HS2 - EWR Chiltern Interchange?

[corfield]

So with the progress on the OxCam Expressway (announced as following EWR corridor) and the clear intent to massively open up the centre of England to new towns and the like, is there mileage in revisting the idea I posited on my very first post here some 7 years ago?

Namely a HS2 Chiltern Interchange. Sited where HS2 crosses EWR i.e. Calvert.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hs2-interchange-in-chilterns-area.60363/

With a motorway standard road nearby, linking to M40, M1 and a host of other connectors, plus 10s of 1000s of homes (900,000 people??) as every town and village in the region explodes - putting an interchange (/parkway) and opening it to the entire country seems a good bet?

Afterall we are interchanging at OOC for less.

With EWR descoped a bit, that still offers massive regional connectivity into and from this - with this offering national and importantly - London (and Birm plus the rest!) commuting. Indeed it underlines the importance of EWR being more than a “DMU shuttle”, with XC plugging into it.

Letting an arc from Oxford to MK and radial from Aylesbury (and South) to the new towns (Winslow) work over such a wider area would transform the region.

Yes I know HS2 is supposedly full on this section, but there is space for suitably long turnouts and we are stopping everything similarly at Birm Interchange and OOC.

Plus politically this helps offset that EWR isnt what it was/could have been, and the roads heavy nature otherwise of this band of development.

This region is going to see huge transformation and both public and private investment to the tune of many billions - dont we want our railway system to be at the heart of that? And our shining new one even more so?

 

[edwin_m]

There's actually very little market for EWR interchange to HS2. The main centres it would connect would be MK/Oxford to London/Birmingham, but direct trains already exist for all of these and despite being slower would still offer a shorter journey time without having to change. So the benefit of a station would only be to/from any housing locally and short-distance connecting journeys, which wouldn't justify a high speed stop unless it was a new city of the same sort of size as Manchester or Birmingham.

Operationally also there is a severe penalty with an intermediate station on this section. Even with loops each stop would cost one train path as a stopping train would need a second path a few minutes later to join on re-starting. The only way to avoid this penalty would be to have at least one in three trains stopping, as I believe they do on the busiest lines in Japan. Then the previous train re-starting could drop into the path freed up by the next stopping train slowing down. But six trains per hour would be a greater provision than any of the HS2 destinations and again would need a huge population catchment to be worthwhile.

 

[corfield]

Quite - yet we are interchanging Birm and OOC.

Your point on 6tph is interesting - but we are likely to see population growth in the order of a million in this belt. If you compare the belt today to the 1950s, it is going to do that again.

This is as much about giving southern england better access to the north - and a cohesive North as well, yes the radial bits all go to London, but they mostly only go to one part of the North.

Again - it just seems wrong that EWR, which as I see it is (well, should be) our flagship XC development, and the first ever “non intended” non radial route, doesnt link, at all, with our premier inter city line which will pretty much nail all the major conurbations.

As it is, unless you go into and out of London, or to Birm, there is no change in how south and north access each other. Despite HS2 crossing XC routes, and in this case, a new and potentially core one. Seems a lot of wasted potential, especially as infra wise it is a pretty easy win.

There is also the parkway aspect, as per Chiltern’s old ideas, but on a much bigger scale (both scale of the catchment area and the vast array of city destinations).

I think seeing HS2 as only for big cities is wrong - it isn’t doing that in a number of locations, and this belt of development eqautes to those.

 

[KingDaveRa]

As much as I'd love to see a station for Aylesbury, just a bit further up at EWR just isn't going to happen, based on what I keep hearing - HS2 isn't for the south, it's for the midlands and beyond. I can't see it happening tbh.

It's not going to win any more votes for the Tories (it's slap-dab in Tory heartlands) and it's not going to win any more votes for Labour (or anybody) because it's a Tory heartland. That's what I reckon, at least.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Even if it's deemed to be "a good idea", it's far too late for it to happen now. If it ever happens (and I doubt it, for better or worse), it will have to happen after HS2 is opened now, as the contracts for doing the work have already been put out to tender and the Government will not tolerate a delay to HS2 because of a later addition like this.

I suspect the major issue with any such station would be, more than anything else, the impact it would have on journey time and capacity for HS2 services. At the speeds they're currently expected to run, slowing down for a stop in what is effectively slap bang in the middle of their longest run is going to have significant negative effect on journey times and the like. Think well north of 5 minutes - perhaps even up to 10 minutes. That simply won't fly with the business case for the rest of the line.

 

[swt_passenger]

Even if it's deemed to be "a good idea", it's far too late for it to happen now. If it ever happens (and I doubt it, for better or worse), it will have to happen after HS2 is opened now, as the contracts for doing the work have already been put out to tender and the Government will not tolerate a delay to HS2 because of a later addition like this...

I don’t think it is deemed to be a “good idea” by anyone in a position to do anything about it though, yes a few responses agreed in the OP's original thread, but it’s complete speculation. I don’t think anything has changed since then.

 

[work-traveller]

Such a proposal would require a TWAO to make the necessary land available. There simply isn't space within the current Act (or EWR's TWAO) for this concept. It would also require the recently authorised Greatmoor Sidings TWAO to be modified/redone. Furthermore, the existing proposal is squeezed between Sheephouse Wood and the FCC incinerator plant/Calvert Green. All of this would require a new environmental statement, with resultant increased environmental mitigation. That's not to mention the extention of all the infrastructure in the area.

None of that is insurmountable, but I don't see the political will to sell that. Local politicians don't (and never do) have the clout for any of this, so their support only goes so far.

 

[MarkyT]

So a massive parkway and interchange in the middle of nowhere that could drastically abstract from parallel Chiltern, Great Western Cotswold and West Coast residual services. That could suck much needed revenue from these lines and precipitate service cuts rather than the better semi fast services on these lines that HS2 promises to allow. And the high speed services will only be accessible by those who can easily get to the new beetfield station, and afford the premium fares that will no doubt have to be charged to prevent such short distance travellers taking all the seating capacity. No thanks. Let's improve local services on the classic routes that pass through the towns where people actually live instead.

 

[edwin_m]

Of course someone could revive the idea from the 1960s of putting London's main airport in the area. Bet that would go down a bomb...

(actually quite sensible - least populated area in the south-east and the flight path wouldn't be over built-up areas. But never going to happen. )

 

[Ianno87]

Quite - yet we are interchanging Birm and OOC.

Your point on 6tph is interesting - but we are likely to see population growth in the order of a million in this belt. If you compare the belt today to the 1950s, it is going to do that again.

This is as much about giving southern england better access to the north - and a cohesive North as well, yes the radial bits all go to London, but they mostly only go to one part of the North.

Again - it just seems wrong that EWR, which as I see it is (well, should be) our flagship XC development, and the first ever “non intended” non radial route, doesnt link, at all, with our premier inter city line which will pretty much nail all the major conurbations.

As it is, unless you go into and out of London, or to Birm, there is no change in how south and north access each other. Despite HS2 crossing XC routes, and in this case, a new and potentially core one. Seems a lot of wasted potential, especially as infra wise it is a pretty easy win.

There is also the parkway aspect, as per Chiltern’s old ideas, but on a much bigger scale (both scale of the catchment area and the vast array of city destinations).

I think seeing HS2 as only for big cities is wrong - it isn’t doing that in a number of locations, and this belt of development eqautes to those.

But "Southern England" (i.e. Northern Home Counties) will get the released capacity benefits of HS2, connecting into more stops at Milton Keynes towards the Midlands/North to do basically the same thing, without having to slow down thousands of HS2 London passengers every hour as a consequence, for the benefit of a relative few.

 

[corfield]

But "Southern England" (i.e. Northern Home Counties) will get the released capacity benefits of HS2, connecting into more stops at Milton Keynes towards the Midlands/North to do basically the same thing, without having to slow down thousands of HS2 London passengers every hour as a consequence, for the benefit of a relative few.

How will home counties get MK stops? and even assuming they are prepared to travel say XC via EWR to MK, that still doesn't get you anywhere but the WCML destinations. Which you could do today.

Southampton/Oxford/Basingstoke and that arc (plus commensurate at the other end) still end up going via London or XC to Birm (which is rammed and the infra lacks scope for expansion). Nothing offers the same easy connection to the rest of the Midlands/North and Scotland that a HS2 interchange does.

The other bit of this is as a commuter ride into London hence the parkway. It isn't about protecting Chiltern's/GWR/WCML routes - they can and do stand on their own, and perhaps at least for the former if it were less long distance focussed, it would actually focus on the places it runs through. Although even remembering it's passenger focus of previous years would be a good start for Chiltern (having been a very keen user of them, I took the decision to switch to road a couple of years back having been messed around one too many times by them - they are not at all what they were even 5, let alone 10, years ago).

As for practical aspects - Calvert has masses of spare land - in comparison to almost every other rail project, space simply isn't an issue around here.

Airport wise I kind of agree - but then again it's the noise blight and it'd be hard to see that getting any traction, at least the island option "offshored" that aspect.

So as it is - we sit back and let a rather 2nd rate EWR be the rail contribution to the biggest UK infra area in terms of development (new towns) - and let all that depend upon road instead. Genius.

Oh well, easy to see why we are where we are, better to spend that money on endless business cases for reopening Little Snoring to Upper Boring via Greater Nowhere, because of the diversionary benefits of course.

 

[edwin_m]

How will home counties get MK stops?

Many trains pass non-stop through MK because they need to provide faster services between London and Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and beyond. With HS2 carrying these passengers, the trains can make more stops to provide more journeys for intermediate stations.

Southampton/Oxford/Basingstoke and that arc (plus commensurate at the other end) still end up going via London or XC to Birm (which is rammed and the infra lacks scope for expansion). Nothing offers the same easy connection to the rest of the Midlands/North and Scotland that a HS2 interchange does.

I've already posted that the likes of Oxford can access London and Birmingham more quickly by existing routes than by changing to HS2 at a Calvert station, and by changing at Birmingham can access HS2 going further north. Most Oxford-Birmingham and Chiltern Birmingham trains could be lengthened to provide more capacity at virtually no cost. So as I said above the benefit is only for the small numbers who live at Calvert or at local stations on the EWR line. Or those that drive to the new station instead of using the existing railway, increasing traffic in the vicinity.

As for practical aspects - Calvert has masses of spare land - in comparison to almost every other rail project, space simply isn't an issue around here.

That's hardly surprising as HS2 deliberately takes the least populated areas between London and Birmingham to minimise the disruption and objections. There will be a large HS2 engineering depot using a lot of the land around Calvert, as well as the other railway faciltiies mentioned above.

Although even remembering it's passenger focus of previous years would be a good start for Chiltern (having been a very keen user of them, I took the decision to switch to road a couple of years back having been messed around one too many times by them - they are not at all what they were even 5, let alone 10, years ago).

I don't think a new station costing hundreds of miliions is a cost-effective response to a local rail company not being customer-focused. Fixing this with appropriate clauses in the new franchise will be far cheaper and benefit everyone on the route, not just those who happen to live near enough to use the HS2 alternative or who increase car useage by driving to it instead of using their local station.

 

[Bald Rick]

You’d be looking at 10km loops (at least), and every HS2 train stopping, which in turn would cost every HS2 train 7 minutes. It’s not going to happen.

 

[corfield]

Edwin, literally that makes no sense to me. I mean, you’ve completely ignored what I’ve said and answered something different.

Why do the HCs need MK stops? Who is arguing for that?

Again, the HCs dont have quick access to Birm, unless they go into and cross London or sit on the rammed XC trains.

People drive rather than do that.

Again, they still dont get quick access to the Midlands or the North/Scotland.

If going via classic lines to London/Birm and exising long distance interchanges are good enough, why are we building HS2 for people already starting there?

Chiltern’s problem is not train length but paths, filled with long distance at the expense of suburban. That they’ve become rubbish to use is a side issue.

Calvert has masses of space, who cares what else is there? Who cares why that’s the case - isn’t that reason obvious?

You seem to be stuck viewing this as the existing towns going through the area - we are likely to see vast growth in the area, multiple MK’s for instance. A million plus people. This belt will see huge growth, at the moment it is going to be roads they’ll use.

100s of millions on a station? So what? This is a 50 Billion plus project!

I’ve got 100s of millions of ac in my hangar, that’s not a large amount.

Now 10km of track is sod all really, again the space is there and cheap. 7 mins I agree is more of an issue - but why OOC? Why a number of HS2 stations if people can just sit on classics for a few hours to somewhere else and then join it, or stay classic full stop.


This seems yet again very shortsighted thinking. The one place a really (potentially) useful XC route crosses the core IC route (and in an orientation the IC route does not cover at all being N-S vs E-W) and we chin off an easy win (no diversions, no branches, no congested or expensive land) on the grounds people should use existing services and ignore a vast influx of people.

We should be connecting everything into HS2 to maximise it’s utility and free classic network for shorter journeys. Turn that into the branches feeding HS2 trunk.

Anyway, despite loving trains and wanting to ise them, I’ll just keep driving then, and voting for roads projects. Everywhere.

 

[edwin_m]

Why do the HCs need MK stops? Who is arguing for that?

You didn't ask why they need MK stops. You asked how they would get them.

Again, the HCs dont have quick access to Birm, unless they go into and cross London or sit on the rammed XC trains.

Oxford and MK have quick access to Birmingham. Places in between would have reasonable access to Birmingham by changing at Oxford or MK. MK will have better access with the extra stops, and lengthening XC trains is far easier than building a new station.

If going via classic lines to London/Birm and exising long distance interchanges are good enough, why are we building HS2 for people already starting there?

HS2 provides a new route for people travelling between London and Birmingham or beyond. It's not intended for shorter-distance journeys but it creates extra capacity for them by taking the longer-distance passengers off existing routes. So there is some benefit to shorter-distance as well as longer-distance passengers.

Chiltern’s problem is not train length but paths, filled with long distance at the expense of suburban. That they’ve become rubbish to use is a side issue.

HS2 provides another option for London-Birmingham passengers, so that might create more capacity on Chiltern for intermediate stations. This does depend on HS2 having fare levels similar to existing including those available on Chiltern.

Calvert has masses of space, who cares what else is there? Who cares why that’s the case - isn’t that reason obvious?

I'm just pointing out that some of that space is spoken for.

You seem to be stuck viewing this as the existing towns going through the area - we are likely to see vast growth in the area, multiple MK’s for instance. A million plus people. This belt will see huge growth, at the moment it is going to be roads they’ll use.

This is probably the critical point. If that scale of growth is going to happen in the immediate surroundings of Calvert then maybe a station would be justified (the West Midlands and Greater Manchester both have about 2.8m people and will have two HS2 stations each, so as a rule of thumb a HS2 station serves a million people). However as you mention that's on the whole arc between Oxford and Cambridge, and of that area only a small part round Calvert would get quicker access to London via a HS2 station than via existing routes. Birmingham is a little different as it has poor direct links from the Cambridge end, but the number of journeys between Cambridge area and Birmingham area isn't enough to justify the cost of that sort of interchange.

100s of millions on a station? So what? This is a 50 Billion plus project!

It's already under major scrutiny on costs and would need a clear business case to justify that amount of extra spend. Unless a major city or airport is planned at Calvert that just isn't going to happen. (the airport is just me stirring - I have no evidence one is proposed).

7 mins I agree is more of an issue - but why OOC? Why a number of HS2 stations if people can just sit on classics for a few hours to somewhere else and then join it, or stay classic full stop.

OOC allows people to connect to Heathrow and a range of other places without going into London and out again, and provides a direct link to Crossrail which doesn't serve Euston. That's a much bigger market than anything likely to appear at Calvert.

The point on journey time is that a HS2 interchange would not provide quicker journeys from MK or Oxford to anywhere. The time spent on EWR and making the connection would outweigh the time saved on HS2. Only people accessing HS2 from the vicinity of Calvert would save any time, and (again) unless there are huge numbers of people there the total disbenefit to longer-distance passengers would be far bigger. The business case for new stations needs to take account how many extra passengers would use them but also how many passengers on the trains stopping there would stop using them because of the slower journey.

 

[corfield]

Long time I know but spotted this and resurrected thread.

As for HC and MK stops, still don’t get why this is an issue.

Plus for the record - the Home Counties is much more than Oxford to MK!

Edwin- you do like your strawmen!

You keep referring to it as London to Birmingham - it clearly is far more given the lines to the NW, E.Midlands, NE and of course Scotland.

It is that connectivity as much as if not more than commuting to London/Birmingham that a Chilterns interchange on EWR offers. It does of course require EWR eventually reach its more ambitious capacity- south coast (XC) and east anglia for instance.

Btw, XC doesnt seem to be getting longer trains despite a track record of havinng rammed ones in its Birm core.


Anyway: acme across this randomly:
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/cambridge-metro-bus-parking-market-16116050

Interesting that this summary page of Cambridge infra projects shows EWR with HS2 crossing it...

Note how every other line has an interchange

 

[MarkyT]

Anyway: acme across this randomly: https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/cambridge-metro-bus-parking-market-16116050
Interesting that this summary page of Cambridge infra projects shows EWR with HS2 crossing it...Note how every other line has an interchange

There's no connection at Bicester between stations for (say) Bletchley to Banbury and Leamington Spa, although changing at Oxford is an alternative, and there is no confirmed interchange location shown on the ECML even between local stopping trains. It is unclear what the interchange arrangements will be on MML. The new line (or at least some of its services) may not go to Bedford Midland station after the new Central section is built, so would longer distance East Midlands express service calls relocate to a notional new EWR interchange NEAR Bedford or remain at Midland station without the EWR connection?

 

[corfield]

Yeah I was kind of assuming it will interchange with all the others, hard to imagine it won't in some form as otherwise it's potential is rather diminished I think. Hence my feelings it needs to interchange with HS2 also!

 

[edwin_m]

Plus for the record - the Home Counties is much more than Oxford to MK!

Oxford to MK is the bit of the Home Counties that might be relevant to a HS2 interchange. I've explained why the rest isn't.

You keep referring to it as London to Birmingham - it clearly is far more given the lines to the NW, E.Midlands, NE and of course Scotland.

But all those places can be reached by going to Birmingham and connecting to HS2 there. For MK or Oxford it would be quicker to do that than taking EWR and changing to HS2. The people in between aren't enough to justify a HS2 station, looking at the size of the other places where HS2 stops are planned.

 

[corfield]

This obsession with people going via classic lines to London and or to Birmingham misses that it probably isn’t quicker, not least as interchanging at these places requires walking or even an additional (tube) journey with all the acope for unpredictability, weather and so on. That is a complete pain in the arse - lots of people don’t do it - even people like me who want to use the train but at the moment drive every single time.

Additionally the lines into both those places are rammed as XC and the various London operators show so diverting some pax away and onto our high capacity line is good too.

This offers an opportunity to miss them out with a smaller interchange at a single station.

Hence why HC does mean more than Oxford to MK, and of course you still ignore how East Anglia can connect into this whilst presently it is entirely omitted.

If we put XC through EWR we could for instance relieve pressure on New Street.

Fundamentally, a new, key corridor to growth (and reducing pressure on the rest of SE England) non radial link with potential far beyond “Oxford to MK and places inbetween” isn’t going to interchange with the nationwide HS system despite the two crossing in a location where land is available, cheap and we already have infra (depot). That seems like shortsightedness at best and folly at worst.

If you want to get modal shift, drive up rail usage and so on you have to integrate our network far more than it is. Think West Hampsted interchange (another Chilterns one - sorry!) and the like. This “but people can change X times and compete with commuters and cross cities with bags and children etc” thinking is a massive fail.

 

[corfield]

So another link, shows EWR with a circle at Calvert on HS2. Just sayin..


https://www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/news/growth-corridor-partners-unite-first-time-mipim-uk-2018

I feel people need to think a bit more strategically about this - the interchange connects a huge swathe of southern, central and eastern England into HS2. Let alone as this belt grows enormously and becomes the "silicon valley" of the UK.

 

[corfield]

And another - although this is more of an idea/concept and I really know nothing of it's provenance, but if you want to understand where things are heading in this region - it is this kind of idea.


http://www.westwaddy-adp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/OXCAM.pdf

 

[Richard Ingram]

So another link, shows EWR with a circle at Calvert on HS2. Just sayin..


https://www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/news/growth-corridor-partners-unite-first-time-mipim-uk-2018

I feel people need to think a bit more strategically about this - the interchange connects a huge swathe of southern, central and eastern England into HS2. Let alone as this belt grows enormously and becomes the "silicon valley" of the UK.

Thinking strategically is possibly what they are doing. For the sake of a small set of possible customers, why take away the distinguishing feature of HS2, it's speed. I think the map shows the problem very clearly, it is right in the middle, the part of the journey that should be whizzing by. This thread has discussed all the problems with the idea. I don't know the area that well, I am in Cambridgeshire, and like reading about EWR, but if it needs better connectivity, this does not seem to be the way to do it. HS2 is a solution to a different issue, and trying to force it to do something else will only make it worse at the job it is being built to do. The money required to build the interchange might be better spent on improving the cross-country services from Oxford and Cambridge to Birmingham. If you want to go further north on HS2, there are direct services from MK, Bletchley and Oxford to Birmingham International, for a connection to the new Birmingham Interchange, which is a much better place to do it.

What you say about the problems of connections, especially with luggage, is true, but if you travel by train that is basically inevitable, unless your destination is within 100 yards of a massive mainline station. If that is a problem to you, one nice new station on your route is unlikely to change your mind on the mode you choose.

And as someone from East Anglia, HS2 is almost useless to us, even with a connection to EWR. It will always be easier to go direct on the XC service.

 

[corfield]

HS2 is currently useless to you because you can’t get on it unless you go to a destination.

Why a possible small set of customers? Where has that come from? This is a large set of customers that could use HS2 for both commuting and long distance travel. Speed? that is a fall out - capacity is why we need HS2. Whizzing by the middle makes no sense- the purpose of HS2 is to link and transport, hence connecting. Indeed the location shows exactly an interchange’s advantage in that it isn’t duplicating other stations and is filling a gap!

The point is not to get HS2 to do something different (how is that suggested?), it is to maximise connectivity and take advantage of what HS2 can and is doing. HS2 has massive capacity that I think will not be fully utilised. We need to take advantage of this investment more.

Changing at MK or other, then again at Birm Interchange doubles the changes! Surely you can see how that massively inhibits usage?

I drive a lot, I love roads, I think we need more expressways and so on. But we also need to upgrade our railways and part of that is significantly improving the network so that people can easily get to places.

EWR is a rare example of a non-radial route that has current investment but also more potential and which directly links a large swathe of the country.

HS2 is the first and only integrated “all cities” network we have. (Just dont look west of Oxford I agree!). With the classic network offering feeders into those city HS2 stations - EWR offers an identical feeder right across middle England.

Every other legacy line is pretty bespoke in comparison and using it requires change after change. People don’t do that unless they have to because changing trains is rubbish. Going into and out of major cities is rubbish too.

 

[The Ham]

Southampton/Oxford/Basingstoke and that arc (plus commensurate at the other end) still end up going via London or XC to Birm (which is rammed and the infra lacks scope for expansion). Nothing offers the same easy connection to the rest of the Midlands/North and Scotland that a HS2 interchange does.

Southampton to Birmingham is currently 2:30 using a XC service.

Once HS2 is built Southampton to Paddington (using current services with a change at Reading, so you can check on any planner) can be done in 1:30, add in 0:50 for Euston to Birmingham and it's 2:20, leaving 10+ minutes for changing at Old Oak Common.

That may not attract people going to Birmingham, but once you're going North of there the journey time savings start to add up.

Reading to Old Oak Common dosen't require a change, so the journey time saving would be a bit bigger.

As such Reading, Southampton, Basingstoke, Guildford, Woking, etc. Wouldn't be better off with your proposed interchange. It would probably be cheaper to build the Southern Approach to Heathrow and have direct trains through Heathrow to OOC and do some capacity enhancements to allow direct Southampton to Paddington services. Add that would benefit more people from that area (including a significantly easier route to Heathrow) and probably be cheaper.

 

[Richard Ingram]

HS2 is currently useless to you because you can’t get on it unless you go to a destination.

The point was even with a connection in the middle, rather than at a destination, it will always be easier to go a different route, Birmingham is a direct service from Cambridge and Ely, as is London, Leeds and further north on the east coast is one change at Peterborough. Only Manchester might be faster on HS2, and when that bit is built, maybe a service from east anglia will divert to Birmingham International.

Why a possible small set of customers? Where has that come from? This is a large set of customers that could use HS2 for both commuting and long distance travel. Speed? that is a fall out - capacity is why we need HS2. Whizzing by the middle makes no sense- the purpose of HS2 is to link and transport, hence connecting. Indeed the location shows exactly an interchange’s advantage in that it isn’t duplicating other stations and is filling a gap!

Because most people on the EWR route would find it just as easy to change at Oxford, Bletchley, or Cambridge. Even Bicester has a direct service to Birmingham. The only people it would massively help would be those close to Culvert, which is not a particularly large catchment.
Capacity is the reason it is being built, speed is how it will improve capacity. Why would anyone pay the premium for the fancy new line, if it doesn't end up being much faster. Take a look at the ICE network in Germany, the high speed routes stop only at the cities. This takes long distance travelers off of the cheaper local services, improving them.

The point is not to get HS2 to do something different (how is that suggested?), it is to maximize connectivity and take advantage of what HS2 can and is doing. HS2 has massive capacity that I think will not be fully utilised. We need to take advantage of this investment more.

It is going to be doing something different. Instead of being a fast point to point route, it will be turned into just another long distance stopper. How many other rail lines does it cross or pass very close to? Wouldn't people using those routes want a connection as well? It's job is to connect large conurbations very quickly, and stopping just because there is another line is a degradation in service. You have to prove a massive demand, and there just isn't. Every station on EWR is, or will be when built, one change from services to London and the south-west, or Birmingham and most large cities in the north, with possible connection to HS2 at Birmingham Interchange. Giving them Calvert as an option will at best save 10 or so minutes.

Changing at MK or other, then again at Birm Interchange doubles the changes! Surely you can see how that massively inhibits usage?

Doubles the changes, only if there final destination is Birmingham Curzon Street, or Euston, or Manchester Piccadilly. Most likely there final destination will be another local service away from one of the main stations, whether by conventional train, tram or bus. One extra change at a large interchange newly built for that purpose is not the hardest part of any train journey. The number of people for whom that one extra change makes a difference to their travel plans must be vanishingly small, getting back to the argument that there just isn't the demand for that connection.

I drive a lot, I love roads, I think we need more expressways and so on. But we also need to upgrade our railways and part of that is significantly improving the network so that people can easily get to places.
EWR is a rare example of a non-radial route that has current investment but also more potential and which directly links a large swathe of the country.
HS2 is the first and only integrated “all cities” network we have. (Just dont look west of Oxford I agree!). With the classic network offering feeders into those city HS2 stations - EWR offers an identical feeder right across middle England.

We do need to upgrade the rail network, I am in favour of all sorts of upgrades, EWR being the one I am most excited about. I am even not sure HS2 is a good investment in total, I suspect better improvements could have been made all over the country for the money it is costing, and it is only being built because it looks fancy, and serves London. But that is a different arguement, and since I don't live near it, or will ever want to use it (except just for the experience), I will keep out of it in the main. But if it is to be built, any stations on it need a watertight case to be built, either business or social, and Calvert just doesn't have either, since all possible routes using it have alternatives that will not be much slower, and be cheaper.

Every other legacy line is pretty bespoke in comparison and using it requires change after change. People don’t do that unless they have to because changing trains is rubbish. Going into and out of major cities is rubbish too.

All the lines are bespoke, including HS2, it's job is to make intercity journey's as fast as possible, and relieve capacity on the current routes, making travel on them better. Calvert Interchange would do very little to help. Changing trains is part of any long journey. I want to visit my sister in Yorkshire, I need a local service to the ECML, then a faster service to Leeds, then a local service out to her town. HS2 will be just the same. You want to get from Islip to Thirsk, EWR to Calvert, HS2 to York, then out to Thirsk. Adding in Oxford and Birmingham Interchange instead of Calvert doesn't look too bad in that case, but the actual best route might be via King's Cross, or going direct from Oxford to York, avoiding HS2 completely. That is the point people are trying to make. The number of people whose journeys would be improved significantly by allowing a change right there is not very big, and the cost of giving that choice, both in money, and in delays and operational difficulties, is much too high.

 

[edwin_m]

A HS2 stop at Calvert would create a lot of pressure to build a huge settlement for London commuters, who would fill a lot of the space on HS2 trains between Calvert and London. Thus the expensively-provided capacity which is intended to improve links to places further north would end up carrying fresh air.

 

[Richard Ingram]

A HS2 stop at Calvert would create a lot of pressure to build a huge settlement for London commuters, who would fill a lot of the space on HS2 trains between Calvert and London. Thus the expensively-provided capacity which is intended to improve links to places further north would end up carrying fresh air.

Plus, I can't see the locals liking the idea of a large town right there, they are already annoyed at having the line running through their countryside.

 

[edwin_m]

Plus, I can't see the locals liking the idea of a large town right there, they are already annoyed at having the line running through their countryside.

Usually when I find myself involved in this discussion at this stage I point out that the lightly populated area around Calvert would be an ideal site for the main London airport - and that would be the only reason to justify a HS2 station.

 

[MarkyT]

Plus, I can't see the locals liking the idea of a large town right there, they are already annoyed at having the line running through their countryside.

Especially a 'New City & Strong Edge Satellite Hybrid' which looks remarkably like a stalking horse for massive conventional luxury housing development of surrounding villages for commuting from a huge parkway station.