I was responding to your suggestion of an M40 alignment.
They are supporting the M1 alignment instead of the one that was built. There is a real chance that, had the government opted for an M1 alignment in the first instance, there would definitely have been opposition from that (and I suspect CPRE would have been opposed in that situation, but obviously can't be sure).
The betuweroute following the A15 was an adjusted plan, after it was decided that alternatives like upgrading existing railways, some of which run very close to the betuweroute alignment, would cause too many issues, including not offering sufficient growth opportunites for the railfreight sector, and causing too much disturbance to the many towns the existing railways ran through, so from an avoiding opposition stance it should have been an improvement, but it wasn't.
I think you are too optimistic about the abilities to reduce NIMBY opposition, but that is something we can disagree on.
Given they built the most expensive high speed line in the world I am not sure they can really be trusted to understand what things cost.
When you go out and speak to the voters in general most people don’t oppose new development. It is usually just a noisy minority.
Compare the cost per kilometre to the Borders railway or the Northumberland line.
The £500 million pounds for a Chiltern Line terminal at Old Oak Common for starters.
So why is there so much HS2 opposition in Warter Orton. Its near a station and is surrounded by motorways.
If you drive past on the M42 it’s pretty obvious why people are upset about it who live locally.
I'm not sure the people of High Wycombe would welcome the road works anymore than the people of Water Orton though. The M40 route would impact far more people which is going to mean more opposition.
Maybe that’s true. But you also didn’t have to run non stop from London to Birmingham.
Are you actually serious here?
Speed differences kill capacity, and running at a lower speed would increase operational costs, as you'd need more trains (expensive to buy/lease) and more staff to run the same service.
Because you add cost because HS2 is right alongside and the earthworks being complete saves some money but those two things merely balance out?
This adds a lot of operational risk.
I am talking only about the junction for them to turn off.
Only if you call it "HS2". Much easier to slip innocuous-sounding projects like a Stafford Bypass", "Crewe Remodelling" and "South Manchester Relief Line" under the taboids' radar.
No sane politician will use any alignment of the old HS2 phase 2a. The many existing rail corridors into Manchester, and also Liverpool, are adequate with incremental upgrades of: faster trains, signals and bottleneck removal. It looks like no new tracks will be laid, apart from maybe extending a short section from Handsacre to the Colwich-Stone line and a new section of track from south of Stone to the WCML north of Norton Bridge, creating a long awaited Stafford bypass. Network Rail have already produced a number of schemes for this bypass. Manchester bound trains from the south look like they will not use it routing via the shorter Stoke route.
Really? On completion of the first bit of the route to Brum all London and Birmingham trains will still have to fit through the existing infrastructure to get anywhere further north - and if HS2 trains have less capacity than current Pendolinos then we will have actually shot ourselves in the foot by cutting capacity between the real North and London.
Of course they will. Why start from scratch when the thing is effectively detailed designed.
The bottlenecks are hugely expensive to sort, you are either looking at tunnels or grade seperation of junctions such at Edgeley and Slade Lane. The Stafford bypass has existed as a plan for the best part of 30 years, before HS2. It was a new line from just north of Rugeley Trent Valley.
The word ''HS2'' is politically toxic. Recall that Johnson was about to drop it but only went ahead because some sections were advanced in construction. Although the Old Oak Common to Aylesbury section could have been retained with stations added and ditch the rest. It could have run onto an upgraded Chiltern line keeping the Birmingham/West Mids trains off the WCML, adding to the overall network. But he reluctantly went ahead. His advisor Andrew Gilligan told him to ditch it as it was unneeded and politically toxic.
The word is. Not the choice of alignment in a patch of Staffordshire.
Once completed to Handsacre HS2 is fine. A Stafford bypass is essential sending the Liverpool and Scottish trains via the bypass and Manchester trains via Stoke being the cherry on the top. When leading Network Rail Lord Hendy said HS2 should not have been a separate entity, just an extension of the network. Now holding the Rail Minister title he may drop the toxic word HS2 and use a mix of rolling stock on the line. Upgraded Pendolinos have been proposed to run on the track, as they run faster on the existing WCML.
The whole HS2 shebang was an still is toxic.
This is very sensationalist. Are you a Daily Mail reporter?
They could ignore a Stafford bypass, and did building the Norton Bridge junction thinking that would solve matters - the expensive project could only improve matters for a short time which proved to be the case. Penny wise pound foolish. The Stafford bypass is a necessary part of the future rail network, but that does not mean they will build it. It would be a fantastic enhancement.
How? it goes nowhere near the Chiltern mainline near Aylesbury and there wouldn't be enough capacity at either ends of the Chilterns to deal with that.
Wrong, 2A is imperative regardless of what name you give it. You could call it Susan if you wanted. Stafford was a problem before West Coast Route Mod at the turn of the century, not because of HS2.
Pendolinos will be heading towards life expired by the time Phase 1 opens. They will be nigh on 30-35 years old.
If you want to do the Stafford bypass the sensible thing is to stick with the right of way set aside for HS2 phase 2a and to do at least the bottom 3/4s.
If only because it goes down to 2 tracks there and the two flat junctions. And you can’t widen it next to it as it’s an AONB.
Agreed. And do at least a stop at Stoke by the M6, it’s the best intermediate stop that isn’t in the plan as you get the M6 and a rail crossing in the same place.
You do need to do some further design to bring it down to LGV Sud Est standards so the costs are more sensible. While it probably makes sense to stick with the current route horizontally the vertical curves can be increased substantially to reduce the size of earthworks, bridges and tunnels.
The tabloids aren't bright enough to recognise that a "Stafford Bypass" is HS2 2A in all but name.
If you reduce the speed, reduce the price and add at least one stop then to be fair it is quite different.
