An alternative to HS2 route, follow the M40?

[YesToHS2]

As no one else who taking part in the HS2 discussion has examined a route that follow the M40, I thought that I would give it a go.

Click here

It's only a rough map but I have use google earth to find buildings and features (as of 2007) that a line would have to avoid. Where the line would pass towns and villages I have tried where possible to use the M40 as a screen for the line and have tried to follow the M40 as closely as possible.

I wonder if anyone would like to hazard a guess at what sort of average speed a train travelling on the line would hope to achieve.

Perhaps some one with some technical knowledge would like to give their opinion.

This isn't supposed to be used to sway the government and isn't a serious technical draft but it's always interesting to have a go.

To explain: the red circles are properties that are unavoidable and would have to be demolished. the tunnel portals and tunnels are obvious.

 

[Blondie]

Arup produced a route similar to this for the DfT. Trains would run at the same speed as HS1 in Kent and Arup have stated that their route would take just 3.5 minutes longer London to Birmingham.

The CPRE have also questioned the ultra high speed proposed for HS2 -
http://www.cpre.org.uk/news/view/709

 

[Geezertronic]

Arup produced a route similar to this for the DfT. Trains would run at the same speed as HS1 in Kent and Arup have stated that their route would take just 3.5 minutes longer London to Birmingham.

The CPRE have also questioned the ultra high speed proposed for HS2 -
http://www.cpre.org.uk/news/view/709

The CPRE would state that considering they have an obvious vested interest in the current route. However excluding the emotive text, there should be at least a consultation on a route of this nature (which will obviously please people on the existing route and upset people on this new route so the vicious circle will start again)

 

[YesToHS2]

I do have to take issue with this idea of HS2 being "ultra high speed". HS2 will be completed in 2026 by this time the majority if not all HSRs around the world will be built to the same standard. In 2026 the government envisage that trains will be able to reliably and efficiently travel at 220mph, but to stop there and say that should be the ultimate limit of the line would be extremely short sighted.

For once the government is actually looking to the future and insuring that UK infrastructure is future proofed and all of a sudden the government is wrong to do. The phrase 'damned if you do damned if you don't' springs to mind.

I fail to see how the line following the M40 at a top speed of 186mph not an average speed and a route which is measurably longer than HS2 would only increase journey times by 3.5 minutes. I am open to suggestions of how this could be so, I'm not experting and my maths isn't great.

How come I have read 3 versions of that CPRE statement? One where they clearly say there is a case for new lines in the UK, and then it was edited to make it seems as if they weren't so keen on new lines and now they are quoting what has been said as if to separate the CRPE's broad view from Ralph Smyth's view. How odd.

 

[Blondie]

As far as I remember the Arup proposal is for trains travelling at 320kph not 400kph but not all of them stop in West London (at Crossrail interchange). I think that is where they make up the time?

 

[The Planner]

Without looking at the documents to see the change in distance, the difference between 320kmh and 400 kmh is 3.6 seconds a mile, and 300kmh to 400kmh is 4.8 seconds a mile (quietly ignoring the metric/imperial thing...). With my ropey maths, 3½ minutes is 210 seconds so that would make 58 miles difference from 320kmh to 400kmh and about 44 miles from 300kmh to 400kmh ??

Happy to be shot down in flames and retake my GCSEs....

 

[YesToHS2]

I have updated the route with more information and a slightly straighter alignment.

As far as I can see even trying to follow the M40 doesn't mitigate all of the impacts that the line would have. Would still need many tunnels and deep cuttings to mitigate impacts and to avoid demolishing entire settlements.

http://members.multimania.co.uk/yestohs2/campaign/HS2M40route.jpg

 

[CosherB]

If you're going to go the expense and turmoil of building a high speed line, it makes sense to make it as short and as straight as possible. This not only reduces journey times with any given train technology, it ensures that future super high speed, which probably won't work on a curvey line, can be catered for.

 

[YesToHS2]

My major issue with a lot of the critics is that they say HSR is a good idea and that the UK needs HSR but don't agree with HS2. sighting as a reason that if you follow current infrastructure it will some how be less disruptive.

I think it would be fair to say that I went to great efforts when creating the map to avoid towns and even small settlement but even trying to wind around the M40 causes massive disturbance for residents and will effect people. So critics can't say "we are not anti HSR we are anti HS2" without giving an viable alternative it implies that they are not anti HSR but simply anti development in my back yard.

 

[Blondie]

According to an estate agent, the financial blight to house prices of a new railway alongside an existing motorway or railway is less (because the houses are worth less already). This would be a consideration for the Dept for Transport as part of the cost of building this sort of new infrastructure will be compensation payments to those whose house prices are affected.

I think it is worth working within the "politics of the possible". If a slower HSR line is less controversial, then it is more likely to happen. The highest speed possible might be a nice aspiration, but will probably never get built due to opposition.

 

[YesToHS2]

Taking Blondie's statement into account, as enthusiast and experts what do people think. HS2 is the best option for the future or should the government compromise and build a slower M40 route?

Even given the less controversial nature of a slower route, for me it still doesn't excuse the current group of protesters who have turned a local issue into a nation campaign costing tens of thousands of pounds. If they line was running through a poorer area there is no way 100 people could reportedly donate £90,000 in one night!

 

[Striker]

Even given the less controversial nature of a slower route, for me it still doesn't excuse the current group of protesters who have turned a local issue into a nation campaign costing tens of thousands of pounds. If they line was running through a poorer area there is no way 100 people could reportedly donate £90,000 in one night!

I'm really not sure what your point is in this paragraph. How is it a) a local issue and b) What does the wealth of the protestors have to do with anything?

 

[Geezertronic]

I'm really not sure what your point is in this paragraph. How is it a) a local issue and b) What does the wealth of the protestors have to do with anything?

I would assume that a) it is a local issue because the protestors all come from an area affected by the current HS2 route, and b) if 100 protesters reportedly donated £90,000 in one night, I'd say they have a few quid I doubt some parts of the affected route could do that

 

[YesToHS2]

I would assume that a) it is a local issue because the protestors all come from an area affected by the current HS2 route, and b) if 100 protesters reportedly donated £90,000 in one night, I'd say they have a few quid I doubt some parts of the affected route could do that

In short yes.

The origins of the protest group all come from the effected areas, some of the names of the protests groups kinda give that fact away. Local protests, I have no problem with, they have every right. But to turn to every single anti HS2 article to gain wider support even if it contradicts statements previously made by themselves, that is what have a problem with. And now, to begin saying that "we are not anti HSR just anti HS2" tells me that it may truly just be a case of "not in my back yard" no matter how hard I have tried not to use that statement.

And the reported money I just find funny, for a group proclaiming to be working "on a grass routes level" what a joke.

 

[Blondie]

In short yes.

The origins of the protest group all come from the effected areas, some of the names of the protests groups kinda give that fact away. Local protests, I have no problem with, they have every right. But to turn to every single anti HS2 article to gain wider support even if it contradicts statements previously made by themselves, that is what have a problem with. And now, to begin saying that "we are not anti HSR just anti HS2" tells me that it may truly just be a case of "not in my back yard" no matter how hard I have tried not to use that statement.

And the reported money I just find funny, for a group proclaiming to be working "on a grass routes level" what a joke.

If you dont want to have a proper discussion then I am off. Thanks and adios.

 

[YesToHS2]

If you dont want to have a proper discussion then I am off. Thanks and adios.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Perhaps I have been letting my frustrations show a little in this forum. But when you read the same contradictory and misleading drivel from anti HS2 lobbyists everyday you tend to get a bit jaded by the whole debate.

My point still stands that you can not just be anti HS2 without wishing disturbance on some one else. Something will have to be built somewhere at some point. Be it 6 tracking the WCML, building a new runway or a HS line following the M40.

StopHS2 hasn't mentioned Rail Package 2 in a while, why? Because it was load of rubbish used as a distraction from the real issues.

 

[Geezertronic]

If you dont want to have a proper discussion then I am off. Thanks and adios.

I thought that was what we are all having? Is it because your opinion differs from other opinions on this site that makes you say that? This thread is quite civilised to be honest so I fail to understand why you would make that comment?

 

[Striker]

I would assume that a) it is a local issue because the protestors all come from an area affected by the current HS2 route, and b) if 100 protesters reportedly donated £90,000 in one night, I'd say they have a few quid I doubt some parts of the affected route could do that

How is it a local issue when HS2 has national importance? And I don't see what relevance it has how much money the group have generated in one night?

I wholeheartedly support HS2 but whilst I once thought YestoHS2 was a sensible poster, some of his posts in the last couple of weeks have come across as hysterical drivel.

 

[YesToHS2]

How is it a local issue when HS2 has national importance? And I don't see what relevance it has how much money the group have generated in one night?

I wholeheartedly support HS2 but whilst I once thought YestoHS2 was a sensible poster, some of his posts in the last couple of weeks have come across as hysterical drivel.

So I’m hysterical and histrionic? Perhaps it is my own fault for being passionate about a subject. Accuse me for caring.

I make no excuses for the independent nature of the YesTo campaign, a campaign which is the independent pro campaign currently running. You are welcome to begin your own if you feel that I am doing a poor job of representing HS2. On the other hand I am always looking to people to contribute independent article to the blog.

I didn’t realise I had to explain myself when commenting in forums, I do apologise.

 

[Bevan Price]

I did suggest somewhere else that HS2 could be built ON the M40 or M1 + M6. There would then be more space on WCML & elsewhere to replace lots of lorries by freight trains. And it would be a lot cheaper & quicker than building a totally new route for HS2.

Bevan

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm late to this discussion, but the M40 corridor was route option 1 considered by HS2. There's a section in the original report that explains why they discounted it, page 95 onwards in this section:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/hs2report/pdf/chapter3b.pdf

 

[route:oxford]

How much will the average property near major HS2 stations increase in value by when they benefit from the speedy service to London?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Ah, have spotted a major flaw in your route.

It passes very close to "Weston on the Green", they are a sturdy mob of NIMBYs who managed to prevent a development of ECOhomes near Weston.

Although...

"Oxford Parkway does have a certain ring to it, and would be handy for connection to London-Oxford Airport.

 

[YesToHS2]

I'm late to this discussion, but the M40 corridor was route option 1 considered by HS2. There's a section in the original report that explains why they discounted it, page 95 onwards in this section:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/hs2report/pdf/chapter3b.pdf

Thanks, Just what I've been looking for.

 

[Geezertronic]

How is it a local issue when HS2 has national importance? And I don't see what relevance it has how much money the group have generated in one night?

I wholeheartedly support HS2 but whilst I once thought YestoHS2 was a sensible poster, some of his posts in the last couple of weeks have come across as hysterical drivel.

You've obviously not read the StopHS2 campaign "material" then... the article "Prepare your Ark" is very amusing especially when using emotive language such as concrete bomb etc... The "Save the Chilterns" Facebook group is even removing and banning members who try and offer facts rather than the drivel that seems to get posted in groups like this.

I think that (spelling aside ), the YesToHS2 campaign appears to be well researched and deals with facts rather than the emotive nonsense of a selection of the anti brigade. Not all of us are good at articulating our comments so maybe as he suggests, you could contribute if you felt the need to?

 

[YesToHS2]

Perhaps this short compilation of words used to describe HS2 will help explain my frustration.

If you are to believe the critics:

HS2 is a £35bn concrete bomb that will rip through the countryside, flood the Chilterns, bankrupt the country, deafen everyone within a mile and cause an Armageddon!.

How do you argue against protesters when they are constantly spouting such ****. And the public are eating it right up regardless of the facts.

 

[brianthegiant]

b) What does the wealth of the protestors have to do with anything?

You may not like the answer, but since you asked: Yes, wealth has everything to do with being for or against HS2. A lot of the affluence in the Chilterns comes from having good transport links to Europe's leading financial centre, (I know this as I grew up in the Chilterns). So is it right that Bucks residents should hold everyone else to ransom and try to stop less affluent parts of the country also enjoying good transport links to London?? Especially if the developer is working hard to mitigate the impacts.

 

[Waddon]

Theres a big article in one of the Sunday papers today about an alternative route proposal for HS2 which very much follows the M40, and goes through Heathrow. Can't remember which paper though, might have been News of the World

 

[paul1609]

Taking Blondie's statement into account, as enthusiast and experts what do people think. HS2 is the best option for the future or should the government compromise and build a slower M40 route?

Even given the less controversial nature of a slower route, for me it still doesn't excuse the current group of protesters who have turned a local issue into a nation campaign costing tens of thousands of pounds. If they line was running through a poorer area there is no way 100 people could reportedly donate £90,000 in one night!

I think the problem is that motorway alignments are generally not straight enough for a high speed line. HS1 takes a wide swarth of land north of the M20 (in places over 1/2 mile wide) to straighten the route on what is a relatively straight motorway. Apply the same to the M40 running through the Chilterns and it maybe that a brand new route has less environmental impact than trying to hug the motorway.

 

[YesToHS2]

This was my own attempt, trying to follow the M40 avoid houses and remain straight enough even for just 186mph is hard. In the end it hardly even follows the M40.

http://members.multimania.co.uk/yestohs2/campaign/HS2M40route.jpg

I think the problem is that motorway alignments are generally not straight enough for a high speed line. HS1 takes a wide swarth of land north of the M20 (in places over 1/2 mile wide) to straighten the route on what is a relatively straight motorway. Apply the same to the M40 running through the Chilterns and it maybe that a brand new route has less environmental impact than trying to hug the motorway.

 

[Blondie]

Theres a big article in one of the Sunday papers today about an alternative route proposal for HS2 which very much follows the M40, and goes through Heathrow. Can't remember which paper though, might have been News of the World

Article referred to is in today's Sunday Times. The route described is Arup's preferred route. It follows the Chiltern line to Bicester then the M40 north from there.