HS2 - Great Central 4 Tracking.

[Angelmoon]

Ok, hear me out. Im aware that HS2 has already begun construction and that any amendments to the design of the line are unlikely but, I was wondering if the inclusion of an extra pair of tracks alongside HS2 between Calvert and Brackely is a practical or useful idea.

The GCR route is already being reinstated as far as Calvert for East West Rail and the inclusion of this section of track would bring the end of the GCRs current route about 12 miles south of Daventry and only 18 miles south of Rugby, where it has been mooted in the past the GCR could be reinstated to as part of a Chiltern franchise.

My main query is is this a crazy idea or would I be a practical way to begin the reinstatement of this part of the GCR?



For reference:
Multi- coloured line: HS2
Light BLUE line: GCR re-route
Dark BLUE line: Chiltern - GCR connector.
Green Line: Existing Chiltern Mainline.

 

[Bald Rick]

Way too late. Would need a separate act of Parliament or Order under the Transport and Work Act.

 

[swt_passenger]

Chiltern to Rugby is ancient history. They had a long list of possible projects that was gradually reviewed and whittled down over the years and resulted in the various stages of Evergreen, such as the main line redoubling to Aynho and the eventual Oxford extension. I doubt “Chiltern to Rugby” is on anyone’s radar nowadays.

 

[The Planner]

It is actually being rebuilt north of Quainton to Claydon slightly to the east as HS2 will sit on the current formation. There is no chance of it being extended along HS2, especially as north of Aylesbury Vale Parkway it is still going to be single track.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

My main query is is this a crazy idea or would I be a practical way to begin the reinstatement of this part of the GCR?

My main query is why would you want to reinstate this part of the GCR. It was redundant before it was opened.

 

[mr_jrt]

It is said the biggest constraint on the WCML is the southern section between Rugby and London. Stands to reason, adding another pair of tracks between Rugby and London would help alleviate that. Admittedly, that's exactly what HS2 is doing, but if the congestion is so bad, why not add another pair as well? Would give service back to Brackley, if nothing else.

 

[Journeyman]

My main query is why would you want to reinstate this part of the GCR. It was redundant before it was opened.

Yup, the GC London Extension was an entirely unnecessary piece of railway, and I can't understand why so many people are desperate to re-open it.

 

[si404]

Classic tracks (mostly) along HS2 from Calvert to Brackley might have some merit if linked to house building (I'm not sure if Brackley is big enough currently to justify it now that the boat has started to sail on HS2). Service to Aylesbury.

North of that, however...

 

[AndyB28]

I think Catesby tunnel is about to become some sort of aerodynamics test facility? That effectively kills any reinstatement to Rugby surely.

 

[HSTEd]

Why would we want to build our two new high speed tracks on the same alignment as the current ones? Surely we would want to put them along an alignment optimised for their role.

HS2 to Birmingham is enough to carry most intercity traffic that might want to flow in that direction.
And the alignment chosen is hardly along a dense population corridor for local traffic.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Classic tracks (mostly) along HS2 from Calvert to Brackley might have some merit if linked to house building (I'm not sure if Brackley is big enough currently to justify it now that the boat has started to sail on HS2). Service to Aylesbury.

North of that, however...

At the last census count the population of Brackley was 13018. Not enough to justify a new-build railway but enough to justify retention of a station on an existing railway.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

It is said the biggest constraint on the WCML is the southern section between Rugby and London. Stands to reason, adding another pair of tracks between Rugby and London would help alleviate that. Admittedly, that's exactly what HS2 is doing, but if the congestion is so bad, why not add another pair as well? Would give service back to Brackley, if nothing else.

First, the capacity issues on the southern stretch of the WCML have been exaggerated by those eager for HS2. Second, how would you divert WCML trains at Rugby onto a re-opened GC route? Third, what would happen to the trains when they arrived in London? Marylebone has little spare capacity and the only escape link from the ex GC line is westwards at Neasden South junction.

 

[mr_jrt]

First, no they haven't. Second, given the GC flew over the WCML at near enough 90 degrees, with some difficulty, I'd imagine! I seem to recall reading a connection was proposed at one point, and if so it was viable then. Looking now, you would have to either dive under Hillmorton to loop and regain the original route, or you continue down the WCML until you are past Hillmorton, then run cross-country to meet the old alignment. Given how far gone it is (not to mention how unlikely), a long length of new alignment doesn't strike me as too big an ask given the scale of any reinstatement down to Calvert. Third, the GCML had several connections to the GW/GC joint line. Any one of those could do the job of getting those trains to OOC, but failing that, a tunnel from Finchley Road to Chalk Farm would get them to Euston. I'm not seriously proposing any of this, btw...just thinking out loud.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Your thinking has led you firmly into crayon territory. The cost of your ideas would be huge; diverting from the GC route onto the Chiltern Line would make the route uncompetitive; the link from Aylesbury to Princes Risborough is single track; there is no reason to believe passengers would accept being dumped at Old Oak instead of Euston and the capacity of the Chiltern Line would be a big factor.

 

[The Planner]

First, the capacity issues on the southern stretch of the WCML have been exaggerated by those eager for HS2.

Ummmm, no, no they are not.