A personal idea on HS2/Chilterns

[Peter Kelford]

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.

 

[The Planner]

How long are you going to close the Chiltern route for to do that?

 

[Peter Kelford]

How long are you going to close the Chiltern route for to do that?

One summer, like in France, where busy RER commuter lines are shut partially or completely in July/August while people are on holiday.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I’ve wondered this too. As I understand the problem with upgrading the Chiltern route is getting it through High Wycombe. Which I think would be the best route than going via Amersham.

 

[Aictos]

One summer, like in France, where busy RER commuter lines are shut partially or completely in July/August while people are on holiday.

One summer to do all that? It simply isn’t feasible to do all that within 6 weeks even with a total line blockade.

A total non starter!

 

[Meerkat]

So you propose not building a high speed line with tunnelling....and instead build a new high speed line with tunnelling but with far more disruption to current services?

 

[RPM]

My thoughts are that HS2 is simpler, much less disruptive and delivers a lot more. That's not to say enhancements to and electrification of the Chiltern Main Line shouldn't be done, but they should be done as well as HS2 not instead of it. The two things serve different markets.

 

[The Planner]

One summer, like in France, where busy RER commuter lines are shut partially or completely in July/August while people are on holiday.

Love your optimism on doing that in 6 weeks. DfT would think different when the value of the franchise, or whatever replaces it, plummets and then you spend the next 3 or 4 years trying to win back the lost custom to other modes during construction.

 

[Peter Kelford]

I only said that one ought to replace the 'choke points' during the blockade. Many lengths of track can be replaced during partial blockades as they are quadrupled.

Unfortunately, I am only being realistic when I say that HS2 Phase 1 is going to be a disaster on all fronts.

 

[The Planner]

I only said that one ought to replace the 'choke points' during the blockade. Many lengths of track can be replaced during partial blockades as they are quadrupled.

Unfortunately, I am only being realistic when I say that HS2 Phase 1 is going to be a disaster on all fronts.

Partial blockades are just as bad, you basically lose the railway every weekend. Why is HS2 phase 1 going to be a disaster?

 

[Chester1]

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.

I support HS2 but...

If you think upgrading the Chiltern line is a better alternative why would should Marylebone be used as the terminus? There is no room for significant expansion. An alternative would be building HS2 from Euston to Old Oak Common with a short link to a rebuilt Acton-Northolt line and then electrify from Northolt Junction to Birmingham. Acton-Northolt does not have a regular passenger service and could be closed for as long as necessary to make it a mainline. After completion of that project and loss of long distance services, Northolt to Marylebone would be much easier to upgrade for local electric services.

 

[tbtc]

I am only being realistic when I say that HS2 Phase 1 is going to be a disaster on all fronts.

I'm a bit confused... you are stating that HS2 is going to be a disaster but your alternative is building a 220km/hr railway from London to Birmingham (from a congested London station, requiring huge and costly disruption, presumably running no further north than Birmingham)?

Other than the fact that you reckon you could build it whilst everyone takes a summer holiday, how would this be any better than HS2? (other than, it'd follow Victorian rail routes, because to some enthusiasts it's fine to have disruption when you're following the old alignments but terrible to do so when building brand new routes)

 

[Energy]

I would suggest electrification and some fast accelerating emus (like the 397s or maybe flirts, the 755/3s are very fast. Chiltern us never going to be like HS2 with a very high speed railway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Unfortunately, I am only being realistic when I say that HS2 Phase 1 is going to be a disaster on all fronts.

I will be realistic too.

Upgrading the Chiltern to 220kph means completely rebuilding it from the ground up. Every station would have to be rebuilt too, as you can’t have platforms open adjacent to lines at more than 200kph. There would need to be long sections of 4 track also as trains at 220kph would catch up stopping services much more quickly, and thus need to overtake.

Further realism - Oxford - Bicester was closed for 18 months to rebuild 11 miles of railway to 100mph standard, without electrification.

Some more - because of the works you propose, you would need a Development Consent Order (DCO), which means going through all the consultation and public inquiries needed for a new railway along its entire length.

A bit more - because the Leamington - Birmingham corridor is effectively full, you would need to build some new tracks in to Birmingham too, unless you were happy with the existing frequency of service as the result of the proposed works.

Essentially, then, what you are proposing is constructing a brand new 2 track railway from NW London through the Chilterns to Birmingham. Sounds familiar? Except it would be built on the route of an already busy railway, which would need closing for at least half a decade (conservatively). And then not offering an increase in service.

I’m afraid it doesn’t sound such a good investment to me.

That’s all before I ask about where underneath Marylebone these extra platforms are going. Through the Bakerloo line or under it? And if the latter, where are the accesses going to go - through the Bakerloo line or around it? And if the latter, which of the listed buildings are you going to knock down in Marylebone to provide the street level access?

 

[tasky]

HS2 lifts capacity for regional services on the WCML, MML and ECML by moving express services to destinations like Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle onto a dedicated high-speed line, thus freeing up paths reducing speed differential on those lines to create more paths... this wouldn't do that.

UK regional rail badly needs a capacity upgrade and HS2 or something like it is necessary to deliver it unless you want to spend ten times as much and bulldoze vast swathes of urban Britain to add extra pairs of tracks alongside existing lines.

HS2 also has the benefit of reducing journey times to a large number of destinations but as far as I can tell this wouldn't do that either.

 

[Peter Kelford]

I support HS2 but...

If you think upgrading the Chiltern line is a better alternative why would should Marylebone be used as the terminus? There is no room for significant expansion. An alternative would be building HS2 from Euston to Old Oak Common with a short link to a rebuilt Acton-Northolt line and then electrify from Northolt Junction to Birmingham. Acton-Northolt does not have a regular passenger service and could be closed for as long as necessary to make it a mainline. After completion of that project and loss of long distance services, Northolt to Marylebone would be much easier to upgrade for local electric services.

Probably quite a good idea. £5 billion for Euston is fare superior in terms of everything over £50 billion for the whole line. It's also more manageable.

 

[Bald Rick]

Except of course Euston - Old Oak is the best part of £10bn, more than that if you want a station at Old Oak. And the reason Old Oak to Northolt (and beyond) is in Tunnel is because the neighbours were very concerned about having a building site and then a regular high speed train service at the bottom of their gardens. It was cheaper to tunnel than provide all the necessary mitigation. Let’s calls it £12bn. That’s a third of the cost of Phase 1, for almost no benefit, before you’ve even closed the Chiltern line for an upgrade.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Except of course Euston - Old Oak is the best part of £10bn, more than that if you want a station at Old Oak. And the reason Old Oak to Northolt (and beyond) is in Tunnel is because the neighbours were very concerned about having a building site and then a regular high speed train service at the bottom of their gardens. It was cheaper to tunnel than provide all the necessary mitigation. Let’s calls it £12bn. That’s a third of the cost of Phase 1, for almost no benefit, before you’ve even closed the Chiltern line for an upgrade.

I bet that a lower-spec line would get by at £5 to £6 billion, no station at OOC. On the other hand, if Phase 2 was built as a priority and Phase 1 as the secondary concern, I would have no objections. I forsee Phase 1 being completed then Phase 2 being scrapped, providing little or no benefit to deprived Northern towns. Not everyone wants to save 20 minutes just on their journey to London, but lots of people want to save 20 minutes on their journeys in general.

 

[si404]

Except of course Euston - Old Oak is the best part of £10bn, more than that if you want a station at Old Oak. And the reason Old Oak to Northolt (and beyond) is in Tunnel is because the neighbours were very concerned about having a building site and then a regular high speed train service at the bottom of their gardens.

With the bonus that it allows the 'Wycombe single' to still exist - providing a diversionary route (as it did at the weekend) for Chiltern when Marylebone is closed, and also the potential to provide a capacity upgrade on the corridor (by which I mean London-Chilterns-Oxford/Warwickshire, which gets nothing out of upgrading the CML to have superfast London-Birmingham services on it other than a lot of disruption!) per NR's OOC plans.

 

[Aictos]

Surely a better idea would be just to electrify the Chiltern Mainline in its entirely then proceed with this idea least you get more benefits out of it.

As well as building HS2 to Scotland as both serve different markets.

 

[The Planner]

I bet that a lower-spec line would get by at £5 to £6 billion, no station at OOC. On the other hand, if Phase 2 was built as a priority and Phase 1 as the secondary concern, I would have no objections. I forsee Phase 1 being completed then Phase 2 being scrapped, providing little or no benefit to deprived Northern towns. Not everyone wants to save 20 minutes just on their journey to London, but lots of people want to save 20 minutes on their journeys in general.

So you have fallen into the normal trap of "its just about saving 20 minutes to London" and ignored the realities of your proposal. Build Phase 2 first and the extra trains that would be running on it go where when you get to Crewe and subsequently Rugby?

 

[tbtc]

if Phase 2 was built as a priority and Phase 1 as the secondary concern, I would have no objections

Why on earth would you want that? Phase 1 is the busy bit of the route, where the additional capacity is most needed. Building a high speed line from (e.g.) Manchester to Stafford that parallels a line that isn't incredibly busy, but then trains will get stuck in the congested southern end of the WCML through Milton Keynes etc?

There's very little point in Phase 2 if you're not going to do Phase 1 (and I say that as someone living oop north)

Not everyone wants to save 20 minutes just on their journey to London, but lots of people want to save 20 minutes on their journeys in general

This is one of the great tropes of anti-HS2 arguments... speed increases are great, as long as they aren't speed increases to London (because rich businessmen" etc etc)?

There are a lot of people making journeys to London, so that "20 minutes" can be multiplied considerably.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Why on earth would you want that? Phase 1 is the busy bit of the route, where the additional capacity is most needed. Building a high speed line from (e.g.) Manchester to Stafford that parallels a line that isn't incredibly busy, but then trains will get stuck in the congested southern end of the WCML through Milton Keynes etc?

The current transpennine and northern average speeds are often woeful. They will benefits greatest. Realistically, the whole of HS2 will not get built. Choosing between phase 1 [P1] and phase 2 [P2], I'd rather phase 2. What is likely to happen is that P1 will be built and P2 fudged or not built.

 

[The Planner]

The current transpennine and northern average speeds are often woeful. They will benefits greatest. Realistically, the whole of HS2 will not get built. Choosing between phase 1 [P1] and phase 2 [P2], I'd rather phase 2. What is likely to happen is that P1 will be built and P2 fudged or not built.

That still isn't answering the questions though. Phase 2a is Handsacre to Crewe, 2b being Crewe to Manchester and Birmingham to the North East. Build those bits and where do the trains go once they get to the southern end?

 

[Aictos]

That still isn't answering the questions though. Phase 2a is Handsacre to Crewe, 2b being Crewe to Manchester and Birmingham to the North East. Build those bits and where do the trains go once they get to the southern end?

Onto a already congested WCML?

 

[Peter Kelford]

That still isn't answering the questions though. Phase 2a is Handsacre to Crewe, 2b being Crewe to Manchester and Birmingham to the North East. Build those bits and where do the trains go once they get to the southern end?

Regional HS services?

 

[Ianno87]

Regional HS services?

To where? Birmingham New Street and its approaches via Wolverhampton (for example) are equally full.

 

[Ianno87]

The current transpennine and northern average speeds are often woeful. They will benefits greatest. Realistically, the whole of HS2 will not get built. Choosing between phase 1 [P1] and phase 2 [P2], I'd rather phase 2. What is likely to happen is that P1 will be built and P2 fudged or not built.

Always intrigues me the level to which HS2 is opposed based on nothing more than an ingrained presumption that the northern bits won't happen. Which has nothing to do with whether the full scheme has merit or not.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Always intrigues me the level to which HS2 is opposed based on nothing more than an ingrained presumption that the northern bits won't happen. Which has nothing to do with whether the full scheme has merit or not.

The scheme has merit but why haven't we already got an HS service linking our main city pair between Manchester/Merseyside and London via Birmingham? If this was purely meritocratic, we would be arguing about more uncertain links like Swansea-Cardiff, or Central Belt - Aberdeen. This is not, however, and is as much about a vanity project as it is actual HS services.

 

[30907]

The scheme has merit but why haven't we already got an HS service linking our main city pair between Manchester/Merseyside and London via Birmingham? If this was purely meritocratic, we would be arguing about more uncertain links like Swansea-Cardiff, or Central Belt - Aberdeen. This is not, however, and is as much about a vanity project as it is actual HS services.

Don't follow your argument here. Which bit has merit, which is the vanity project, given that you think we should already have built HS2 as far as Manchester?