HS2 Heathrow Spur Dropped

[Voglitz]

At the likes of Armitage and Golborne the disruption is limited to constructing a new grade separated junction which moves some of the tracks over to one side. This is very similar to what is currently being done at Norton Bridge and most of it can be done without affecting existing services. Meadowhall has no connection to the existing route and the only disruption will be to build a bridge over it to carry HS2 and to make some alterations to passenger facilities so they link to the new stations. It is not yet clear what will happen at Crewe. So the phrase "massive disruption" only really applies to Euston.

According to Network Rail, a large amount of the disruption during the West Coast Route Modernisation could have been avoided. But if HS2's Armitage and Golborne works do not qualify as 'massive disruption', then why would grade separation at Ledburn, or four-tracking Attleborough - Brinklow?

If a new hub station were built at Crewe, the disruption would be enormous.

 

[HowardGWR]

According to Network Rail, a large amount of the disruption during the West Coast Route Modernisation could have been avoided. But if HS2's Armitage and Golborne works do not qualify as 'massive disruption', then why would grade separation at Ledburn, or four-tracking Attleborough - Brinklow?

If a new hub station were built at Crewe, the disruption would be enormous.

Wandered off topic a bit?

Back on it, hopefully, I have thought that perhaps this decision could be another signal that Gatwick is the gleam shining more brightly in the Howard Davies eye and that the no-need row about Heathrow is to be solved, by also going for Stansted improved rail links. Stansted to Heathrow through shuttles with 'immigration sealed off' pax, anyone? Less clear how to connect Heathrow with Gatwick though.

 

[Busaholic]

Wandered off topic a bit?

Back on it, hopefully, I have thought that perhaps this decision could be another signal that Gatwick is the gleam shining more brightly in the Howard Davies eye and that the no-need row about Heathrow is to be solved, by also going for Stansted improved rail links. Stansted to Heathrow through shuttles with 'immigration sealed off' pax, anyone? Less clear how to connect Heathrow with Gatwick though.

I'm sure you're right about Gatwick, especially after Boris has become Tory leader but given how the London Bridge rebuilding has left such chaos all over the Southern system and shown there's absolutely no spare capacity how can this be achieved without an extra pair of lines all the way from Victoria to Gatwick? Of course, Brighton to London trains could all run via Uckfield with sufficient notice

 

[Voglitz]

Stansted to Heathrow through shuttles with 'immigration sealed off' pax, anyone? Less clear how to connect Heathrow with Gatwick though.

Where in the world do geographically separate airports operate with airside land transit between them?

 

[gordonthemoron]

Where in the world do geographically separate airports operate with airside land transit between them?

it's a complete non-starter, using Northolt as a satellite of Heathrow would be a better idea

 

[HSTEd]

Even that is almost unworkable.

Airports are built on single sites for a reason.
Either expand Heathrow or close it, don't go for some half baked abomination that costs as almost as much as a new airport but doesn't give any of the benefits.

 

[Tobbes]

I'm very annoyed about this. The loop idea via LHR T5 with half the services in each direction going via LHR would've made it very attractive to transferring passengers - the point here is to make it as easy as possible to use HSR.

The payoff was equally clear - when Phase 3 goes to Scotland, an LHR loop would remove the vestigial need for LHR - EDI/GLA services, releasing somewhere around 170 flights per week/slot pairs (add in Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds and the LHR total rises to 307).

A short-sighted decision we'll have to correct at higher cost later on, I'm afraid.

 

[JamesRowden]

I'm very annoyed about this. The loop idea via LHR T5 with half the services in each direction going via LHR would've made it very attractive to transferring passengers - the point here is to make it as easy as possible to use HSR.

The payoff was equally clear - when Phase 3 goes to Scotland, an LHR loop would remove the vestigial need for LHR - EDI/GLA services, releasing somewhere around 170 flights per week/slot pairs (add in Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds and the LHR total rises to 307).

A short-sighted decision we'll have to correct at higher cost later on, I'm afraid.

A single change at Old Oak Common will provide a far better service frequency and variety than would have been available at Heathrow via the Spur. The Western Route Study draft anticipates that there will be a 4tph fast service between Heathrow and Old Oak Common.

 

[Geezertronic]

There's no evidence whatsoever that Euston "needs" to be rebuilt. If there is, produce it.

Whilst there isn't anything to say Euston "needs" to be rebuilt, but the link below shows Euston was going to be rebuilt following this announcement in 2007 which was canned in 2011

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...fNgbAP&usg=AFQjCNHk6aNf4GenAdFcj1lAe6yjozs6jw


Nothing needs to be rebuilt, Birmingham New Street didn't need to be rebuilt but it will be a far better passenger experience when completed

 

[UrbanWorld]

Wigan spur, Heathrow spur and next the Manchester spur. All are quite needless.

 

[HSTEd]

Has the Wigan spur actually been axed?
As far as I know it is still in place.

And as has been stated elsewhere - the Manchester spur is not "needless" and without it the scheme has serious problems in actually providing a service to the Manchester area.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Has the Wigan spur actually been axed?
As far as I know it is still in place.

And as has been stated elsewhere - the Manchester spur is not "needless" and without it the scheme has serious problems in actually providing a service to the Manchester area.

Depends on what the report on HS2 extensions to Scotland recommends.

 

[Jonny]

I would think four trains per hour to the main three destinations would give a better return.
Or perhaps preserving two paths so that Edinburgh and Glasgow can recieve two full length trains per hour once the inevitable Scottish extension is signed off.


Although the way passenger growth is going we are going to need a second HS2 pretty soon.....

... preferably along the ECML route - HS2 provides OK coverage of the WCML and passable coverage of the MML, but apart from Leeds it won't have much to offer the ECML.

 

[po8crg]

Depends on what the report on HS2 extensions to Scotland recommends.

I'd have thought that the Wigan spur would be more affected than the Manchester by that.

Though, I do wonder about keeping the Wigan spur, building a four-way junction somewhere around Culcheth, redirecting the Manchester Spur to run from there to Victoria, connecting the west-bound arm to the Chat Moss line (for CC to Liverpool), and then having passive provision for a future Liverpool Spur, which would connect directly to the Manchester Spur. Also having passive provision for Victoria HS2 as a through-station for a future HS3.