If economies are being looked for then HS2 must be high on the list but the capacity problem of the WCML needs to be addressed somehow. This is my Plan B and I reckon it could be delivered for half the cost of HS2 but give much the same output if you overlook the excessive provision for BHM in HS2's shuttle proposals. It was written in reply to an article published elsewhere and I haven't the time to rewrite so bear with it's obtuseness if you will.
Is it High Speed Madness?
I disagree with HS2. We need a more integrated transport system. The cost and tribulations of getting about in this country are discouraging. The scheme is projected to be far too expensive. It doesn’t integrate properly with Europe and not very well with the existing Victorian system either. It’s almost a stand-alone vanity project for London-centric politicians.
Essentially, it would merely six-track the WCML for relief of forecast capacity constraints but by putting the extra two tracks on an entirely different alignment. There is no need to build a separate line for that. In an overall journey context, the time savings proffered would be neither here nor there. Until we decide that we want to be integrated with Europe, I think we should hold back until there is a positive vote. We then build a line that is a true extension of the European High Speed network. HS2 Ltd’s belated attempt at integration includes an enormously expensive and inadequate single track, all tunnel, connection between Old Oak Common and the North London Line near St. Pancras that will constrain capacity for evermore.
Also, if there is still no serious intention of sending North of London services through to the Continent, then there is no need at all for a ‘captive fleet’ to GB+ gauge. They will just be Birmingham shuttles. Why have two incompatible fleets when you don’t need the difference? The line might need to be built to GB+ gauge though, for future proofing.
So why not do what’s actually needed? Six tracking the WCML to Roade with four tracking to Birmingham and Trent Valley does the job. It doesn’t give quite the same bums on seats to Birmingham but it does give the paths required on the WCML. It is more integrated than HS2, obviates having two different fleets initially and costs considerably less. The alignment could allow 140mph running, with or without tilt and ERTMS, resulting in the bonus of HS2’s Time Savings without the cost!
So, what follows here is not HS2 but it includes a proper connection to HS1. And that would have to be operated by the short formed type 373s that were, long ago, intended for the job. This route compares favourably with the demolition and disruption of HS2’s proposed Ruislip route. By operating more slowly, it meets some of the green objections over emissions and there’s no need at all for an OOC station. It doesn’t require the relocation of a tube line or reconstruction of railway junctions. Euston station does not have to be re-built. More platforms can be fitted in without wholesale demolition. All but two are already long enough for eleven car Pendolinos. The centre two can be extended to fit 9-cars. Twenty platforms can be had without much knocking about. Overground will have to go underground sooner or later and that will be a serious cost. A box to one side will take it like Thameslink, with southward extension possibilities; Euston is a constraint on this scheme and westward extension may be required for more platforms in future. But it doesn’t need to go 2m deeper and take over the whole district as HS2 proposes. It doesn’t need 400m platforms for twenty-car trains. European services could go directly to St. Pancras or Stratford.
This line would exit Euston and branch left on Camden Bank, tunnelling under Primrose Hill itself, further south than HS2’s proposal, and emerging west of Willesden where there are possible sites. Then land-take, compulsory purchase and demolish up the east side to Watford. It’s quite possible. There is a bit spare on that side much of the way. Although the amount of demolition isn’t exactly light, it’s less than HS2’s Ruislip route. Construct a flyover or tunnel at Watford and then burrow under the two existing tunnels and cross over to the west side. Emerging north, the line doesn’t have to follow slavishly the existing WCML. Constraints around Kings Langley, Berkhamsted, et al can be circumvented by using HS2’s route 4 (the blue one), roughly following the A41. The rejoin would be north of Tring with a dodge through or under Leighton Buzzard. If that is not viable, rejoin at Bletchley or Milton Keynes. I don’t suppose the original straight-through route at Wolverton is available, so a dive-under might be required. Double deck the track at Roade or strike out to the west. Continue four-tracking towards Rugby. Again, a completely separate alignment might be better here and, rather than compete for space at Rugby, by-pass the town to the south, then Coventry Parkway, rejoin south of Birmingham Int’l and approaching New Street, branch on a chord into an enlarged Snow Hill by a new curved tunnel.
It might be better to use Moor Street as the terminus for Chiltern Railways and Snow Hill for this line since there is enough space for 400m platforms if ever required and obvious northward extension possibilities. I’m not too familiar with this neck of the woods but Handsworth, Tame Bridge and the M6 one side or other to Stafford looks a viable route.
If the Euston to Willesden tunnel was built as Phase 1, then it could carry the slow lines into Euston temporarily while the existing slows via Primrose Hill tunnels were enlarged and bored out to GB+ gauge thus giving a proper twin track connection to HS1 via the surface NLL at a fraction of the cost of HS2’s proposal, the enormously expensive choice and serious constraint of a lengthy single track tunnel; an option which would forever limit through European operations.
In a way, HS1 shows the way it can be done and it only cost £6 billion for roughly the same distance. This cost included the lengthy London tunnels. It’s quite a civilised railway to live with! Yes, I know this is digging up the WCML again but think of the savings to be spent digging up the network elsewhere! This scheme meets the capacity requirement and also gives a breathing space to decide if we want to be properly integrated with Europe. I don’t see it costing anything like £17 billion but it provides similar infrastructure without the excess. The ‘captive fleet’ could come later and, when it does, apart from just providng a London-Brum shuttle, it could also do direct services to Europe.
Why does this sort of scheme not figure in the options? It seems we are frightened of a repeat of the WCML Modernisation fiasco and think a completely fresh line is the answer. The Modernisation was, at one time, projected to cost £13 billion but cut back to £9 billion by omitting deliverables and enhancements. 140 mph running and in-cab signalling went together with infrastructure that was deferred. It took the best part of ten years to execute; significant disruption to pax and compensation payable to the Train Op Cos. Building a new line alongside the existing one is not the same as re-building an operating and active railway although integration at certain points would be part of the scheme.
If the vote for Europe is yes, then we build HS2 proper. It could be realigned centrally up the country to give better advantage to more people and have a through station in London instead of another dead-end terminal. HS2 should be conceived as part of the European network, don’t you think?
