hours (and is 30 odd miles closer to London than Manchester)...... all we need now is the return of steam and a man with a red flag!

Similarly the Heathrow access question has overlooked the fact that the greatest demand for access to Heathrow comes from S Wales and S W England and not the Midlands and the North of England (as presented by DfT in their 2002 review of UK Airport capacity)
Finally if HS2 is to link to HS1 via OAC – then why, for probably little incremental cost, could that not incorporate a GWML link as well?

Phil Hammond stated at the outset that the primary objective of HSR is to ensure a greater geographical balance in economic growth across the UK. We have to remember that the Greengauge21/KPMG study on economic benefits for HSR suggested that the scheme (as re-stated yesterday) would cost Wales 21,000 jobs and that calculation assumed that the GWML would be electrified!!. Rail in Wales, unlike Scotland is not devolved so we are paying for this as well but seem to be getting nothing out of it.

I would be far more supportive if we could see, in parallel with HS2, a “Bowe Group” type upgrade of the GWML.

 

[tigerroar]

Am I missing something or does it cut straight through the middle of a housing estate in Chalfont St Peter?

 

[junglejames]

Id heard that there had been some change to the route to avoid areas where the namby dambies (tories) live. This seems to be confirmed. They say it has been significantly redrawn.
Apparently the line will be hidden out of view by trees, cuttings etc now as well.
Looks like the pm bowed down to the namby dambies again.

 

[Daimler]

Am I missing something or does it cut straight through the middle of a housing estate in Chalfont St Peter?

I think it's in tunnel all the way from Old Amersham to the other side of Chalfont St. Peter (coming out near the M25, as far as I can tell) - that's what the red outline means.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think it's in tunnel all the way from Old Amersham to the other side of Chalfont St. Peter (coming out near the M25, as far as I can tell) - that's what the red outline means.

Red being tunnel has been conveniently overlooked by many of the complainants about the route. Maybe they should have just left gaps on the maps where the tunnels are?

Posters suggesting routes via Rugby etc would do well to consider the designed horizontal curve radius of 8km (5m). If you took the GC approach through Rugby, which is basically about 10 degrees east of N/S, to then head west your line would end up about 5 miles NW of the station heading slap bang through Coventry - as I said earlier, once you've decided on a London to Birmingham route, Rugby is really out of the question.

 

[pauljam20]

I would challenge the assertion that we have a UK Strategy... .

Thanks Solaris for expanding on my point.

It would be interesting to compare the population in the GWR direction (Heathrow, Bristol, Cardiff, Plymouth) with that north of Birmingham. I do think it is justified to electrify this line, and connect it to the HS network, then in the future we can have trains from the rest of Europe even if not at full speed - as is done over there. At the moment we are stranded!

London has an odd arrangement for its main stations, they are all terminuses unlike for example Belgium where there is a through line from Brussel-Zuid to Brussel-Noord. Joining HS1 and HS2 makes sense because it is a step in the direction of through rail.

 

[Solaris]

Thanks Solaris for expanding on my point.

It would be interesting to compare the population in the GWR direction (Heathrow, Bristol, Cardiff, Plymouth) with that north of Birmingham. I do think it is justified to electrify this line, and connect it to the HS network, then in the future we can have trains from the rest of Europe even if not at full speed - as is done over there. At the moment we are stranded!

.

Cardiff "City Region" ~1.4M, Swansea "City Region" ~0.5M, Bristol "City Region" ~1M. If the wider SW England is included that is another ~5M. That is, conservatively 8M people who will benefit from a major upgrade of GWML and that to Plymouth. Cf Gtr Manchester 2.5M, Leeds "City Region" ~2M, Tyneside 1.5M, Merseyside 1.8M and all of Scotland ~5M.

 

[bangor-toad]

Hi,
I've amused myself looking through these new proposals and I've seen a few differences that are interesting.

The HS1 - HS2 link is in and it's straightforward and simple. I think that they are right in saying that there will not be a huge demand in the short to medium term and a single bore tunnel will be OK. That it starts at Old Oak Common and goes to the NLL without fuss seems to simplify operation.

The Heathrow link is clearly in mind. There are some extra concrete structures shown on map hs2-apr-00-dr-rw-04003.pdf which seem to be the flying connectors for a Heathrow link. Provision seems to be made for a spur rather than a loop as the equivalent provision isn't made further north. Hmmm, disruption there in the future if that's ever built.

The flying connection provision to HS3 (or whatever the eastern leg of the HS track is going to be called) which was just north of the Birmingham delta junction has been removed. This seems to be a foolish mistake as there will be inevitable disruption when (if?) that is built. Of course, by removing the provision of a bridge at this point gives a bit more flexibility as the the route of HS3 I suppose.

There's no connection provided to the GWML. However this part of the country is recognised and discussions are put forward for a new station at Old Oak Common to allow interchange.
Personally I don't think there will ever be a HS link heading due west - Brunel did too good a job with his engineering and that'll be considered good enough for the next 50 years. New trains and/or electrifiaction will only reduce the reason for HS rail that way...

If I see anything more I'll post again.
Cheers,
Jason

 

[pauljam20]

Hi,
The Heathrow link is clearly in mind. There are some extra concrete structures shown on map hs2-apr-00-dr-rw-04003.pdf which seem to be the flying connectors for a Heathrow link.

Well spotted Jason, I didn't look that far along! I suppose it would join directly to the Heathrow link, so maximising the distance on the new line. Hopefully also a junction with the GWR.

It's not so much getting a 300KmH+ line to the west I would worry about, but rather just a link to the HS network and electrification so that trains can run direct. I imagine the structure gauge is probably OK thanks to Brunel's imagination.

 

[Proud Salopian]

Are there any proper plans to build a Crossrail station at Old Oak Common?

 

[CliveHiggins]

I chanced upon your forum, but before I express my views perhaps we should consider the difference between involvement and committment.

In a plate of bacon and egg the chicken is involved but the pig is committed

My house appears on the new route map for HS2 with 2 red dots on it, of course I get no explanation.

I have spent 27 years repairing decades of agricultural neglect, planting 2,800trees, hedges, reinstating watercourses and my reward, someone shoves a railway line through the middle of it.

That would be bad enough if the line were needed, but it isn't.

Not one single reason for its construction stands up to intelligent scrutiny

It will not save time,
It is not ecologically viable,
It is not economically viable
It will not make any contribution to the economy of the North
The money would be better used upgrading the UK's internet backbone so that techniques like video conferencing become possible, then there is no need for most business travel. A fibre optic into every telephone user in the UK would cost £9 Billion, a saving of some £24 Billion on the projected costs of HS2 which will of course be hugely overshot

Lets start this debate by trying to identify who the 20,000 people PER HOUR who are prepared to pay £230.00 single to get from Central London to Birmingham theoretically 20 minutes quicker than the current methods provide. Remember that if you live is say Guildford you have to travel for 40 minutes into Central London to embark on HS2

(all these figures are taken from HS2 own documentation)

 

[Greenback]

Welcome to the forum Clive. I can understand your own personal concerns about your house, and I sympathise with anyone affected by these plans in this way.

I agree with some of the points you have made. It's difficult to quantify what, if any, will be the economic benefit to the north, Scotland, or anywhere else as a result of the line. I doubt that the investment is economically viable under the traiditional profit/loss view, and I question whether the population spread and density in the UK is suited to dedicated high speed lines. I have also previosuly raised my concerns about the pricing structure and the market for the types of trains being proposed.

I don't agree that video conferencing will reduce the need to travel, however. And you will also need to confront the capacity issues that HS2 will address, although personally I can't see why these could not be addressed by a slower railway rather than building a brand spanking new all singing, all dancing high speed line.

 

[LE Greys]

Are there any low-res versions of the maps? The ones on Network Rail's site take ages to download.

 

[Geezertronic]

Lets start this debate by trying to identify who the 20,000 people PER HOUR who are prepared to pay £230.00 single to get from Central London to Birmingham theoretically 20 minutes quicker than the current methods provide. Remember that if you live is say Guildford you have to travel for 40 minutes into Central London to embark on HS2

(all these figures are taken from HS2 own documentation)

Welcome to the forum Clive. I too sympathise but you have fallen into the trap of expecting all HS2 services to be between London and Birmingham only. Services to northern destinations are expected to pass through HS2 (not necessarily Birmingham City Centre) on their way where they will join the West Coast Main Line (WCML) north of Lichfield (or wherever the link is now planned) so the time savings for destinations in the North West and Scotland will also decrease.

Please can I suggest you start your debate with another aspect.

 

[bangor-toad]

My house appears on the new route map for HS2 with 2 red dots on it, of course I get no explanation.

The red dots on the maps are to show listed buildings.

I don't know where your house is but the area where the route is shown as passing very close to listed buildings is around Chalfont St Peters. The design has the tracks about 30m (100ft) underground for much of that.

If you're the one near Kenilworth then I can see why you're not happy - there's a new HS railway line on a viaduct on one side and the Coventry - Birmingham tracks just to the other.

J.

 

[barrykas]

Looking at Map 4, it seems they STILL haven't taken the EG3 remodelling between Northolt and West Ruislip into account either...Ho hum.

 

[brianthegiant]

I have spent 27 years repairing decades of agricultural neglect,

Clive, you have my sympathy also, it is pertinent that the personal aspects of HS2 are heard and listened to alongside all the facts and figures.

In response to some of the points you have made:
1) re pricing, the point (that is of course omitted in much of the campign material against HS2) is that whoever gets the franchise to run HS2 will have a lot of seats to fill (up to 1000 per train) so needs to compete with the likes of Virgin West Coast initially, and as it goes north with East MIdlands and East Coast franchisees. Therefore HS2 will actually increase competition and exert downward pressure on fares, in the same way that the forthcoming Deutsch Bahn services to Brussels and beyond are widely expected to put pressure on Eurostar fares.

With regards teleconferencing etc. As a project manager I regularly use web-conferencing etc and these technologies are by now well accepted in the business community and used simply because travel is very costly and time consuming. However I hope you'll agree from your own experience that when you are doing business or running projects, there is no substitute for actually going and shaking someones hand, looking them in the eye etc and developing trust and understanding.

 

[Geezertronic]

With regards teleconferencing etc. As a project manager I regularly use web-conferencing etc and these technologies are by now well accepted in the business community and used simply because travel is very costly and time consuming. However I hope you'll agree from your own experience that when you are doing business or running projects, there is no substitute for actually going and shaking someones hand, looking them in the eye etc and developing trust and understanding.

I agree with that. I work 2/3 days a week at home with the other 2/3 days at the office (which one depends on which way the wind is blowing that week). There is no substitute for face to face meetings and discussions and never will be in my opinion.

 

[Pumbaa]

That would be bad enough if the line were needed, but it isn't.

How did you come to that conclusion?

The principle that HS2 address was that the existing trunk from London to Birmingham and Manchester/Glasgow is already nearly full (it can squeeze 2 extra trains an hour max on the southern stretch). Passenger, freight numbers are growing. Either suppress demand and as such keep the country fragmented or recognise that freight moving long distances by rail quickly and eco-friendly is a big plus.

End result - we need a new rail line. Now either duplicate the existing line (which would be pointless; it would double capacity but not make things faster, not improve journey times nor incentivise further passenger and freight travel) or build HS; really connect populations up, bring business centres closer together and provide the capacity on the existing lines for slower passenger services allowing greater connectivity, increase the amount of rail freight exponentially, increase domestic trade cheaply, connectivity into Europe without prohibitive air freight costs...

It does bring economic benefits, it does bring faster journey times and it is needed and will bring much needed economic development in the North eventually.

 

[tbtc]

I chanced upon your forum, but before I express my views perhaps we should consider the difference between involvement and committment.

In a plate of bacon and egg the chicken is involved but the pig is committed

My house appears on the new route map for HS2 with 2 red dots on it, of course I get no explanation.

I have spent 27 years repairing decades of agricultural neglect, planting 2,800trees, hedges, reinstating watercourses and my reward, someone shoves a railway line through the middle of it.

That would be bad enough if the line were needed, but it isn't.

Not one single reason for its construction stands up to intelligent scrutiny

It will not save time,
It is not ecologically viable,
It is not economically viable
It will not make any contribution to the economy of the North
The money would be better used upgrading the UK's internet backbone so that techniques like video conferencing become possible, then there is no need for most business travel. A fibre optic into every telephone user in the UK would cost £9 Billion, a saving of some £24 Billion on the projected costs of HS2 which will of course be hugely overshot

Lets start this debate by trying to identify who the 20,000 people PER HOUR who are prepared to pay £230.00 single to get from Central London to Birmingham theoretically 20 minutes quicker than the current methods provide. Remember that if you live is say Guildford you have to travel for 40 minutes into Central London to embark on HS2

(all these figures are taken from HS2 own documentation)

Welcome to the Forum...

I think the two big problems with the way that "HS2" has been portrayed are that:

1. A lot of people think its only a London - Birmingham service (which will only benefit passengers between London and Birmingham)

2. People think it's only about high speed

I can see how the impression has happened, and it's partly the fault of the (current and previous) Government.

The new line will become the principal route for journeys between London and Birmingham, yes, but also to Manchester/ Leeds/ Edinburgh/ Glasgow etc. Most of the trains on the route will extend north of BIrmingham (or even avoid stopping at Birmingham). Its a bit like the way the M1 from London to Leeds is also used for journeys like London to Newcastle. This isn't going to be a London - Birmingham "shuttle".

It needs to be built as much for capacity reasons as for speed ones. Train demand has gone up significantly over recent years. Frequencies have increased on many lines (London - Birmingham = 50% increase, London - Sheffield = 100% increase, London - Manchester = 200% increase...). However there's a limit to how many more trains can be squeezed onto the tracks, and there's a limit to how long trains can be (the extension of West Coast services to eleven coaches is required, but this is about the limit).

So, faced with reaching capacity, at a time when demand keeps increasing, we need more capacity. The West Coast Main Line improvements took *several* years (meaning the railway from London to Glasgow was shut most weekends over a long long time). Capacity increases could happen elsewhere, but become increasingly expensive to do (another viaduct at Welwyn?).

With this in mind, the only way to resolve things is a new railway. It can be built without disrupting existing railways, it will free up capacity on existing lines (by diverting some London - Manchester/ Leeds services through "HS2" there'll be more scope for trains on the "classic" railways to serve more "middle distance" stations.

I'm not saying HS2 is perfect. And its certainly not been "sold" very well. But its what we need.

 

[vtiman]

I sympathise with clive also. i can understand that it is very hard if you have to move home or be disadvantaged in some way for the greater good particularly if you are not sure by how much or even if you will be recompensed financially. it appears the scope of this has been increased by phillip hammonds latest statement.

I dont however see that you or others in your situation help your case by making unsubstantiated statements. the evidence provided by the government and by hs2 ltd and by arup and by evidence from overseas shows the following :

It will save time,
It is ecologically viable,
It is economically viable
It will make a contribution to the economy of the North

I am not saying you should just accept what the government says but you need to back up your allegations. as far as broadband is concerned it will reduce business travel to a degree, but are you saying we should all be restricted in our travel in the future - as I dont like the sound of that ! I have a relative who travels a lot in his business to face to face meetings and he is in the telecomms industry !!!!