High Speed Two Route

[WESSEX158]

Does anyone else think the "preffered" route for high speed two is wrong?:roll:

 

[tbtc]

In what way?

It's a compromise, trying to serve as many places with one line (central London, Heathrow, Birmingham, Manchester etc) rather than lots of separate lines - or are you quibbling with the use of Euston rather than St P?

 

[WESSEX158]

Both really. I think a route near the M1/45 would be better with some sort of P&R station near the M25 and a stop near Milton Keynes. The South Midlands is the largest growth area in the UK

 

[mallard]

Both realy. I think a route near the M1/45 would be better with some sort of P&R station near the M25 and a stop near Milton Keynes. The South Midlands is the largest growth area in the UK

Except that HS wouldn't save much time over such short distances as MK to London. The current HS2 plan already facilitates the growth of the South Midlands by taking traffic off the WCML, freeing up paths for more frequent, faster commuter services.

 

[WESSEX158]

Even then, it makes more sense to use a less intrusive corridor like the M1 and what if you want to travel from the S Midlands to the North

 

[YorkshireBear]

i dont know which is which but i dont like the one the has a branch to leeds and all rest goes up north west rather than any going near east midlands sheffield newcastle etc. I think the conservative one is bad, the proposed one which has a junction north of birmingham i think is a good option.

but personally i think it doesnt warrent the ammount it will cost so id prefer them to not bother.

 

[WESSEX158]

I think the junction north of Birmingham is too far north. I would put it east of Rugby branching off to Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds then Newcastle and branch to Hull. For the West I would continue straight through Birmingham (tunneling would be very expensive but worthwhile for the frequent trains). Next on to Stoke, branch to Liverpool, through Manchester (possibly in and out of the old Central Station if possible). Then Preston, Carlisle, Glasgow and Edinburgh.

As far as I know the Conservatives do not have a specific route but it is their policy to connect as many of the major cities as possible.

 

[Greenback]

I have several reservations about HS2 in general. TBH, I can't see the benefit of serving Birmingham or Heathrow. I think the best use of such a line, if it has to be built, would be to serve Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds, York and Newcastle.

To my mind, Manchester and Birmingham have very competitive journey times now, although I realise that the extra capacity would help.

 

[Chris125]

Read the report!

The answers are all there (if i remember correctly the different routes are summarised briefly with their pro's and con's) and you can read why this route was chosen - of course routes following existing transport corridors were examined, but they come with a lot of problems including geography and largescale demolition of private houses and business which massively increase costs.

In an ideal world you'd build the whole thing in a dead straight tunnel, but in the real world you have to compromise - this route is just that, a compromise.

Chris

 

[WESSEX158]

Read the report!

The answers are all there, including why this route was chosen and why following motorways was investigated and found not be practical or desirable for a variety of reasons. In an ideal world you'd build the whole thing in a dead straight tunnel, but in the real world you have to compromise - this route is just that, a compromise.

Chris

Not to mention the compromise for the Environment and Chilterns AONB. Actually I did read the report and I am not suggesting that the M1 is followed exactly just closely - cutting off corners etc. I think there wouldn't be a problem with gradients and have seen this discussed before.

This is not the only problem as far as I'm concerned - I would rather see the line terminate at St Pancras rather than Euston for a Number of reasons

1) Better access
2) Near HS1 so link would be cheaper
3) Large station could be built to support further expansion
4) Less demolition

I can't say I completely disagree with Greenback but the WCML will be full south of Rugby by 2025.

 

[Geezertronic]

Since the current Government seem to have committed to HS2, it will be interesting given the recent review of HS2 by Lord Mawhinney, whether any of the suggestions are taken on board. Also given the difference in what the Labour plan was compared to the current Governments suggested plans, it will be interesting to see proper plans rather than just talk.

 

[WESSEX158]

Since the current Government seem to have committed to HS2, it will be interesting given the recent review of HS2 by Lord Mawhinney, whether any of the suggestions are taken on board. Also given the difference in what the Labour plan was compared to the current Governments suggested plans, it will be interesting to see proper plans rather than just talk.

I agree. As I understand it Lord Mawhinney has decided that the Heathrow branch would not be viable at present. Personally, I'd scrap Old Oak Common alltogether

The Conservatives also back a new terminus at St Pancras not Euston

 

[LE Greys]

WESSEX158, have you been reading my old posts? (Just kidding) I agree with your revival of the GCR London Extension, especially considering the old trackbed is almost unobstructed for most of the route. The sections in Rugby, Leicester and Nottingham would need lots of diversions (or tunnels) to avoid major demolition work. Nottingham Victoria may be recoverable, but only if you want another New Street under the shopping centre.

The HS1 link is essential if we want the line to become part of a wider European network rather than an extra main line to London (this was the original plan for the GCR in the 1890s). I also agree about expanding St Pancras if we can move Midland Road over a bit. Unfortunately, the British Library is currently on top of the prime site, but I'm sure that a free 'people-mover'-type shuttle could operate between King's Cross/St Pancras and Euston at Circle Line level without too much difficulty.

However, running the line alongside the M1 could be made a lot simpler. Run it alongside the WCML, separated from the existing trackbed by a small fence, and perhaps with a few crossovers/flyovers to connect the two. However, I have to say that Greenback is probably right about the WCML. It has had a huge ammount of investment, probably at the expense of MML electrification and part-funded by the very premiums that put GNER out of business (East Coast jealousy talking?). This delivered a lot, and frankly a west coast HS2 would only provide a marginal time saving south of Preston, a matter of minutes to Manchester. Put the line where it's needed, the East Midlands, South Yorkshire and Scotland.

 

[Chris125]

WESSEX158, have you been reading my old posts? (Just kidding) I agree with your revival of the GCR London Extension, especially considering the old trackbed is almost unobstructed for most of the route. The sections in Rugby, Leicester and Nottingham would need lots of diversions (or tunnels) to avoid major demolition work. Nottingham Victoria may be recoverable, but only if you want another New Street under the shopping centre.

Any idea of using the GCR was put to rest a long time ago - every cutting would need substantial widening, every embankment would need rebuilding (as well as widening) to a known standard as would every bridge and culvert, every tunnel would need to be re-bored, a vast number of small diversions due to the higher linespeed, plus the need for much larger diversions at the places you mention.

It's a nice idea, but its hard to justify the much greater expense with a lot more demolition of people's houses, and this is reflected by how little the GCR features in the HS2 planned route.

...plus it would be a shame to lose the old trackbed!

Chris

 

[WESSEX158]

The HS1 link is essential if we want the line to become part of a wider European network rather than an extra main line to London (this was the original plan for the GCR in the 1890s). I also agree about expanding St Pancras if we can move Midland Road over a bit. Unfortunately, the British Library is currently on top of the prime site, but I'm sure that a free 'people-mover'-type shuttle could operate between King's Cross/St Pancras and Euston at Circle Line level without too much difficulty.

I couldn't believe it when I first saw that the HS1 link was "possible" not definite, especially after all the plans they were making for through running international trains. This could be good as far as Birmingham but Manchester and Scotland are too far for it to be attractive enough over short haul flights.

 

[mumrar]

frankly a west coast HS2 would only provide a marginal time saving south of Preston, a matter of minutes to Manchester.

If we chose 186mph (300km/h) that would be an increased top speed by 49%, plus the better track profiles should see arrival and departure to the stations as much quicker. However, without looking at a map it's hard to pick out specific places, but I'm very concious of how slow XC trains seems to be when you get around Sheffield and north thereof.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Sheffield can get very slow at times approaches to that station need major work doing to them its a traffic jam most of the day especially at north end. I think the north east is more need of high speed as current line speeds are very slow.

 

[LE Greys]

If we chose 186mph (300km/h) that would be an increased top speed by 49%, plus the better track profiles should see arrival and departure to the stations as much quicker. However, without looking at a map it's hard to pick out specific places, but I'm very concious of how slow XC trains seems to be when you get around Sheffield and north thereof.

It's more a question of average speed than top speed. The fastest Pendy schedule is (I think, can anyone confirm) the London-Preston portion of the old Royal Scot diagram, 105 mph average. With the straighter ECML, Hull Trains' Dellas can make 108 mph average on King's Cross-Grantham dashes. I'm not sure what E*s can make on St Pancras-Ashford, or for that matter Lille-Paris, but it surely can't be more than 150 mph. 150 saves 10 seconds a mile over 105, or a minute every six miles. A meaningful saving of 30 minutes would require 180 miles. Bigger savings are possible, but mostly by creating dedicated approach routes to stations and easing curves.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Any idea of using the GCR was put to rest a long time ago - every cutting would need substantial widening, every embankment would need rebuilding (as well as widening) to a known standard as would every bridge and culvert, every tunnel would need to be re-bored, a vast number of small diversions due to the higher linespeed, plus the need for much larger diversions at the places you mention.

It's a nice idea, but its hard to justify the much greater expense with a lot more demolition of people's houses, and this is reflected by how little the GCR features in the HS2 planned route.

...plus it would be a shame to lose the old trackbed!

Chris

I dug up my old report, and that wasn't quite the plan. The idea was a four-track route with new fast lines and the slow lines following the old trackbed. Slow being a relative term, they would be cleared for 125 mph. Usefully, the old trackbed goes right through Brackley Central, Woodford Halse and Lutterworth, and would connect to Sheffield Victoria for a possible Woodhead reopening.
From Aylesbury to Rugby, they would carry an extended Chiltern suburban route to serve Brackley and Buckingham (possibly on a branch)
From Brackley to Leicester, they would carry freight between Didcot Yard and the MML
From Brackley to Leicester and Nottingham to Sheffield, they would carry cross-country's Reading-Leeds services and the transferred XC Norwich-Liverpool/Glasgow services
From Leicester North to Nottingham Arkwright Street (or some convenient point with room for a turntable) they would be handed over to the preserved GCR

The idea is to produce a mixed-traffic railway as relief for the MML and to run high-speed services to the Continent from Manchester, Leeds and Scotland while taking the preserved GCR into account. Ambitious, but possible.

 

[The Planner]

From Brackley to Leicester, they would carry freight between Didcot Yard and the MML

How is freight getting from Didcot to Brackley ?? You'd need a new chord at Claydon that never used to exist or try and re-open Banbury-Woodford branch. The majority of future freight on that axis will come from Southampton and unless it was bound for the North West where it would likely take advantage of E-W and up the WCML from Bletchley, the rest is still likely to end up going through the West Mids.

From Brackley to Leicester and Nottingham to Sheffield, they would carry cross-country's Reading-Leeds services and the transferred XC Norwich-Liverpool/Glasgow services

It was suggested that Reading - Leeds would miss New St ?? bonkers.

The idea is to produce a mixed-traffic railway as relief for the MML and to run high-speed services to the Continent from Manchester, Leeds and Scotland while taking the preserved GCR into account. Ambitious, but possible.

Get the MML up to 125 where it can (which is going to happen), electrify it (possible), and then sort out the rubbish signalling (years away) and the MML wouldnt need relief.

 

[LE Greys]

How is freight getting from Didcot to Brackley ?? You'd need a new chord at Claydon that never used to exist or try and re-open Banbury-Woodford branch. The majority of future freight on that axis will come from Southampton and unless it was bound for the North West where it would likely take advantage of E-W and up the WCML from Bletchley, the rest is still likely to end up going through the West Mids.

Roughly. The Banbury-Woodford section would be needed for XC workings anyway, as long as there was a triangular junction to make Brackley-Banbury possible. We're talking about a town with a population of 13,000 and no station within six miles.

It was suggested that Reading - Leeds would miss New St ?? bonkers.

New Street would still have an hourly service from Reading and another from Leeds. Reinforce both of those (by building 100-odd new Voyager vehicles if need be) while expanding the network. What I'm suggesting is to try to cut the time between Sheffield and Reading by at least an hour, and give Nottingham and Leicester a direct service to the south without having to use London. That also means an end to XC reversing at New Street, and a bit more space between Derby and Sheffield, giving more capacity.

Get the MML up to 125 where it can (which is going to happen), electrify it (possible), and then sort out the rubbish signalling (years away) and the MML wouldnt need relief.

Apart from the cost, there's only so much you can do with the MML. The same is true for any existing route. I happen to think that it would be more cost-effective to build a new line than pour in the vast investment needed to upgrade the old route. Look at where the WCML got us. In a perfect world where money does not exist, do both. But if it came down to a choice, I would rather have the new line than an upgraded old one.