HS2 Plan B?

[moggie]

But the real goal is to emulate our continental cousins in providing the UK with High Speed rail network connecting what are deemed the principal commercial centres that will gain economically by having faster connections to London while addressing nasty CO2 emmissions from domestic air services.

This is the 'new found' holy grail discovered by our UK politicians and so this is what we are going to get if all sides agree it is affordable over the project lifespan (dilutes the current economic woes arguement) - which appears the case at present. As the consultation blurb remarks - we in the Uk are getting left behind due to our poor transport infrastructure while our neighbours push on with developing their High Speed networks.

OK - so the current consultation will continue with defining and refining the precise details of the proposed route but messing around with alternative schemes which involve large scale modification of the existing lines of way (and therefore inevitably the existing infrastructure) is not going to be seen by the politicians as delivering the ultimate goal of a new sparkling line with sleek new trains. It is cleara showpiece project 'that Britain can be proud of' is what is required.

In any case, every crossing or parallel work site with the existing infrastructure has the huge potential to inflate estimated costs exponentially after the detailed surveys have been done (aka WCML) let alone the impact on lineside properties which will galvanise a whole new group of opponents. People will reasonably complain about the new line passing through the pristine countryside (wherever that may be) but the government will know that building on greenfield sites or uncomplicated lines of way (ex GCR) is going to be cheaper and less disruptive to existing transport corridors than building adjacent to existing lines through hundreds of back gardens / streets etc.

I'm confident it will happen but share some of the concerns regarding integration with existing rail and lack of capacity on HS2 itself for continental workings or indeed high speed freight which doesn't even figure.

 

[j0hn0]

I doubt there would be more than 2 tph direct to mainland Europe from Birmingham. You could also build a High Speed line to the North via the former GCR corridor (a more direcr route than going via Birmingham) with a branch from the Rugby area to Birmingham so international trains from HS1 to Birmingham can take advantage of this.

so what you're saying is, don't build through the chilterns, build through the chilterns on the old great central?

I've seen so many arguments like this, building on the great central will require JUST AS MUCH digging/planning etc and it is not straight enough an alignment.

Do people REALLY think that this country could come up with an integrated transport plan??? Have we ever had integrated transport? no, will we ever? no, why? because buses, train, planes etc are all.......what?

that's right! PRIVATISED!!!

To say that we can "use" the money (that doesn't exist) to spend on "improving" other infrastructure is complete folly. HS2 will take all the high speed express trains from the WCML which......IS FULL!! Would you like to travel on that line during ANOTHER over-budget, under-spec "upgrade"? Imagine the disruption! Yet it would STILL BE FULL!!!

Unless you want to limit population growth, transport in this country is going to grow, whether you like it or not.

Building a new line is the best way to account for that and making it high speed gives you more added benefits.

The people who bang on about "not being able to afford it" and "poor business case" are clearly know more about it than all the economists who predict that we can, in the same way that we could afford HS1 and Crossrail.

So if you now make a claim of the above, I would like to see your credentials to prove that you are an authority on fiscal matters.

Please leave cost out of it, it is completely erroneous and boring because NO-ONE really knows the full scale of it

 

[Yew]

Could the old GCML trackbed be used in more places to reduce cost? It seems that it was designed for high speed running?


"The line was engineered to very high standards: a ruling gradient of 1 in 176 (5.7 ‰) (exceeded in only a few locations on the London extension) was employed; curves of a minimum radius of 1 mile (except in city areas) were used; and there was only one level crossing between Sheffield Victoria and London Marylebone (at Beighton, still in use)." - Wikipedia

 

[sprinterguy]

Could the old GCML trackbed be used in more places to reduce cost? It seems that it was designed for high speed running?


"The line was engineered to very high standards: a ruling gradient of 1 in 176 (5.7 ‰) (exceeded in only a few locations on the London extension) was employed; curves of a minimum radius of 1 mile (except in city areas) were used; and there was only one level crossing between Sheffield Victoria and London Marylebone (at Beighton, still in use)." - Wikipedia

It’s not designed for the sort of speeds intended for HS2 though! Curves of 1 mile radius are inadequate for 200mph trains.

 

[Zoe]

Unless you want to limit population growth, transport in this country is going to grow, whether you like it or not.

The line doesn't have to take such a destructive route as currently planned. If it's just about capacity relief then is 200 mph really needed? People also do not seem to be considering the fact that in 20 - 30 years time there may simply not be the need to travel there is now. There is certainly a case for encouraging less travelling. Like with motorways you can't just keep building as providing extra capacity just results in new demand. There is a time when you have to look at why people actually need to travel.

 

[tbtc]

If the line doesn't have to run at 200 mph then it won't have to take such an environmentally destructive route

How else do you get from London to the bigger cities in the UK without some damage to the environment?

Everywhere is in someone's back yard.

 

[Zoe]

How else do you get from London to the bigger cities in the UK without some damage to the environment?

You don't have to plough straight through an AONB.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

You don't have to plough straight through an AONB.

At this time, planning permission is being granted across the country for windfarms, pylons and substations across vast areas of AONB in support of green energy. NIMBYS are nothing more than modern day Luddites. HS2 is needed to reduce the loads on WCML and MML, to compete with environmentally unsound air travel, to provide business and commerce with fast, clean and reliable transport which in turn will help produce jobs in those areas that HS2 has termini (Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow? etc).

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to actually carry out some transport integration, to provide a cleaner alternative to air travel, to provide closer links to Europe and to remove the bias of business towards the SE and London. Now, I couldn't care less if a few very wealthy folk in the Chilterns have to put up with a new railway line in their area if HS2 brings benefits to the rest of the UK. The wealth that is currently heavily weighed towards the SE could be shared better across the UK with faster and more modern transport. I'm afraid that NIMBYISM has to take second place, in my view.

 

[Zoe]

Now, I couldn't care less if a few very wealthy folk in the Chilterns have to put up with a new railway line in their area if HS2 brings benefits to the rest of the UK.

It won't benefit all of the UK though. It's also possible that it will have a reverse effect with some jobs relocated to London due to HS2 cutting journey times and encouraging commuting. If it's just about capacity relief for the MML and WCML then as I say it doesn't need to plough through the Chilterns and may not even need to be a 200 mph line. As I said above, there is also a case for reducing the need for travel. You can't build your way out of congestion.

 

[Striker]

Good grief. Typical unambitious British thinking. "Why do we need a 200mph railway?" :roll:

 

[Zoe]

Good grief. Typical unambitious British thinking. "Why do we need a 200mph railway

But if someone had asked "Do we really need motorways" back in the 1960s then there may be a more extensive transport network now.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I am doubtful about the need for HS2, but I would hate it beyond belief to see the Chiltern NIMBYs win...

 

[Cheshire Rover]

It won't benefit all of the UK though. It's also possible that it will have a reverse effect with some jobs relocated to London due to HS2 cutting journey times and encouraging commuting. If it's just about capacity relief for the MML and WCML then as I say it doesn't need to plough through the Chilterns and may not even need to be a 200 mph line. As I said above, there is also a case for reducing the need for travel. You can't build your way out of congestion.

Possibly. But London and the rest of the SE is already heavily overcrowded and business costs are very high. Why would a company relocate the London when it could say move to Leeds with lower costs but with access times to the capital and the continent far less than they are now? The capacity relief is secondary to the business benefits.
I'm not very sympathetic to your view, I'm afraid. As someone who has to travel frequently across the UK on business, I have to put up with horrible check in and security at Airports, traffic jams that are a waste of life and trains that are highly overpriced if you want to travel at peak or otherwise slow and tedious if you are travelling anywhere other than on VT to Euston or Glasgow.
I don't think your are right about building your way out of congestion. I think you can, but you need to put more thought into what happens after you do the building.
The M25 around London was a great idea when it was conceived, but is now hell on earth in the peak. Too much building went on around the motorway which, instead of being a relief around London, is now more of a problem that the original roads. HS2 should be pure intercity, few stops if any between origin and source nless it is to pick up on an integrated system.

 

[Zoe]

I'm not very sympathetic to your view, I'm afraid. As someone who has to travel frequently across the UK on business, I have to put up with horrible check in and security at Airports, traffic jams that are a waste of life and trains that are highly overpriced if you want to travel at peak or otherwise slow and tedious if you are travelling anywhere other than on VT to Euston or Glasgow.

I doubt HS2 is going to make things cheaper for you. It should also be noted that even with HS2 unless you are travelling somewhere on the main route then it won't be any faster than now and in some cases could even be slower as additional stops are added on conventional rail. If it's about business travel then the question is why a business needs to travel as much as it does and there are ways of reducing the need to travel that are likely to be more popular in the future.

 

[WatcherZero]

Videoconferencing, multiple user document editing, intranets and internets have all been around for between one and two decades, like the paperless office they have not lived upto hype as people still prefer to meet the people they are doing business with, and designers still need to supervise and debug equipment manufactured at the other side of the country in person.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Why not upgrade the entire WCML to 125mph? Where possible 140mph running should be enabled.

I have worked out the timings for my proposal and will post later.

It's not much slower, no houses are destroyed and the current green belt remains. Only the infrastructure remains to be improved- the 390s can handle the speeds and we can order more! Tag on an order for the WR as well which will bring the costs down- as well as lengthening the current ones that are to remain nine cars. I know people on here have their opinions on the 390s, but passengers seem to like them and their reliability. Look on the brightside we don't end up with IEP! We can keep the 57s to operate services that won't be ran on electrified lines.

Upgrading the current WCML is far more beneficial to the country, especially at Birmingham where services from places like Cheltenham could interchange with our lovely new upgraded WCML at lovely new New Street! Manchester, Liverpool, Preston would all have interchange opportunities too. Rather than HS2 interchanging at Manc, Leeds and Glasgow (reaching these places eventually!) New signalling would enable a higher capacity (not clues up on it, but surely it can be done?)

Apart from Leeds, the same places (and more) are reached as HS2 would. The French managed to upgrade existing infrastructure, we can do the same. The WCML is only the start, the ECML, GWML and MML can all be done! (The latter two after having some of Grannies knitting strung up!)

Just so you know that idea is intellectual property of mine, so don't go emailing Phillip Hammond!

So what happens to the freight and local trains that need to be pathed? there paths would be cut into hugely by 140mph running. you cant run a high speed railway on exisiting lines unless they build a new freight route to replace the WCML which lets face it is more unlikely than HS2 You cant 4 track all of it, it would cost an absolute fortune with a value for money very little.

If HS2 was being built as a Y network to newcastle and manchester-scotland
i would support it fully at the moment unless there is guarantee it would reach scotland and a much better connection to europe is connected i remain unconvinced.

In my eyes once HS2 is complete the WCML becomes a secondary route in that area providing a semi fast service and good electric freight capcities.

 

[j0hn0]

I doubt HS2 is going to make things cheaper for you. It should also be noted that even with HS2 unless you are travelling somewhere on the main route then it won't be any faster than now and in some cases could even be slower as additional stops are added on conventional rail. If it's about business travel then the question is why a business needs to travel as much as it does and there are ways of reducing the need to travel that are likely to be more popular in the future.

WHy do you feel that people will not want to travel in the future? WHat exactly do you base that on?

Face facts, the majority of well paid jobs are down in london, that is why I work here, we need to find a way to spread that wealth throughout the country. Think of the boost to local economies with the advent of rich people moving back to their own backyards rather than spend it in the over populated south?
I mean a dominos in st albans is £1.50 more expensive just because of where it is, yet its the same product.

I went to the chilterns the other week and I have to say, WHAT AREA OF NATURAL BEAUTY??? Honestly, all I could hear was the M25, M40 and the airport, there is no lake, no river (ok a few brooks) and no forest or particularly high rise hills. Why is this an area of oustanding natural beauty? it makes no sense, I did however notice lots and lot of exclusive gated estates, which is what I think is the real crux of the matter.

To deal with this, they should make HS2 4 track and build a station at Ayelsbury or wendover. That would actually increase the value of their houses.

Germany built a high speed line through areas that are 4 times as beautiful, to negate the impacts, they put a lot of it in tunnels, which is exactly what is going to happen from the M25 to somewhere around wendover

So again, I have no idea what people beefs are with this, are you honestly wanting to deprive the whole country of access to the best jobs?

 

[YorkshireBear]

WHy do you feel that people will not want to travel in the future? WHat exactly do you base that on?

Face facts, the majority of well paid jobs are down in london, that is why I work here, we need to find a way to spread that wealth throughout the country. Think of the boost to local economies with the advent of rich people moving back to their own backyards rather than spend it in the over populated south?
I mean a dominos in st albans is £1.50 more expensive just because of where it is, yet its the same product.

I went to the chilterns the other week and I have to say, WHAT AREA OF NATURAL BEAUTY??? Honestly, all I could hear was the M25, M40 and the airport, there is no lake, no river (ok a few brooks) and no forest or particularly high rise hills. Why is this an area of oustanding natural beauty? it makes no sense, I did however notice lots and lot of exclusive gated estates, which is what I think is the real crux of the matter.

To deal with this, they should make HS2 4 track and build a station at Ayelsbury or wendover. That would actually increase the value of their houses.

Germany built a high speed line through areas that are 4 times as beautiful, to negate the impacts, they put a lot of it in tunnels, which is exactly what is going to happen from the M25 to somewhere around wendover

Well some people want to 4 track through the lake district by upgrading the line there or making curves less for 125-140running. Lake district is far more beautiful than the chilterns so upgrading the WCML north of lancaster is very hipocritical!
I dont like to see countryside spoiled i truly dont but transport is a neccesary evil unless we introduce a child policy we will need a new line.

and to anyone who says why do we need a 200mph railway. who wants another 125 mph railway we already have them?
HS2 is a a new line to relieve congestion built to 21st century standards

So again, I have no idea what people beefs are with this, are you honestly wanting to deprive the whole country of access to the best jobs?

i have a feeling for some the answer could be yes.

 

[Zoe]

There are ways of building a new line to the North without ploughing through the Chilterns AONB.

 

[sprinterguy]

There are ways of building a new line to the North without ploughing through the Chilterns AONB.

...But that doesn't necessarily serve the highest centres of population en route (For example the via Cambridge/Newark East Coast option for HS2 that would run over predominantly flat farmland). HS2 could weave around all over to avoid various AONBs' but if it doesn't go where the money (and the demand) is then it's not worth it.

 

[LE Greys]

One major reason for using the GCR route is public perception. If we say "this is not a new line, just the rebuilding of an old one" despite the fact that only the slow lines follow the old alignment, the fast lines follow a parallel route separated by 10 ft (or up to 100 yards if necessary) and it has to find an entirely new route between Leicester and Nottingham to avoid the preserved line, then the people have less perception of a need to object. Essentially, it's a con. The extra stations on the slows, at places such as Woodford Halse, Lutterworth, Ashby Magna and so on, might also help to placate them. People like us, who would spot this a mile off, would be far less likely to object.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well some people want to 4 track through the lake district by upgrading the line there or making curves less for 125-140running. Lake district is far more beautiful than the chilterns so upgrading the WCML north of lancaster is very hipocritical!
I dont like to see countryside spoiled i truly dont but transport is a neccesary evil unless we introduce a child policy we will need a new line.

The top end of HS2 will have to do precisely this if it is to reach Carlisle, followed by the Southern Uplands on its way over Beattock to Glasgow. However, I very much doubt that people will put up such an objection, because they will perceive it as an expansion of an existing line rather than a new one. Exactly the same trick as the GCR routing.

The engineering to get this line over Beattock will probably be spectacular, and I would love to see it.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The top end of HS2 will have to do precisely this if it is to reach Carlisle, followed by the Southern Uplands on its way over Beattock to Glasgow. However, I very much doubt that people will put up such an objection, because they will perceive it as an expansion of an existing line rather than a new one. Exactly the same trick as the GCR routing.

The engineering to get this line over Beattock will probably be spectacular, and I would love to see it.

fair point actually i forgot central borders is just as lovely too.

as a future civil engineer i think id like to be the one who does it

 

[Zoe]

The top end of HS2 will have to do precisely this if it is to reach Carlisle, followed by the Southern Uplands on its way over Beattock to Glasgow.

Will it ever go that far? It's a narrow pass through the Lake District and Southern Scotland and you already have the existing WCML and M6/M74 through it. Any building will be very difficult so HS2 trains may well just use the existing WCML north of Manchester.

 

[brianthegiant]

I can forsee the Consultation results....
1000 replies from Business broadly in favour
250 replies from organisations and rail industry in favour
150 replies from local groups, MP's and councils it passes through against
5000 replies from the general public in favour
380000 replies from the general public against

This may be true on a simple numbers basis... But those against development (often those locally affected) will be more motivated to write letters, get interviewed, respond to consultations, etc, than those who are in favour. Anyone in government knows this. I dont know to what degree that is taken into account, but there have been many large projects over the years which have been unpopular locally (motorways, nuclear / coal fired power stations, airport expansions), but that alone hasn't been enough to stop them.

There is the 'National Interest' factor which is a consideration in the planning of national infrastructure.

Also bear in mind that the coalition can't be seen to do too many policy U-turns else it will loose all credibility.

There may have to be more concessions made in response to the consultation, but all is not lost.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are ways of building a new line to the North without ploughing through the Chilterns AONB.

#:roll:

The chilterns are 76km wide, in a strip which would be disected by most routes between london & birmingham.

Other routes incur other problems, since London Orbital is heavily built up, so its hard to get a sensible alignment anywhere.

I do think the current alignment ahs been chosen to run close to existing transport corridors (A413 / Chiltern line / etc) so it doesn't intersect the most unspoilt part of the chilterns. Also I suspect that alternative alignments would have greater impact on communities in terms of construction and noise.

Would DfT & HS2 seriously take on the extra project complexity of going through an AONB if a better alternative exists?

 

[Zoe]

The chilterns are 76km wide, in a strip which would be disected by most routes between london & birmingham.

HS2 doesn't have to go to Birmingham, as I said the 1 hour 24 minute journey time from London to Birmingham is not bad. A new line that doesn't have to directly serve Birmingham could avoid the Chilterns AONB.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Will it ever go that far? It's a narrow pass through the Lake District and Southern Scotland and you already have the existing WCML and M6/M74 through it. Any building will be very difficult so HS2 trains may well just use the existing WCML north of Manchester.

where is the capcity for them to use?

 

[sprinterguy]

The engineering to get this line over Beattock will probably be spectacular, and I would love to see it.

Would there not be another way to route HS2 into Scotland? I know that the passes through the wild and hilly Scottish borders are few, especially those leading in the direction proposed by the route of HS2, but there might be another possibility somewhere. Maybe using part of the same valleys as the Waverley route up to a point?

 

[Zoe]

where is the capcity for them to use?

Is the WCML through Southern Scotland really at capacity now?

 

[sprinterguy]

where is the capcity for them to use?

Capacity isn't as constrained at the northern end of the WCML, as there aren't any major conurbations that have a large number of local services to weave Intercity services around. Granted that the two track nature of the section of the route through the Lake District and the Scottish borders does throw up some problems of course, but HS2 services bound for Glasgow would probably replace the current London to Glasgow WCML service, so it wouldn't consume much more capacity than at present if HS2 never got further north than Manchester, but I would hope that it does.

 

[tbtc]

I am doubtful about the need for HS2, but I would hate it beyond belief to see the Chiltern NIMBYs win...

This is a very good point, and one that I think deserves further debate.

If the NIMBYs win, and HS2 doesn't get built (a line with cross party support which has significant support from business groups/ stakeholders across much of the UK) then it'll become even harder to get smaller scale routes built (without the kind of consensus that HS2 has).

For example, whilst the Chilterns are fairly unspectacular compared to much of the English countryside (and are only really "outstanding" if you've never gone more than an hour's drive beyond the M25), the Peak District is *genuinley* beautiful. But how will we be able to get a railway rebuilt between Matlock and Buxton area if the NIMBYs in the Chilterns win? Face it, a reopening of the direct route between the East Midlands and Lancashire (which could be a major route for both freight and passenger services) is harder to "sell" as a UK-wide benefit, but the local protestors will be just as organised as the Chilterns mob.

Same goes for any other attempt to build a railway near anyone's property... if we lose this one then we are going to have to become a lot less ambitious about the chances of building any new lines in the future.