Its not especially relevant to the current discussion but i've just found Chiltern's submission to the 'all party parliamentary group for HSR' -
worth a read.
Chris
It certainly is!
Evidence from Chiltern Railways said:
Britain’s railways are now handling more traffic than at any time since the 1920s, and both passenger and freight traffic are continuing to grow despite the poor state of the national economy. A particular feature is the growth of rail traffic to/from south midlands (e.g. existing towns such as Banbury and Bicester, or new cities such as Milton Keynes), due to these being favoured locations for new housing development. There is a limit to how much of this growth can be absorbed on the existing rail network.
A conventional railway line handling a mixture of intercity passenger(100-125mph), local passenger (75mph) and freight (60-70mph) of necessity makes sub-optimal use of line capacity, due to fast trains catching up with slow ones. This is exacerbated where more trains have to call at intermediate stations.
I certainly agree with both of those.
Evidence from Chiltern Railways said:
In this context it is unfortunate that the proposed new route to the north is known as “High Speed 2”. Whilst high speeds result in higher revenue earnings, better equipment utilisation, and better connectivity between different parts of the UK, the most important requirement for the new line is to provide extra capacity - and this will benefit en-route communities on the existing network at least as much as those making end-to-end journeys. It is regrettable that this message has been widely overlooked.
Not so sure about this though, not with the way it has been planned.
Evidence from Chiltern Railways said:
With sensible planning a single new line can provide capacity relief to each of the main routes from London to the north (West Coast Main Line, Midland Main Line, East Coast Main Line)
True, provided there is proper access to all these lines from HS2, so lots of classic-compatible stock running through from new line to old.
Evidence from Chiltern Railways said:
The new line can provide capacity relief to those parts of on existing network that are both the most congested, and where the room available for expansion is most limited – i.e. the first 30 miles out of London, and the last 10 miles into Birmingham.
That's certainly true of London, but Birmingham is far harder to justify without some means of connection at the far end. Also, are these really 'the last 10 miles'? Why does Virgin run so many trains through to Wolverhampton?
Evidence from Chiltern Railways said:
By concentrating on a single traffic type (i.e. high-speed intercity passenger) a new line can give far more additional capacity than could an upgrade of a conventional mixedtraffic railway.
Probably true, but that depends on allowing those passengers to get to it rather than operating in splendid isolation. Cross-platform interchange is by far the easiest way to do this, incorporting the ticketing system is necessary as well.
Evidence from Chiltern Railways said:
A new line can be routed to avoid urban areas, with a resultant reduction in the number
of people affected.
And reducing the number of people it serves without some means to get to the stations in the urban areas. Every town bypassed means lost passengers. Obviously, it doesn't need to stop at every gate and stile from London to Glasgow, but anywhere with a population of 100,000 or greater should be considered a potential station.
Evidence from Chiltern Railways said:
Engineering work on an existing railway is inevitably more expensive than on a “greenfield” site, where construction is unimpeded by the need to continue running trains.
Does
alongside an existing railway (no closer than 10ft) count as being part of that railway or a greenfield site? That needs clarification.
Evidence from Chiltern Railways said:
Due to the amount of lineside housing, upgrading and additional tracks is least practical where it is most needed – again, the first 30 miles out of London.
Now that I certainly agree with!
Evidence from Chiltern Railways said:
A number of commentators have suggested that the Chiltern line could be upgraded as an alternative to HS2. We do not believe this is practical:
And that, but I don't think it's an either/or situation. Without upgrading parallel lines, HS2 can't work.
Evidence from Chiltern Railways said:
Much of the additional land and construction work needed would be in the middle of urban and residential areas such as Gerrards Cross and Beaconsfield, and considerable purchase of domestic property would be required. Away from the towns it is also questionable whether significant work would be allowed in the Chiltern AONB.
That's a major problem whatever you do, but it has to be faced. Without dealing with that problem, you end up with a line in splendid isolation. You need to do something about access, which means lots of changes to junctions and service diversions.
Evidence from Chiltern Railways said:
At both High Wycombe and Leamington Spa the existing railway is elevated above the town, and on a sharp, speed-restricted curve. A new by-pass line would thus be needed, and due to (perceived) noise impacts this would probably also be desirable for the other towns en-route. In this case the various by-passes might as well be linked to give a wholly-new route throughout, rather than a sub-optimal mismatch of old and new.
Between Northolt and Denham the works needed to upgrade the existing railway would be little different from those proposed for HS2.
Interestingly, they seem to have hit on exactly what I would like to see happen even if we don't go for the full HSGC idea. HS2 effectively absorbs the Chiltern route and uses it as slow lines. However, they don't carry it through to its logical conclusion, that there should be much more connection between the two.
Evidence from Chiltern Railways said:
The effects of not providing future capacity
9. We believe that on the affected routes some, and possibly all of the following would occur:
- Rationing by space – i.e. overcrowding.
- Rationing by price – i.e. fares would be raised to choke off demand. This would penalise lower income travellers, and also be ineffective at those times (e.g. commuter rush hours) at which passengers have little option to change their travel patterns in response to price signals.
- The withdrawal of some services in order to create line capacity for others. If profitable long distances trains are withdrawn, the railways’ financial viability would suffer; if local and commuter trains are withdrawn, the socio-economic benefits of the rail network would be reduced.
- Rail punctuality and reliability would decrease, due to the system being required to operate more trains than it is designed for.
- Long-term disruption of the rail network due to attempting incremental capacity increases along existing lines. This would impact on both rail users and lineside residents, and in many instances provide only temporary relief.
- Modal shift from rail to road and air – due to all of the above. This would not only bring adverse environmental and fuel security impacts, but would increase pressure on road space and runway capacity. This would in turn lead to calls for highway and airport expansion, which in terms of landtake, noise and emissions would have far worse impacts than expanding the rail network.
- Successive governments’ plans to tackle the housing shortage by building new homes in e.g. Milton Keynes and Northampton would be put at risk due to inadequate public transport capacity.
This speaks for itself. However, I'd like to add a few things. HS2 has only a slight benefit for Milton Keynes and Northampton, by allowing one or two extra stops, although every little does help. E-W Rail will do a lot more for the area there.
Evidence from Chiltern Railways said:
North Chiltern Parkway
10. Calls have been made in some quarters for a “North Chiltern Parkway” station, perhaps at Calvert, Bucks, where the new HS2 line would cross the proposed East West Rail line from Oxford to Milton Keynes. We believe that such a station would be undesirable:
- The resultant mix of non-stop and stopping trains on HS2 would reduce line capacity.
- Most traffic from the new station would be towards London; to provide sufficient seating trains would need to run partially empty between Birmingham and the new station.
- The new station would be in a wholly rural area, and thus dependent on long-distance railheading [sic] by car.
- There would be no interchange benefits between HS2 and EWR, as the potential connections already have direct rail links (e.g. Oxford- Birmingham).
They seem to be missing the point here. I certainly agree that Calvert is completely the wrong place, since it doesn't serve anywhere. Thing is, they are forgetting Brackley Central.
Of course most of the traffic would be towards London, that's why they need somewhere to collect it into one place and feed it to HS2, like Ebbsfleet. However, by being in Brackley, it would not suffer the problems that Ebbsfleet has of being in the middle of nowhere. The idea would be to use the Javelin model to allow HS2 to serve the northern half of the Chiltern route (Birmingham Moor Street, Stratford-on-Avon, Northampton, etc), thus removing a lot of traffic south of Banbury (the other end of the link line) and allowing an increase in suburban stopping frequencies - linked with electrification, which is needed if you want to operate 395s. It's a compromise, trading capacity for utility, but it's a useful compromise that provides a vast improvement to an area currently dependent on diesel traction and full of commuters who get to London via the M40. What's more, it could connect them directly to Kent as well.
HS2 expresses would of course zoom past Brackley at full line speed.
Evidence from Chiltern Railways said:
Future Chiltern Railways services
12. We understand that claims have been made to the effect that, post HS2, Chiltern Railways would increase fares and/or reduce services at intermediate stations. We have no such plans, and totally refute these allegations.
How much say do they really have in the matter? Will they be able to attract funding for line improvements when they or their successor looks for them? Will they be able to source new stock easily at the next renewal cycle? After HS2, Chiltern will go back to being the 'poor relation' it was under BR, when the WCML and GWML got all the funding and Marylebone was nearly turned into a coach terminal. It's solveable
if they can make HS2 work for them. It provides a means to get fast trains off their lines, allowing them to increase suburban frequencies. It also provides a means to get their routes wired to increase compatibility and free them for diversions.
Sorry this is such a long post
