If you were planning HS2 . . .

[Via Bank]

Well if 18km twin bore tunnels (Crossrail) cost almost exactly £1.25bn, say conservately £1.875bn for triple bore (I know a overexageration but work with me), thats £18.75bn for just 180km of HS2 length tunnels alone, not including track, trains, signals, stations, electrification, etc...., tunneling is 1/13th of Crossrails total cost, so grand total of £243bn?

Don't forget that a longer tunnel vastly increases the project's complexity and the number of potential points of failure - really, the cost will probably increase exponentially with increased length.

marty92, you might want to consider other potential issues - what if there's a minor earthquake that causes a fracture in the tunnel? If the passengers need to be evacuated? (You're going to need a LOT of emergency stations.)

How about a fire? A dewirement (not as likely as on the ECML, but still a possibility)? A high-speed derailment (or, god forbid, a crash) in tunnel would be catastrophic. I can imagine keeping the groundwater out of such a long tunnel would be a major issue, too. So would the avoidance of caves, underground rivers, world heritage sites, radioactive waste, etc.

Remember, too, that intermediate stations will have to be underground or in cutting, or you'll lose the benefit of building underground (it's no good being able to travel at 225mph from Euston/St Pancras if you grind to a halt in snow on leaving the tunnel outside Rugby.) Then you have to account for the additional costs of building the stations underground.

 

[jon0844]

Give me your address and I'll post you some spoons so you can get started. Minimum wage okay?

Of course the other things would be required; but it was a simple estimation of the cost of using a tunnel all the way. If you think you can get it done for 10x less, please do let the DfT know as they probably ruled it out without knowing you knew better!

But, is the inevitable 10x overspend going to be included in your costing too?

 

[Via Bank]

Are they not required if its overland then....

243bn sounds a little extortionate maybe we should get the Eastern European labour to dig it would be more like 24.3bn

Why does this country insist on paying top dollar for everything!

I think you'll find it doesn't.

We do things on the cheap. Hence, the ECML's wires come down if someone in York so much as sneezes.

Eastern European labour? *sigh* NFC. Aside from the fact that we don't treat workers like machines, and hence have a minimum wage and laws governing acceptable working conditions in this country (and where the 90% reduction figure came from, I have no idea - perhaps you'd care to explain?) building a railway is not a job you can put anyone on to.

It is a specialised engineering job that is substantially more complex and requires a much more refined skillset than can be found in the unskilled labour force you seem to be proposing. Theoretically, you could train everyone up with apprenticeships - but then you end up with the issue of "cheap labour" again. If someone has been trained to that level, they deserve an acceptable level of pay.

The reduction you're suggesting would require illegally employing unskilled workers at a fraction of the minimum wage, so we'd end up with a poorly-built line and a large bill to the human rights lawyers.

 

[marty92]

Channel tunnel almost 32 miles cost $21bn (£9,000,000,000)

So Hs2 180Km (111.68 miles) for easy workings lets say 4x Channel tunnel

You see where im going........... $84bn (£36,000,000,000)

Now these figures are old (not sure if they are 1988 or 1994) so inflation means it will be more expensive.

Inflation in-line with CPI makes it £10,363,839,904 based on the £9bn figure being from 1988 (construction began in 1988)

Lets double it to £20bn it sounds feasible to bore to me.

Some one please correct me?

 

[WatcherZero]

The flaw in your maths is somehow youve calculated inflation going from £36bn 1988 to £10bn today a massive deflation!

I get inflation of £9bn 1988 to todays money at £20bn x4 as you said, thats £80bn right there with no trains or stations. Crossrails stations cost between £150m and £500m. HS2 estimated £3bn for rolling stock now compare with the above ground cost of £16.5bn, and these 180km are just to Birmingham, nevermind Leeds or Manchester.....

HS2 length Manchester and Leeds 500km (total above ground £28bn)
Glasgow and Edinburgh 1100km (£52bn)
Newcastle to East Scotland 1360km (£65bn)

 

[Geezertronic]

This will likely end up costing at least 10x more than we are told so 300bn sounds pretty good.

What will be the true environmental/personal cost ...300bn suddenly looks positively cheap doesn't it!

They could have a straight line route without all the overland disruption and all the errors they make during construction would be hidden!!

Further the central tunnel could be the new unaffected by weather M40!

So you're suggesting tunneling all the way? And what would be the environmental impact of that then since the No campaigners are already complaining that an overland HS2 will impact the flood plains?

Surely putting the thing in a tunnel will only make this much much worse?

 

[jon0844]

Don't take this seriously. The poster is only on a wind-up and I thought I'd join in with the fun.

Nobody is dumb enough to suggest building a tunnel for what will eventually become hundreds of miles. For a start, few people would feel comfortable being underground for that long and, unlike the tube, the stations are too far apart for people to know they could get off at any time.

By the time you consider the emergency evacuations or dealing with fire etc, it becomes totally impossible. The Channel Tunnel has had a few incidents, but in that case a tunnel is the ONLY option and so you had to try and do the best you could (thus the three tunnel solution), and now we're suggesting tunnels far longer and with the same requirements when there's perfectly good - and mostly open - land above.

 

[Geezertronic]

Don't take this seriously. The poster is only on a wind-up and I thought I'd join in with the fun.

Don't worry, me too. I just like people to quantify their comments with a bit of fact at least

 

[marty92]

Sorry New math,


36bn in 1988 would be 47.2bn in 2009 I appreciate that a longer tunnel means the cost is more than proportionally higher, but it would appear the cost for tunnelling has far outstripped inflation (ie someone is pushing their luck) I cannot accept that a 100mile tunnel will cost more than 100bn.

flooding is just a red heron channel tunnel does not flood!

Sounds like a lot of excuses at the moment HS is a good idea but not at the expense of peoples livelihoods, heritage buildings, conservation areas etc etc.

I would suggest a tunnel is the only way just because its difficult don't make excuses!

 

[LE Greys]

Well . . .

If we're digging tunnels, then why have a conventional railway in them? Why not a maglev, as the first part of a line to America? The underwater bits would rely on an Archimedes bridge, with all the air evacuated from the tunnels. You could then run at 4,000 mph without any friction, getting to New York in two hours or so. Birmingham would then be the first stop, then Liverpool, before the first sea crossing to Dublin.

If you want something done, do it properly.

 

[jon0844]

Yes, let's build that - and have it running London > Hatfield > Birmingham > New York City.

Actually, I was joking there. Skip Birmingham.



And, given how the snow affects road transport, let's build all roads underground too. And houses too. In fact, let's all live underground.

 

[marty92]

Well . . .

If you want something done, do it properly.

My sentiments exactly!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well . . .

If we're digging tunnels, then why have a conventional railway in them? Why not a maglev, as the first part of a line to America? The underwater bits would rely on an Archimedes bridge, with all the air evacuated from the tunnels. You could then run at 4,000 mph without any friction, getting to New York in two hours or so. Birmingham would then be the first stop, then Liverpool, before the first sea crossing to Dublin.

That is an awesome idea id skip Liverpool though, New York has a big enough crime rate without Liverpudlians going there!

I thought Maglev record was about 350mph?

 

[Geezertronic]

I thought Maglev record was about 350mph?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_tunnel

 

[Rhydgaled]

Returning to the surface\something very slightly closer to sanity, I'd like to give my views. In the thread relating to a link between HS1 and HS2 (which I haven't read end-to-end) there were some interesting comments about Heathrow and international rail services. I'd like to address some of these points too, however the title of this thread seems a more appropriate slot for these particular discussions.

On international services I think, provided capacity exists, Birmingham - Rugby - Straford International - Lille - Brussels services could and should be introduced using the North Of London Eurostar sets almost as soon as SNCF hand them back to us. Apparently the point at which HSR journey times become uncompetitive with air is about 4hours, I esstimate this service would take just over 3hrs 40mins, which is within the 4hour limit. When the GWML gets electrified, I estimate Bristol Parkway - Reading - Straford International - Lille - Brussels services would be possible in the same timeframe. I would expect no more than 3 services a day on each of these routes, unless demand is higher than I anticipate. I routed these to Brussels rather than Paris as to my uninformed brain this seems to provide better connections (TGV to Paris (at Lille) and Thalys to The Netherlands/Germany (at Brussels). I also looked at reversing trains at St Pancras and running up the ECML to Leeds and York but both options where over 4 hours.

The services above may be under 4-hours, but something needs to be done to avoid the half-hour check-in period. In my suggestion the trains would carry domestic passengers (maybe with Rugby and Reading being pick-up-only Europe-bound and set-down-only in the other direction) and security personel would go through the train between Rugby and Stratford, moving everyone not carrying valid documents to the carriges at one end of the train. It might be necessary to have bagage scanners etc. (not just a passport check) on the train, in which case the sets would need selective door opening (or a member of staff on each door) and all passengers would have to board at the 'domestic passengers' end' of the train and go through the checks into the international coaches. Either way it all depends on the platform at Stratford. If there are dedicated international platforms there (with all the security, check-in, etc. facillites) then (since St Pancras bound services would never call at Stratford) I suggest splitting them with a wall or fence so that the 'domestic passengers' end' of the train leads onto a seperate section of platform with staff making sure nobody gets on from there. Meanwhile passengers who have gone through the security at Straford board the other end of the train from the other section of platform, and as long as security personel on the train have successfully herded all domestic passengers out of the domestic end of the train can then walk through the corridor between carriges to take their seats.


I also believe that passengers from the heavily populated south of England should have access to a few Eurostar services without having to traverse the London Underground and for this purpose would suggest that any North Of London sets not occupied by the above operate a few services from Waterloo (using similar security tricks, although if St Pancras trains continue to call there might be a problem with dividing the platform). Alternativly, could the check-in facilites at Waterloo be re-instated for 1 or 2 of the international platforms (not the whole lot, as I don't really expect there to be any more than 1 Eurostar, 2 at a push, in Waterloo at once), and still allow normal domestic services to run from the other ex-international platforms?
These services would call at Ashford, possiblly allowing the stop to be dropped from some of the St Pancras services. Could anyone tell me how long it takes to get from Ashford to Waterloo (I think the quickest way is to use section 1 of HS1) so I can try to work out if there's enough sets to go around?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I start writing enthusiasticly about my longer-term schemes I'd like to point out that, at present, I'm opposed to further HighSpeed rail in the UK. The first thing I would do would be to radiclly alter our electricity generation mix. The reason for this is the figures I've seen for UK HighSpeed train greenhouse gas emmisions are about as bad (or WORSE!) than traveling by car (this DOES NOT apply to slower trains, 140mph is about the fastest that still beats the car I think). Therefore HighSpeed rail needs to be able to compete with air travel, London - Birmingham doesn't. The schemes I'm about to discuss are designed to tackle domestic air travel, by putting routes where (according to the impression I get from reading the internet) there are significant numbers of domestic flights.

That said, I'm still against my own schemes on cost grounds (because to take the fight to air a LOT of HSR is needed) and unless the schemes don't affect funding for the classic network I'm dead against them. In short, if you can find a way of printing money without affecting inflation or anything else then build my HSR scheme if you can keep the emmisions down, otherwise forget it. Even with my proposed schemes aimed at targeting air travel, I'd still try to tackle the electricity mix first I think.

I'll start of with how I would plan the London area. As the map shows I would have a triangle north of Euston, allowing international services to continue north onto HS2 or south into Euston station, which would help if capacity becomes too constrained at St Pancras. My inital veiw on Heathrow was that it shouldn't have a HS2 connection, however if pepole must have long-haul travel the best thing to do is probablly concentrate some of that at Heathrow and provide a rail link. Laying the route out as shown means journey times from the north to London/Europe are not hindered by a Heathrow diversion. The HSR station at Euston would be a through station, with the HSR platform tracks either suspended above or in a tunnel below the standard WCML terminus. I initally thought it a good idea to provide a station (St John's Wood) on the triangle to allow passengers on international trains an opertunity to change to reach Euston, in hindsight the stops at Birmingham, Rugby and Stratford International probablly provide plenty of opertunities to change so that station is not needed.


I can't go into all the rest right now, so I'll let you tell me it's too expensive (I told you I was against my own scheme on cost grounds, didn't I?) I'll add the rest when I have time. Also, how do I make the image display right?

 

[amstelodami]

1. Knock down Centrepoint (side benefit )
2. Dig a big hole at Tottenham Court Road
3. Drop a nice new HS2 terminus into it
4. Run East and West along Crossrail

>> Connects Birmingham, Heathrow, central London, Paris

Crossrail can spare a few paths out of their 24tph

WEST
Six track it out of Paddington to Southall, turn off and go under Heathrow and out the other side, like we should have done HEX. Back on to the six tracked GW to Slough, then head north to join the proposed HS2 alignment somewhere around High Wycombe.

Four track it through Birmingham International and into New Street (another one we should have done years ago!) If we need more space in New Street, take the Cross City line out and put it in a new tunnel.

Also out to Bristol of course along the GWML.

EAST
Connect to HS1 at Stratford and off to Paris.

 

[Bittern]

. . . where would you put it? . . .

Nowhere! I'd put all the money from it into reinstating the Hamilton - Bothwell railway as a heritage railway and extending the Larkhall branch to Strathaven like it should be.

Screw HS2! We need to fix our existing network first!

 

[WatcherZero]

Creating a heritage railway is fixing our rail network!!??

 

[Invincibles]

I would start from Stratford International then head north along what is basically the line to Tottenham Hale. This can be done on viaducts of simple cheap construction I think. If it is tight between there and the M25 then there is a possibility to follow the river.

HS to Birmingham

The line would turn west at Turnford fitting through a gap in the housing and out into the open fields there.

The route would be bent round the south of Hatfield before picking up the A414 alignment to the south of St Albans then following the M10.

North of there along the M1 round the north of Redbourne. North West through open country passing south west of Whipsnade

This then hits the WCML at Linslade. Here the line would cross over the WCML and continue pick up the A4146 before having the option to join the WCML south of Bletchley.

4 tracking from Wolverton to Birmingham New Street might make a high enough speed possible.

If not then the line would bend westwards again to go to the west of MK. There is a lot of open countryside here so the next notable passing point is Silverstone Circuit. The line would pass East of here and then to the North East of Silverstone itself.

There is a lot more countryside, but the line would pass North East of Woodford Halse offering potential to join the GC alignment if needed. I do not think it would be however.

Looking at google it is possible the GC alignment heads NW at this stage in which case might as well use it. The next landmark to pass is Draycote water, which the line would pass to the south west.

Now we are approaching Coventry so a further turn west is needed to bring the line across the south of Coventry and in to Birmingham International

HS to Everywhere Else

From the Turnford junction the line would continue to Stansted before curving up to pass Cambridge (I believe an important high technology centre) to Peterborough where it would fit along the ECML to Stamford, continuing North West where the ECML begins to turn northwards (upgrades from here provide potential for Newcastle)

There are issues here, one option is to swing West passing north of Melton then following the Old Dalby alignment towards Nottingham and then veering further west to pick up Toton.

The other option is to ignore Nottingham and carry on to Retford.

The ultimate aim is Sheffield Victoria and Penistone (ish) where a triangle takes trains to Leeds/Bradford and Manchester.

London End

International trains go to St Pancras and reverse
London trains terminate at Stratford International* for connections into crossrail etc
London Liverpool Street can be used for some services as well with capacity having been freed by crossrail.

Advantages

Connects major airport development opportunity at Stansted, important business centres at Canary Wharf and Cambridge as well as the City and the main northern towns.

Releases capacity on the MML for more trains between Nottingham/Derby and Leicester to London.

Manchester gets a slightly quicker train to London but much faster services to places like Leeds, Sheffield and Cambridge.

Offers real opportunities for development on the old coalfields (may even get some funding that )

Simple to connect in the North East and Edinburgh so has more potential beneficiaries

Birmingham line used solely for Birmingham meaning a lot more capacity and paths for MK stoppers.

Interchange with the WCML south of MK gives routing options

Disadvantages

Slower to Manchester than other HS connections.

No really obvious connection for Liverpool (unless HS continues through Manchester to Liverpool)

Harder to get to Birmingham

Other thoughts

Two things I have always said should be in HS:

HS should have a 6 platform station in Stoke on the current station site and this does not deliver that. This would serve as a looping station for the Manchester - Stoke - Birmingham International* - MK - London trains as well as allowing dedicated shuttles to places like Stafford and Crewe to link in to other services.

HS should also have a 6 platform station between Nottingham and Derby near Toton which again this does not deliver.

As I use the HS between Jiaxing and Shanghai a lot it is very clear how futureproof they have made that with the station at Jiaxing South how I would hope we will build the main intermediate stations. All platforms are off the main running lines and there are three platforms in each direction.

 

[Geezertronic]

Problem with 4 tracking between anywhere like Coventry/Rugby and Birmingham New Street is that you still will only have 4 tracks into the South of New Street (thanks to the Bull Ring foundations) hence causing a big bottleneck for trains going in and out. I presume if this was resolvable, then the current HS2 plans would have diverted into New Street and not into a new station? Whether the platforms at New Street could be made long enough is another matter. Also the existing 4 track plans were between Beechwood Tunnel and New Street so they didn't even extend all the way to Coventry

Also, I assume that tunnelling under New Street for the Cross City line would be prohibitively expensive which is probably why it has not been considered before.

 

[Bittern]

Creating a heritage railway is fixing our rail network!!??

Admittedly, that was merely a joke. But the Larkhall extension to Stonehouse and Strathaven is a very serious matter. The trackbed is mostly intact, with the biggest obstacles to overcome being one intact viaduct needing severe refurbishment and two semi-dismantled viaducts with the piers remaining but the girders gone. Then there's fixing the complete WTF moment when they built Larkhall's platforms straight instead of on the same curve the old ones were on, thus making things that bit harder to fix.

The ideal link would be Glasgow Central Low Level - Hamilton - Larkhall - Sonehouse - Strathven - East Kilbride - Glasgow Central High Level.

 

[amstelodami]

@Geezertronic

Check out Antwerp station
http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/3420/station-antwerpen-n---i.jpg

Four levels...! They've dug underneath and put in 4 platforms on each. Thalys goes through on the bottom.

About time we just got on with New Street. Yes it's expensive but it's time this country grew some balls. Let's stop worrying about knocking a few buildings down or digging a few holes and just do it.

If Belgium can do it then so can we. they haven't even got a government

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I thought that I had seen some notes saying that these trains had to be 375m in length but I may have been mistaken.

 

[WatcherZero]

EU rules for the standardisation of high speed railways across the continent stipulate that 400m platforms have to be built so that an operator from another country could run services onto our network and vice versa.

 

[w1bbl3]

Problem with 4 tracking between anywhere like Coventry/Rugby and Birmingham New Street is that you still will only have 4 tracks into the South of New Street (thanks to the Bull Ring foundations) hence causing a big bottleneck for trains going in and out. I presume if this was resolvable, then the current HS2 plans would have diverted into New Street and not into a new station?

Actually the bullring tunnel isn't a tunnel but a submerged bridge, widening is very technically doable you'd just have to close the tracks for a few months to do it. The shopping centre basement is at top of railway bridge deck level ruling out parallel approach tunnelling, you'd have to go sidewards extending out from the existing bridge walls once something had been installed to provide temporary support.

A deep direct tunnel as per Antwerp maybe a cheaper option. I'd guess sorting out a path into New St would cost £2bn+ be it a deep tunnel or quad tracked existing alignment.

 

[LE Greys]

Actually the bullring tunnel isn't a tunnel but a submerged bridge, widening is very technically doable you'd just have to close the tracks for a few months to do it. The shopping centre basement is at top of railway bridge deck level ruling out parallel approach tunnelling, you'd have to go sidewards extending out from the existing bridge walls once something had been installed to provide temporary support.

A deep direct tunnel as per Antwerp maybe a cheaper option. I'd guess sorting out a path into New St would cost £2bn+ be it a deep tunnel or quad tracked existing alignment.

I don't know enough about the underground geometry of this, but would it be possible to get into Snow Hill? Perhaps this might finally provide the excuse to rebuild the line to Wolves Low Level and provide an extra link running right through the West Midlands, also conveniently giving an alternative route between London and Aberystwyth.

Interesting to see my old thread revived.

 

[Waverley125]

I think the most obvious starting point is looking at where we want to connect. Obviously there should be a connection through North London to allow trains onto the continent (with a London Stop at Stratford).

As such, I'd make the following divisions:

High Speed 2

London-Birmingham, Dublin, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Belfast

High Speed 3

London-Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen

HS2(a) London-Birmingham-Dublin

LONDON EUSTON-Willesden Junc.-Harrow on the Hill-Rickmansworth-Chesham-Buckingham-Cubbington-Four Oaks-BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL-BIRMINGHAM NEW STREET-Smethwick Galton Bridge-Bescot-Dunstall Park-Codsall-Lilleshall-Ellesmere-Coedpoeth-Denbigh-Conway-Bangor-Four Mile Bridge-EIRE TUNNEL-Ballybrack-Rathscoole-Collinstown-DUBLIN HEUSTON

HS2(b) London-Manchester

Cubbington-Balsall Common-Lea Marston-Whittington-Blounts Green-Wetley Rocks-Warren-Poynton-Marple-Denton-Droylsden-MANCHESTER VICTORIA-Salford-Swinton-Westhoughton-Charnock Richard (Junction with HS2(c))

Wetley Rocks-Astbury-Knutsford-Warburton-Ince-Charnock Richard-PRESTON-Barton-Barnacre-Halton-Yealand Redmayne-Old Hutton-Beck Foot-Shap-Tirril-Ivegill-Durdar-Carlisle-Bankshill-Elvanfoot-Hawksland-Limekilburn-Newton-GLASGOW CENTRAL

HS2 (d) London-Belfast

CARLISLE-Eastriggs-Blackshaw-Ringford-Benfield-Stoneykirk-Donaghadee-Sydenham-BELFAST CENTRAL

 

[Geezertronic]

Is there really the demand for tunnels through to Ireland?

 

[j0hn0]

yeah, probably none, bit far fetched that one.

so where is your 2000th post gonna be then Geezertronic?

 

[Geezertronic]

so where is your 2000th post gonna be then Geezertronic?

I'll let you have the honour of being it being in reply to you

2000th post

 

[Class172]

This is a very rough route off the top of my head:
St. Pancreas
Heathrow
Follow M40 to Oxford
Follow A44 to Evesham (trying to avoid cotswolds at same time)
Between Bromsgrove & Droitwich Spa
Branch going east, converting midland metro back to railway
Terminus at snow hill (rebuilt as it originally was as 8 platforms)
Meet WCML south of Stoke

There's probably loads if problems with this route but to be honest, I don't care :P