High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[HSTEd]

Here is a hypothetical end game I would like to end up in.

Perhaps there would need to be a south coast route as well but I am not so sure.
The Heathrow spur for HS2 is unecessary thanks to other developments, additional lines would also be upgraded to connect in with this network, such as Grantham-Nottingham, Ely-Norwich and Newark-Lincoln.

 

[AndyLandy]

Here is a hypothetical end game I would like to end up in.

That looks pretty much how I'd have drawn it, although I'm not sure about the London-Cambridge-Peterborough line. Is that worth building as its own HS link? The bridge/tunnel to Ireland is also a nice feature, but I'm not sure how feasible it is!

On a more serious note though, I'd have all the London HS lines terminate in one station though. I'm not convinced that running different HS lines into Paddington, Euston, St. Pancras and Kings Cross is a good idea.

Perhaps there would need to be a south coast route as well but I am not so sure.

I'd be in full support of that, if it's a direct HS link from Southampton into London. But then, living in Southampton, of course I'd be in favour of that!

 

[NotATrainspott]

1. Shut Watford DC route, to be replaced by new underground route, existing route becomes route for slowest LM and freight. Existing slows become the 'semi-fasts'.

The problem with underground railways is the cost of the stations. If you have a look at some of the Crossrail 3D models you'll see just how much tunneling you have to do to build one and that's a lot of what the cost of Crossrail is. The running tunnels are simple TBM drives (in general) but you have to build the stations manually. The cost of putting each of the Watford DC line stations underground with a UK W6a sized tunnel connecting them will be a lot more than doing it the other way around and putting non-stop services in simple TBM drives, even at GC gauge. Since it's a series of TBM drives you don't have to follow the existing route at all and that's exactly what HS2 is within the M25. If you're tunneling you might as well make it as straight as possible so by accident it'll end up High Speed anyway.

Network Rail and the DfT have done an enormous amount of work into the HS2 plans, including analysing every variation of different routes. The DfT have put up a huge amount of technical information about the choices of routes, including reasons for and against each possible alignment and service pattern, and there's not going to be anything a rail enthusiast forum can suggest that they won't have even considered. The people who want to work for the DfT or Network Rail planning these things can't be too dissimilar to the people on this forum and I can't imagine that not one of them is a member here. The HS2 plans are as technically and operationally sound as they can be within the constraints of a budget for responsible investment and they're not the final act of the British railway industry either. If Northampton or Milton Keynes or whatever town or city is bypassed by HS2 grows so fast it will fill 24 12-car EMUs per hour then there's nothing saying we can't build them another line when it is needed.

 

[jon0844]

Sounds like a bar room myth to me,
any indication given as to where the location was?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-23960208

And I'm sure there's more to it.

460 metres from the route isn't too bad, assuming HS2 is built to minimise noise. I'm probably not far off that from the A1(M) and barely hear it, except during the dead of night if the wind is blowing the right way. And that's with the windows open.

Far more noise comes from all the cars that pass right outside our house, which includes those speeding, those with modded exhausts (or knackered ones), noisy motorbikes or buses/vans hitting manholes.

 

[tbtc]

On a more serious note though, I'd have all the London HS lines terminate in one station though. I'm not convinced that running different HS lines into Paddington, Euston, St. Pancras and Kings Cross is a good idea

I don't know where there's space to do that.

And you'd lose the link of using the same London terminal as the "normal" services - e.g. most of the people using HS2 to London will arrive in the same terminus that they are used to already (Euston)

The lack of space (in one site) is the biggest problem though

Actually, I've long thought that we should build 4/5 circa 50 mile routes - to Hitchin/Bedford/Milton Keynes/Bicester/Reading ie to where the "NSE" presence fizzles out. I'm sure I've mentioned it - but may have been on WNXX. There are plenty of alternatives but many pro-HS2 people just don't want to listen.

Some brief descriptions of alternatives that have different costs/benefits:

1. Shut Watford DC route, to be replaced by new underground route, existing route becomes route for slowest LM and freight. Existing slows become the 'semi-fasts'.

2. Six- track Bletchley - Roade, Four- track Weedon - allows increased express services out of Euston while allowing MK calls

3. High speed line London - Manchester, London - Dunstable (junction with branch to Bedford), MK, <junction for widened Rugby - Birmingham line>, Stoke, Manchester

4. New line London - Aylesbury, re-open GC to Whetstone with new route in Rugby area to join with Trent Valley with non stop trains diverted this way

5. Scrap most of Toton - Tinsley and re-instate goods lines on Erewash line

6. Widen Watford - Roade to six track based on a "4+2" basis - separate 2 track alignment parallel with exisiting route but need not be connected throughout (much of the MML is 2x 2 track railways). Very little of the WCML on this section has buildings on both sides of the line, bypass Linslade, tunnel under Watford, very few houses need to be removed

Plenty more options aswell but no doubt calls 'but it's not high speed', but it'll cost more (TV was £320 million for 12 miles...work it out)...:roll:

I'm not on WNXX, can't recall seeing those ideas before, sounds sensible - good to have some constructive alternatives

 

[jon0844]

I don't know where there's space to do that.

And you'd lose the link of using the same London terminal as the "normal" services - e.g. most of the people using HS2 to London will arrive in the same terminus that they are used to already (Euston)

The lack of space (in one site) is the biggest problem though

Would probably be easier to build a few big stations further out, then build new shuttle lines to connect them all up - to make it quick to transfer from one to the other.

One big station would be great, but do many cities have this (of the size of London)? And if you did, would you allow for further expansion or end up having to still open up another big station in years to come?

 

[The Ham]

Would probably be easier to build a few big stations further out, then build new shuttle lines to connect them all up - to make it quick to transfer from one to the other.

Old Oak Common would provide a combined staiton on HSTEd's HS2 and East-West HS line (serving Devon and Wales-HSSW) meaning that the end points in London could be different and not cause any problems (esp. as there is also a link from Swindon to Birmingham).

That then just leaves the issue of the Cambridge/Peterborough line, but if that is going into Kings Cross that isn't too much of a disaster in getting onto HS2, however it's a little harder to get to the HSSW. To overcome this it could be that both routes are one by means of a tunnel under London.

Here is a hypothetical end game I would like to end up in.

Perhaps there would need to be a south coast route as well but I am not so sure.
The Heathrow spur for HS2 is unecessary thanks to other developments, additional lines would also be upgraded to connect in with this network, such as Grantham-Nottingham, Ely-Norwich and Newark-Lincoln.

The one possible problem with the layout suggested is that to have that much network it may well be that HS2 phase one would start to be running out of capacity, as such the question then is, would it be better to quad track to Birmingham or to extend from Peterborough to Nottingham (and give it it's own HS station) before linking bak in to HS Phase 2 (east)? As with the latter the services to Leeds, York and Newcastle (or at least some of them) could then run via Peterborough, whislt still retaining the Birmingham to Leeds, York and Newcastle from the services which come from the SW via Swindon.

A High Speed line or lines to the South Coast shouldn't be needed (given the short distances), however a line which can take 400m long Duplex trains would be very useful given the numbers of passengers involved (whether or not that is a new line is another matter).

 

[NotATrainspott]

The one possible problem with the layout suggested is that to have that much network it may well be that HS2 phase one would start to be running out of capacity, as such the question then is, would it be better to quad track to Birmingham or to extend from Peterborough to Nottingham (and give it it's own HS station) before linking bak in to HS Phase 2 (east)? As with the latter the services to Leeds, York and Newcastle (or at least some of them) could then run via Peterborough, whislt still retaining the Birmingham to Leeds, York and Newcastle from the services which come from the SW via Swindon.

If his proposal is based on what's currently planned then quad-tracking London to Birmingham along the same alignment isn't designed to be possible. Quad tracking is normally to allow fast services to overtake the slow ones but every service along that stretch is going the same speed without serving intermediate stations so you might as well build it somewhere else to relieve the pressure, i.e. over on the East Coast.

 

[macka]

An eastern HS line connecting to Nottingham and beyond would be ideal for relieving capacity on phase 1, but I don't think that'll happen for a few decades at the least as the potential capacity on phase 1 is enormous - we can start using less classic compatibles as the HS network expands, lengthen them to 400m, upgrade the single decker trains to double and increase the number of trains to 18-20tph (if it hasn't reached there yet).

The main problem with an eastern alignment would be where to put the London station - St Pancras is already used for Eurostar and Kings Cross is constrained by space unless you do a Euston-style expansion to the east.

 

[gordonthemoron]

How could Euston cope with 20tph? Or would some terminate elsewhere?

 

[brianthegiant]

How many grade 2 & 2* listed pubs/bars/restaurants are there in the UK PR1Berske?

I don't know.
How many of them do you want to see knocked down?

fact is you tried to make a point about this pub, which is in threat because of Northern Hub not HS2, so as usual your arguments are total guff

Pubs are closing and either falling into disrepair or losing their character due to change of use at an alarming rate, but you can't blame that on HS2...

The traditional English pub is at the end of a long era due to a combination of cut price supermarket tins, smoking ban, starbucks/costa and failure to cope with changing demand.

 

[PR1Berske]

fact is you tried to make a point about this pub, which is in threat because of Northern Hub not HS2, so as usual your arguments are total guff

Pubs are closing and either falling into disrepair or losing their character due to change of use at an alarming rate, but you can't blame that on HS2...

The traditional English pub is at the end of a long era due to a combination of cut price supermarket tins, smoking ban, starbucks/costa and failure to cope with changing demand.

Prepare to be shocked -- I sort of, kind of, in a way, agree with you.

There's many reasons why the pub industry is in real trouble, some of which are as you say, and there's additional suggestions too (wider societal changes, beer duty, younger people preferring clubs to pubs, and on and so forth)

I don't believe, however, that we should use this as justification for destroying what remains for spurious economic reasons. Heck, if anybody came onto this forum supporting Beeching on the same terms ("Those branch lines are coming to an end of an era because of the car, failure to cope with changing demand, etc, let's build the M6"), you'd be amongst the first to cry foul.

 

[trainplan1]

Actually, I've long thought that we should build 4/5 circa 50 mile routes - to Hitchin/Bedford/Milton Keynes/Bicester/Reading ie to where the "NSE" presence fizzles out. I'm sure I've mentioned it - but may have been on WNXX. There are plenty of alternatives but many pro-HS2 people just don't want to listen.

I certainly would consider alternatives but all I keep getting told is that there are alternatives. I've yet to see any detailed plans that have had the same level of planning/thought that HS2 has.

Certainly some of the examples listed are all well and good in theory but they don't say what alignments the diversions will take, what impact they will have, what services they will provide etc.

If someone is able to point out where they exist then I will gladly have a look at them.

The first example of rebuilding the DC lines is extreme to say the least. Tunneling 17 miles of new line and building 17 new intermediate underground stations (not uncluding Euston + Watford Jn)!
What would happen at either end of the line. New underground termini at Euston and Watford the for the "New" DC lines. What would happen the Croxley rail link too?

 

[jon0844]

The traditional English pub is at the end of a long era due to a combination of cut price supermarket tins, smoking ban, starbucks/costa and failure to cope with changing demand.

I think the biggest problem is that there's not much money on booze, compared to soft drinks and food.

Far better to discourage people sitting in a bar getting drunk, compared to families and groups spending a fortune on a meal - mostly profit - and it's just as good if they're drinking an overpriced coke with no tax, than a pint.

Then, of course, there's the fact people might just drink at home or be happy to socialise in Costa.

Yup, traditional pubs are pretty much doomed and many more will be gone long before HS2 is finished.

I don't believe, however, that we should use this as justification for destroying what remains for spurious economic reasons. Heck, if anybody came onto this forum supporting Beeching on the same terms ("Those branch lines are coming to an end of an era because of the car, failure to cope with changing demand, etc, let's build the M6"), you'd be amongst the first to cry foul.

At the time, road appeared to be the future. Think about it, these things that everyone could own and let you go anywhere you want, anytime you want.

I can see why there was a generation that saw the car as the future of transport and saw the railway as highly limited. Of course, many other factors have changed that - from increased fuel costs, congestion, wanting to have a drink, wanting to be able to read/work/sleep while travelling etc etc.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing!

 

[The Ham]

I think the biggest problem is that there's not much money on booze, compared to soft drinks and food.

Far better to discourage people sitting in a bar getting drunk, compared to families and groups spending a fortune on a meal - mostly profit - and it's just as good if they're drinking an overpriced coke with no tax, than a pint.

Then, of course, there's the fact people might just drink at home or be happy to socialise in Costa.

Yup, traditional pubs are pretty much doomed and many more will be gone long before HS2 is finished.

...also pubs can be converted to connivance stores (i.e. Tesco Metro) without needing to apply for planning permission (Permitted Development Rights).

Add that to the above and that local rail schemes are destroying them and there will be a lot less by the time HS2 Phase 1 is finished. Meaning that even if HS2 (all phases) were to destroy say 20 of them that would still be a drop in the ocean compared with the number that would have closed in the 20 years from now until then.

 

[yorksrob]

Sad though I would be to lose the Brie Louise (it is a very good pub), I don't think HS2 or local railway schemes represent the main threat to the traditional English pub.

I can imagine that some proposed reopenings in tourist areas could infact boost trade in local pubs.

 

[gordonthemoron]

The Bree Louise is certainly v.popular but I prefer Exmouth Arms two streets back (as at least you can get served)

 

[HSTEd]

That looks pretty much how I'd have drawn it, although I'm not sure about the London-Cambridge-Peterborough line. Is that worth building as its own HS link?

It relieves capacity on the ECML, GEML, the WAML and probably the MML (Nottingham and possibly Sheffield) all in one package.
It totally eliminates the need to ever worry about Welwyn VIaduct/Welwyn North.

The bridge/tunnel to Ireland is also a nice feature, but I'm not sure how feasible it is!

Myself I think it is one of the things we have to have for political and social reasons even though the economic case is not the best.

On a more serious note though, I'd have all the London HS lines terminate in one station though. I'm not convinced that running different HS lines into Paddington, Euston, St. Pancras and Kings Cross is a good idea.

Well Euston, St Pancras and KGX are essentially the same station, or would be after all three are rebuilt for high speed use.

Paddington is troublesome but there is no more room at the Euston road stations.

I'd be in full support of that, if it's a direct HS link from Southampton into London. But then, living in Southampton, of course I'd be in favour of that!

Indeed, I was thinking about routing it to Weymouth via Brighton, but that would be a sharp curve.

The main problem with an eastern alignment would be where to put the London station - St Pancras is already used for Eurostar and Kings Cross is constrained by space unless you do a Euston-style expansion to the east.

Just demolish the warehouses to the north of the station and dig it out, as the canal is above the level of the station platforms you can put it on an aqueduct across the station throat (as it has significant tourist use).

You can easily fit enough platforms in since almost everything left in KGX will be InterCity anyway.

That then just leaves the issue of the Cambridge/Peterborough line, but if that is going into Kings Cross that isn't too much of a disaster in getting onto HS2, however it's a little harder to get to the HSSW. To overcome this it could be that both routes are one by means of a tunnel under London.

Essentially it would be the reconstructed King's Cross, with essentially no remaining classic trains (as the only thing left pretty much after the Thameslink Programme is the Intercity/Cambridge Cruisers).
Euston-St Pancras-Kings Cross are increasingly just becoming one interconnected station complex, along the lines of Gare du Nord and Gare de l'Est.

Paddington is a little further away but there is little that can be done there, but if OOC is indeed a stop on both lines (myself I would have sacrified an OOC stop in favour of a Heathrow stop since you can't really have both) then you could transfer.

Or you could use the HSXC connection from near Swindon to Birmingham (perhaps at unnel under birmingham with a station under Curzon Street or a simpler connection to an enlarged Birmingham International complex) means that you can get to destinations north of Birmingham quite easily without going through London.

It also cuts several hours from the Edinburgh-Southampton journey since you can run high speed all the way to about Reading.

The one possible problem with the layout suggested is that to have that much network it may well be that HS2 phase one would start to be running out of capacity, as such the question then is, would it be better to quad track to Birmingham or to extend from Peterborough to Nottingham (and give it it's own HS station) before linking bak in to HS Phase 2 (east)? As with the latter the services to Leeds, York and Newcastle (or at least some of them) could then run via Peterborough, whislt still retaining the Birmingham to Leeds, York and Newcastle from the services which come from the SW via Swindon.

You could, if you are really short for capacity, extend the line north from Peterborough, but I would favour running some trains via Swindon, since you still only loose ten minutes by doing that.

A High Speed line or lines to the South Coast shouldn't be needed (given the short distances), however a line which can take 400m long Duplex trains would be very useful given the numbers of passengers involved (whether or not that is a new line is another matter).

New Lines are almost certainly cheaper compared to gauge clearing, especially in the mass of track that is the South London suburban network.

EDIT:

Additional spurs could go into Liverpool from the North and on the GEML route to go all the way to Norwich.
75km from Peterborough to Toton sidings.
That would cost a couple of billion pounds and probably produce about six additional paths as you need approximately:

2tph Norwich
2tph King's Lynn
2tph Nottingham (conventional)
2tph Sheffield (conventional)
2tph Leeds (conventional)
2tph York (conventional)
1tph Lincoln
1tph Hull


Many of these trains have to be 400m long cleared to allow for commuter rush hour services.
I would think some sort of Eurostar/AGV cross would be best.

 

[yorksrob]

The Bree Louise is certainly v.popular but I prefer Exmouth Arms two streets back (as at least you can get served)

Cheers for the heads up - I'll have to try it !

 

[PR1Berske]

YouGov has asked about HS2 - a majority are against it (see http://twitpic.com/dchsot)

 

[Trog]

YouGov has asked about HS2 - a majority are against it (see http://twitpic.com/dchsot)

They asked less then 2000 people out of 60,000,000.

Has this result of any real meaning?

 

[PR1Berske]

They asked less then 2000 people out of 60,000,000.

Has this result of any real meaning?

Oh please. Opinion polls are snapshots, and asking 60 million people the same question would be just as pointless, expensive and ridiculous as HS2 itself.

 

[Geezertronic]

Oh please. Opinion polls are snapshots, and asking 60 million people the same question would be just as pointless, expensive and ridiculous as HS2 itself.

There is that ridiculous word again... you can't help yourself can you :roll:

I'd be interested to find out how this poll was conducted, who was asked (as a geographic estimate of the UK), and whether the people asked actually knew what HS2 was about or whether they were peddled the usual bull that you and the StopHS2 website seem to spout.

StopHS2 are announcing this result as a "massive drop in public support" - that is utter tripe. This from the same organisation that announced that a previous YouGov poll showed that "nearly two thirds of the public oppose money being spent on [sic] HS2". There is your ridiculousness...

 

[Chrisgr31]

Oh please. Opinion polls are snapshots, and asking 60 million people the same question would be just as pointless, expensive and ridiculous as HS2 itself.

Indeed however the reality is that the anti camp is shouting loudly and getting the most publicity. Equally if you include in the question the cost, and that it is has gone up you are more likely to get a negative response.

The real question here is will UK PLC benefit from HS2. We might spend £50 billion on it but if the contractors etc are UK based then that money goes round in a nice circle and stays in the UK, then those who are travelling will in future benefit from the time saving. Having made a daytrip to Leeds earlier this week I'd welcome a faster train!

 

[ainsworth74]

I'd be interested to find out how this poll was conducted, who was asked (as a geographic estimate of the UK), and whether the people asked actually knew what HS2 was about or whether they were peddled the usual bull that you and the StopHS2 website seem to spout.

It was an on-line survey and the only introduction to HS2 was the question as seen in that link. So you could potentially have known nothing about HS2 other than what the question told you. And I know this because I was polled by it!

 

[PR1Berske]

There is that ridiculous word again... you can't help yourself can you :roll:

I'd be interested to find out how this poll was conducted, who was asked (as a geographic estimate of the UK), and whether the people asked actually knew what HS2 was about or whether they were peddled the usual bull that you and the StopHS2 website seem to spout.

StopHS2 are announcing this result as a "massive drop in public support" - that is utter tripe. This from the same organisation that announced that a previous YouGov poll showed that "nearly two thirds of the public oppose money being spent on [sic] HS2". There is your ridiculousness...

You clearly didn't read the question which I posted as an image to prove my point. That is the question people were asked. You might want to read up on how YouGov carry out polls before trying to talk about something you clearly don't understand.

 

[The Ham]

Indeed however the reality is that the anti camp is shouting loudly and getting the most publicity. Equally if you include in the question the cost, and that it is has gone up you are more likely to get a negative response.

The real question here is will UK PLC benefit from HS2. We might spend £50 billion on it but if the contractors etc are UK based then that money goes round in a nice circle and stays in the UK, then those who are travelling will in future benefit from the time saving. Having made a daytrip to Leeds earlier this week I'd welcome a faster train!

akin to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

 

[jon0844]

What if someone from an anti HS2 group posted the link to the poll, as I'm sure they did?

 

[tbtc]

YouGov has asked about HS2 - a majority are against it (see http://twitpic.com/dchsot)

StopHS2 are announcing this result as a "massive drop in public support" - that is utter tripe. This from the same organisation that announced that a previous YouGov poll showed that "nearly two thirds of the public oppose money being spent on [sic] HS2". There is your ridiculousness...

http://stophs2.org/news/4089-two-thirds-population-oppose-hs2 (a 2011 press release)

A YouGov public opinion poll undertaken last week has found that nearly two thirds of the public oppose money being spent on the planned £32 billion high speed rail link between London and Birmingham (HS2).

64 per cent of those surveyed in the poll believe that it is wrong to spend money on the proposed line at this time

So 55% oppose it today, whereas two thirds opposed HS2 a couple of years ago?

That suggests a gradual swing in favour of HS2 then?

Interesting.

 

[Trog]

Oh please. Opinion polls are snapshots, and asking 60 million people the same question would be just as pointless, expensive and ridiculous as HS2 itself.

Yes but if you want a decent result with your snaps, you need a reasonably sized lens.

The way you try to refute any argument against you, with exaggerated tosh, shows how little you really have to say.


It is time this countries leaders grew a set and said HS2 is needed, and is going to be built on the most efficient line and level, and that the NIMBY's can get stuffed. With the money saved by avoiding wasteful legal bullS**t and tunnels to placate those who shout the loudest, being spent on fair compensation for the deserving.