About HS2

[hexagon789]

OK, but do you mean remove them from the conventional lines? Also i wondered will the crosscountry route be benefitted from the released capacity....

Effectively yes, but speed harmonisation would also increase capacity as would a move to moving block cab signalling.

 

[Purple Orange]

Could this be a possibility? Through to just south of Trent Junction, with one branch going up the (four-tracked) Erewash Valley to Sheffield and one branch going through Nottingham to Newark, with a link onto the East Coast Main Line for locations North of Sheffield. Combined with full electrification of the Midland Main Line, and speed enhancements on the lines taken over. If that happened, I suspect it would mean 1) rebuilds of Ilkeston and Langley Mill, whose platforms seem to be on the 'wrong' side of the trackbed, 2) possible four-tracking from Trent Junction to where 4 tracking starts just past Beeston, 3) Closure of stations between Nottingham and Newark.

Don't know how much cheaper all of that would be than just building it as planned.

But then it was implied to go to Leeds, but then the rhetoric doesn’t actually confirm it either.

The quote from Shapps in the BBC article states:

"We are going to complete HS2 and include HS2 on the eastern leg to Leeds," he said.

"The only question that we have is how to better integrate that with plans which have developed a very long way since HS2 was first dreamt up all those decades ago. That particularly pertains to the northern powerhouse rail."

HS2 leg to Leeds will go ahead, says Shapps

The eastern branch of the planned high speed rail network will be completed, the transport secretary says.

www.bbc.com

So technically it could be a partial line, but one that enables HS2 trains to reach Leeds.

 

[WideRanger]

So technically it could be a partial line, but one that enables HS2 trains to reach Leeds.

East Coast Main Line goes to Leeds.

 

[Purple Orange]

East Coast Main Line goes to Leeds.

But then that fails to deliver upon the recent government promise, therefore how would a HS2 train arrive in Leeds if it is not the full eastern branch?

 

[Stephen Lee]

Effectively yes, but speed harmonisation would also increase capacity as would a move to moving block cab signalling.

block cab signal?
Btw I wondered if restore the Great Central Main Line is more possible.....

 

[zwk500]

block cab signal?

Moving block, so trains only take up the capacity they need, not measured to the lowest common denominator

Btw I wondered if restore the Great Central Main Line is more possible.....

No, it isn't. There are lots of threads on it already. In too many places it's been built over, and where it is available is because its too far from town centres to be useful.

 

[D365]

Btw I wondered if restore the Great Central Main Line is more possible.....

Far less possible!

 

[6Gman]

Btw I wondered if restore the Great Central Main Line is more possible.....

More possible than what?

Which part of the GCML?

And why?

 

[Stephen Lee]

More possible than what?

Which part of the GCML?

And why?

The whole GCML so as to relieve stress of WCML

 

[Glenn1969]

He said HS2 will reach Leeds. He didn't say how or definitely when unless I missed something

 

[waverley47]

The whole GCML so as to relieve stress of WCML

We shouldn't go back over this, but...

The GC doesn't exist any more. It's gone. Some of it is a very well run tourist attraction. Half of it has been built on. Some of it has been bulldozed into the ground.

Where does it go? You'd need to quadruple half the southern end of the Chiltern line to get even an ounce of capacity you'd need. There are nowhere near enough platforms (or space to build more) at Marylebone. You'd need new platforms, stations and rebuild half the line.

It doesn't go to Birmingham. It goes to Rugby, Nottingham and Leicester. That's not relieving capacity issues on the WCML, that's helping capacity along the MML.

It's not build to modern standards. There a lot of quite sharp bends you'd need to rebuild, and the capacity from a sawtooth speed profile (lots of speeding and braking) is significantly less than that from a relatively steady speed profile.

You'd need to rebuild the line completely to modern standards, and that means having to buy the land back. All the land. That's going to cost about as much as building the line across greenfield sites. And, if you're going to rebuild the line completely, and buy back the lands you may as well build the line in open countryside, instead of through the centres of some quite large towns.

Basically you don't get anything more from rebuilding an entirely demolished railway line than building a new one in open countryside. You can make a faster line, straighter and more optimised for fast trains. HS2 serves where people want to go. It serves bigger cities and relieves a busier main line. It's faster, straighter, and in all honesty probably a similar price.

The Great Central has gone. Rebuilding it doesn't gain anything that HS2 doesn't do better. It should stay dead, a regrettable loss, but a loss that is permanent.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Great Central route was NOT one of the numerous options considered in the 2013 HS2 alternative routes report, IIRC it had been ruled out as irrelevant by about 2009.

Even where they touch slightly on the former GC route for a few miles (somewhere just north of Calvert?) it’s just not suitable for the curvature and gradients of a high speed alignment, so they basically obliterate it and start over.

 

[CBlue]

We shouldn't go back over this, but...

The GC doesn't exist any more. It's gone. Some of it is a very well run tourist attraction. Half of it has been built on. Some of it has been bulldozed into the ground.

Where does it go? You'd need to quadruple half the southern end of the Chiltern line to get even an ounce of capacity you'd need. There are nowhere near enough platforms (or space to build more) at Marylebone. You'd need new platforms, stations and rebuild half the line.

It doesn't go to Birmingham. It goes to Rugby, Nottingham and Leicester. That's not relieving capacity issues on the WCML, that's helping capacity along the MML.

It's not build to modern standards. There a lot of quite sharp bends you'd need to rebuild, and the capacity from a sawtooth speed profile (lots of speeding and braking) is significantly less than that from a relatively steady speed profile.

You'd need to rebuild the line completely to modern standards, and that means having to buy the land back. All the land. That's going to cost about as much as building the line across greenfield sites. And, if you're going to rebuild the line completely, and buy back the lands you may as well build the line in open countryside, instead of through the centres of some quite large towns.

Basically you don't get anything more from rebuilding an entirely demolished railway line than building a new one in open countryside. You can make a faster line, straighter and more optimised for fast trains. HS2 serves where people want to go. It serves bigger cities and relieves a busier main line. It's faster, straighter, and in all honesty probably a similar price.

The Great Central has gone. Rebuilding it doesn't gain anything that HS2 doesn't do better. It should stay dead, a regrettable loss, but a loss that is permanent.

And yet there's plenty out there with rose tinted laser eye surgery who think it should be reopened.

I don't really understand the fascination with what was just a 19th century speculative construction, like many other now closed lines in this country.

 

[Purple Orange]

And yet there's plenty out there with rose tinted laser eye surgery who think it should be reopened.

I don't really understand the fascination with what was just a 19th century speculative construction, like many other now closed lines in this country.

Nostalgia junkies. I am sure there are a decent number of forumers who wouldn't mind seeing longer and infrequent trains formed of a myriad of varieties, that does little for the needs of passengers.

 

[RobShipway]

Nostalgia junkies. I am sure there are a decent number of forumers who wouldn't mind seeing longer and infrequent trains formed of a myriad of varieties, that does little for the needs of passengers.

That is as well as those that would like a connection to HS1, so that you could have European trains services between the North of the UK and say Cologne or Paris.

 

[Purple Orange]

That is as well as those that would like a connection to HS1, so that you could have European trains services between the North of the UK and say Cologne or Paris.

Isn’t the same as having a Eurostar link to the south of France or Disney World?

I.e, Eurostar should stick to being London to Paris & Brussels? I’m not sure how well Amsterdam compares, but perhaps it works better than an infrequent service to Marseille.

 

[6Gman]

We shouldn't go back over this, but...

The GC doesn't exist any more. It's gone. Some of it is a very well run tourist attraction. Half of it has been built on. Some of it has been bulldozed into the ground.

Where does it go? You'd need to quadruple half the southern end of the Chiltern line to get even an ounce of capacity you'd need. There are nowhere near enough platforms (or space to build more) at Marylebone. You'd need new platforms, stations and rebuild half the line.

It doesn't go to Birmingham. It goes to Rugby, Nottingham and Leicester. That's not relieving capacity issues on the WCML, that's helping capacity along the MML.

It's not build to modern standards. There a lot of quite sharp bends you'd need to rebuild, and the capacity from a sawtooth speed profile (lots of speeding and braking) is significantly less than that from a relatively steady speed profile.

You'd need to rebuild the line completely to modern standards, and that means having to buy the land back. All the land. That's going to cost about as much as building the line across greenfield sites. And, if you're going to rebuild the line completely, and buy back the lands you may as well build the line in open countryside, instead of through the centres of some quite large towns.

Basically you don't get anything more from rebuilding an entirely demolished railway line than building a new one in open countryside. You can make a faster line, straighter and more optimised for fast trains. HS2 serves where people want to go. It serves bigger cities and relieves a busier main line. It's faster, straighter, and in all honesty probably a similar price.

The Great Central has gone. Rebuilding it doesn't gain anything that HS2 doesn't do better. It should stay dead, a regrettable loss, but a loss that is permanent.

Splendidly put!

 

[Ianno87]

Isn’t the same as having a Eurostar link to the south of France or Disney World?

No, because that essentially requires no dedicated infrastructure that isn't there anyway.

HS1-HS2 link is a pretty expensive piece of infrastructure solely for the purpose of.regional direct trains to Europe.

 

[Purple Orange]

No, because that essentially requires no dedicated infrastructure that isn't there anyway.

HS1-HS2 link is a pretty expensive piece of infrastructure solely for the purpose of.regional direct trains to Europe.

In that case the people who want to see a HS1-HS2 link are not the same as those who want long, infrequent, varied trains from everywhere to everywhere on existing infrastructure in the UK.

 

[NoRoute]

The GC doesn't exist any more. It's gone. Some of it is a very well run tourist attraction. Half of it has been built on. Some of it has been bulldozed into the ground.

A lot depends on how you interpret 'restoring the GCML', if you interpret it in a very literal and inflexible sense of exactly as it was end to end, the exact same route and stations then clearly it is likely to be impossible and uneconomic. If you interpret it more flexibly, seeing the old GCML as essentially a bag of pieces to be used or not used, diverting where necessary, changing the stations and connections then the idea or reusing bits of it does look potentially appealing.

Where does it go? You'd need to quadruple half the southern end of the Chiltern line to get even an ounce of capacity you'd need. There are nowhere near enough platforms (or space to build more) at Marylebone. You'd need new platforms, stations and rebuild half the line.

But that's not really an obstacle because HS2 is cutting it's way into London and rebuilding Euston at vast expense, so it's more a question of comparison, how much would it have cost to expand the route and add extra platforms at Marylebone vs. At Euston.

It doesn't go to Birmingham. It goes to Rugby, Nottingham and Leicester. That's not relieving capacity issues on the WCML, that's helping capacity along the MML.

One of the arguments HS2 latched onto as a justification was capacity issues on the southern end of the WCML. At Rugby the GCML meets the WCML, the old route went straight over and onto Leicester with no connection but there's no reason why it had to do this in 2021, it could have been tied in to the WCML, as a southern bypass for the WCML route.

It's not build to modern standards. There a lot of quite sharp bends you'd need to rebuild, and the capacity from a sawtooth speed profile (lots of speeding and braking) is significantly less than that from a relatively steady speed profile.

It wouldn't be a high speed line but an additional, conventional line into London to relieve the southern part of the WCML and provide extra capacity, an economical project to provide capacity rather an entirely new high speed.

You'd need to rebuild the line completely to modern standards, and that means having to buy the land back. All the land. That's going to cost about as much as building the line across greenfield sites. And, if you're going to rebuild the line completely, and buy back the lands you may as well build the line in open countryside, instead of through the centres of some quite large towns.

Most of the old route upto Rugby is undeveloped, it might need to divert around the edges of Brackley and the odd small village but most of the route is intact, undeveloped and not even farmed.

I agree that reopening the GCML in it's original form is impossible and what remains isn't much use in a new high speed route, but if your goal was to add extra capacity into London, relieve some constraints in an economical way then it's clear why people might find it interesting. If money is no object and the tax payer has signed a blank cheque then get the crayons out and lets build HS2, but if you wanted an economical project to add capacity and address some network constraints, then reopening the southern end of the GCML as a WCML bypass looks more interesting.

 

[6Gman]

One of the arguments HS2 latched onto as a justification was capacity issues on the southern end of the WCML. At Rugby the GCML meets the WCML, the old route went straight over and onto Leicester with no connection but there's no reason why it had to do this in 2021, it could have been tied in to the WCML, as a southern bypass for the WCML route.

Doesn't do anything for Rugby - Coventry - Birmingham capacity though.

 

[Bald Rick]

But that's not really an obstacle because HS2 is cutting it's way into London and rebuilding Euston at vast expense, so it's more a question of comparison, how much would it have cost to expand the route and add extra platforms at Marylebone vs. At Euston.

It would have cost more than HS2 to Euston.

Let’s not forget that HS2 does follow, broadly, the GC for some of its length.

 

[D365]

If money is no object and the tax payer has signed a blank cheque then get the crayons out and lets build HS2, but if you wanted an economical project to add capacity and address some network constraints, then reopening the southern end of the GCML as a WCML bypass looks more interesting.

what are you talking about? HS2 is long past the design phase.

There must be a reason why engineering is a well-paid profession…

 

[swt_passenger]

what are you talking about? HS2 is long past the design phase.

It’s one of those whack-a-mole suggestions that never gives up isn’t it. Although the reopen GC proposals had reduced considerably over the last few years...

 

[The Planner]

But that's not really an obstacle because HS2 is cutting it's way into London and rebuilding Euston at vast expense, so it's more a question of comparison, how much would it have cost to expand the route and add extra platforms at Marylebone vs. At Euston.
.

Phase 1 isnt rebuilding Euston at all, nor is phase 2, redevelopment of Euston is a seperate scheme. Phase 1 has nabbed 2 platforms and thats it.

 

[The Ham]

It’s one of those whack-a-mole suggestions that never gives up isn’t it. Although the reopen GC proposals had reduced considerably over the last few years...

I've come up with a scheme called GC-21C, which takes some of the best principals of the original line but redesigned for the 21st century (which meant I couldn't exactly follow the old alignment and that I'd need a different London end station).

Also I decided that it would be better to serve the major cities like Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

Then I realised that I'd come up with something which was very much like HS2.

 

[Ianno87]

I've come up with a scheme called GC-21C, which takes some of the best principals of the original line but redesigned for the 21st century (which meant I couldn't exactly follow the old alignment and that I'd need a different London end station).

Also I decided that it would be better to serve the major cities like Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

Then I realised that I'd come up with something which was very much like HS2.

HS2 is basically the GCML "re-imagined".

 

[NoRoute]

I've come up with a scheme called GC-21C, which takes some of the best principals of the original line but redesigned for the 21st century (which meant I couldn't exactly follow the old alignment and that I'd need a different London end station).

Also I decided that it would be better to serve the major cities like Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

Then I realised that I'd come up with something which was very much like HS2.

Sounds interesting, did you keep the excellent principle of designing it economically so it was at least half-way financially viable and could secure investment from the private sector?

Ahh, no sorry, you said it was very much like HS2 so that can't be right! Blank cheque required.

 

[Ianno87]

Sounds interesting, did you keep the excellent principle of designing it economically so it was at least half-way financially viable and could secure investment from the private sector?

Ahh, no sorry, you said it was very much like HS2 so that can't be right! Blank cheque required.

HS2 is financially viable, with supporting Economic Case. That's why it is being built.

 

[NoRoute]

HS2 is financially viable, with supporting Economic Case. That's why it is being built.

If it was financially viable then the private sector would fund it, or at least part of it.

It's funded by the tax payer because it's so uneconomic that no business or private investors would invest.

The costs have increased so much that if it were run by the private sector the whole project would have been cancelled by now.