If you were planning HS2 . . .

[LE Greys]

. . . where would you put it? . . . what services would you run on it? . . . how would you integrate it with the current network? From all the discussions in another thread, I reckon this subject deserves a thread all to itself.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
My answers would be:
Along the trackbed of the Great Central London Extension, except where there is something in the way. Thus,
ST PANCRAS INTERNATIONAL - Neasden - Harrow Hill Tunnel - Amersham - Aylesbury - Brackley (junction for XC line from Banbury) - Rugby Central (potential diversion, but trackbed mostly intact - connection to WCML for infrastructure traffic) - Lutterworth - Leicester Central - Syston - Tollerton - NOTTINGHAM VICTORIA (complete rebuild, I like the central location, line from Grantham diverted via Weekday Cross) - Annesley - (diverts to follow M1) - Staveley - Woodhouse (HS2a ends) - (quadrupled conventional line to) SHEFFIELD VICTORIA - (125 mph electrified line to) Penistone - (ditto to) Woodhead (use new bore for up and cut a fourth bore for down) - Hadfield - MANCHESTER PICCADILLY

Apart from London-Sheffield-Manchester services, trains would run to Bradford via Huddersfield, Leeds via Wakefield and possibly York via Knottingley or Leeds. Extensions from Manchester to Glasgow or York to Edinburgh are possible, but would not be much faster than by the current route. The benefit here would be in an easing of pressure on Euston-Manchester and King's Cross-Leeds services, enabling stock to transfer to Anglo-Scottish routes. One train an hour would run direct from Manchester to Paris. Cross-Country would be able to divert anything running between Banbury and Sheffield away from Birmingham, thus cutting an hour off the time from the south coast to the north east, and could open up another route from East Anglia to the north west and Scotland. Trans-Pennine would have the Woodhead Tunnel as an extra route between Sheffield and Manchester. Northern, meanwhile, would have miles of new electric railway in the West Riding to run its trains on.

This is stage 1, of course, stage 2 extends the route all the way to Glasgow, but let's start small.

 

[Ivo]

This option is kinda expensive, but hey.

I would divert all Chiltern services, apart from those on their Main Line running to Bicester or further, into an expanded Baker Street. This would then free up some space at Marylebone, which I would use as the HS2 terminus. I would then extend the Heathrow Express service to Marylebone, and then St Pancras, and withdraw it from Paddington. There will also be an underground walkway between Marylebone and Baker Street.

Anyway, the line will run dead to Bicester, whre there would be an interchange station for the East-West Rail Link (useful even if the EWRL falls through; FGW services are reasonable enough to Bristol - just make Didcot Parkway a full service stop- and there is the X5 coach to Cambridge via MK and Bedford). Then it will be non-stop to central Birmingham, with a station in the area immediately south of Duddeston station (one of the four trains an hour would terminate here; only this would call at Bicester). From there it will run under the city to a point somewhere in the Cannock area, and continue on to a new stop at Stoke-on-Trent. Here the route will split into two; one north-west to Liverpool, and one north-east to Manchester (the latter of which would have two trains an hour; Liverpool only one). There would also be a route between the two, with an extension to Leeds and Sheffield (this route would be to current InterCity specifications, with two an hour - one to each).

Pointless, expensive and ultimately insufficient. Just like the real thing will probably be!

 

[sheff'd victoria]

. . . where would you put it? . . . what services would you run on it? . . . how would you integrate it with the current network? From all the discussions in another thread, I reckon this subject deserves a thread all to itself.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
My answers would be:
Along the trackbed of the Great Central London Extension, except where there is something in the way. Thus,
ST PANCRAS INTERNATIONAL - Neasden - Harrow Hill Tunnel - Amersham - Aylesbury - Brackley (junction for XC line from Banbury) - Rugby Central (potential diversion, but trackbed mostly intact - connection to WCML for infrastructure traffic) - Lutterworth - Leicester Central - Syston - Tollerton - NOTTINGHAM VICTORIA (complete rebuild, I like the central location, line from Grantham diverted via Weekday Cross) - Annesley - (diverts to follow M1) - Staveley - Woodhouse (HS2a ends) - (quadrupled conventional line to) SHEFFIELD VICTORIA - (125 mph electrified line to) Penistone - (ditto to) Woodhead (use new bore for up and cut a fourth bore for down) - Hadfield - MANCHESTER PICCADILLY

You have my vote there

 

[Geezertronic]

I would keep the route as it is, there is no point missing out Birmingham Airport or even Birmingham itself. Although I would 4 track London to the connection with the WCML at Lichfield with a view to extending the 4 track to the "Y" where the line is proposed to split and go East and West. To not 4 track from Euston to me is a major oversight and restricts capacity

I would also like the extended "Y" line to serve other airports such as East Midlands airport and other major airports further North and maybe incorporating Biirmingham-type spurs to other cities instead of directing the line that way. Presumably there would be a connection somewhere further North with the ECML?

 

[gordonthemoron]

I haven't noticed this point mentioned, but:

Is HS2 going to built to continental loading gauge (Bern) standard?

If so, aren't trains which are allowed to coninue their journeys on the existing network (WCML, ECML etc) going to be restricted to the existing UK loading gauge?

 

[Burkitt]

There will be two fleets of trains, sixteen to the full European loading gauge for services on HS2 only between London and Birmingham, and 40-odd to normal UK gauge for extended services beyond HS2 on conventional lines. Both fleets will be 200m long trains capable of 360kph according to the HS2 Ltd report.

 

[LE Greys]

I would divert all Chiltern services, apart from those on their Main Line running to Bicester or further, into an expanded Baker Street. This would then free up some space at Marylebone, which I would use as the HS2 terminus. I would then extend the Heathrow Express service to Marylebone, and then St Pancras, and withdraw it from Paddington. There will also be an underground walkway between Marylebone and Baker Street.

Mind if I pinch some ideas, Ivo?

The current Metropolitan service to Amersham would extend to Aylesbury, changing over from d.c. to a.c. at Harrow on the Hill. This would allow the current Marylebone-Aylesbury service to extend to Quainton Road, Verney Junction, Buckingham and possibly Towcester and Northampton. There would be a branch to Silverstone for the Grand Prix and some other meetings. Marylebone-Stratford-on-Avon and Marylebone-Birmingham services would transfer to Paddington using the old Ruislip chord, while Marylebone-High Wycombe locals would extend onwards from Aynho Junction to Brackley, Woodford and Rugby (the high speed line would be four track as far as Rugby). I'm assuming that there would be spare capacity at Paddington after Crossrail opens. If not, then I like the expanded Baker Street, it has much better Underground connections than Marylebone. The same is true of the diverted HEX, another good idea, even better if there is the capacity to route it into St Pancras (you might need yet more platforms on the western side, perhaps move Midland Road over a bit). However its done, clearing out Marylebone for HS2 services would be a very good idea, if we could improve Tube connections.

This requires re-electrification of the current fasts between Harrow and Moor Park, and the current main line from Moor Park to Amersham. The new Metropolitan stock would not only have pantographs, but also gangways throughout, loos and air conditioning, top speed 90 mph under the wires, 70 on d.c. The big problem would be three pairs of lines between Harrow and Moor Park, each with its own incompatible signalling system (TVM 430/ERTMS/LUL ATP) and one using d.c. electrification.

I'm also thinking of quadrupling the line between Nottingham and Sheffield. All of the intermediate stations are closed (at least one was in a cutting that has been filled in and built over) but there is at least an option to reopen one or two. The preserved GCR would get enough sponsorship to rebuild the Loughborough bridge, and thus provide an extra pair of lines from Leicester to Nottingham. There are a lot of obstructions, but it might be possible to link up with both ends, so they could run from Leicester Central to Nottingham Arkwright Street. Fund that in exchange for running powers for infrastructure traffic.

Now I have to decide what to do with the Midland Main Line.

 

[gordonthemoron]

It may be difficult for GCR to reach Arkwright Street, as between there and South Wilford, the old GCR line will be (mostly) used up by a new tram line

 

[Ivo]

Anyone can "pinch my ideas", so long as I get some credit if they come to fruition! It's not as though I haven't had my fair share yet.

But alas, I can't see re-wiring occurring north of Harrow any time soon. Not unless TfL have secretly requested that pantograph capabilities be fitted to the 8-car 'S'-stock units.

 

[generalvegitable]

I would keep the route pretty much as it is planned to be, but include a station and junction somewhere near Bicester to connect with the east west rail link, and make sure that it joins the ex GCR north of Quainton Road (due to the railway centre), I would also extend the met line to Bletchley & Buckingham (via verney junction), also withdrawing the chiltern services from the Aylesbury branch (keeping the line to high wicombe). this is probably one of the most likely ideas

 

[starrymarkb]

Am I right in thinking that while the GCR was built with larger clearences in mind - it is not to High Speed alignments or indeed Bern Gauge?

Mind you - there is a loony on another forum that insists any line must go through with all trains stopping at Middlesborough

 

[Waverley125]

HS2a: LONDON EUSTON-Brent-Harrow-Rickmansworth-Bovingdon-Miswell-Buckingham-Warwick-BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL-Tysesley-BIRMINGHAM NEW STREET-Chasetown-Colwich-Calverswall-Gawsworth-Hazel Grove-Woodley-MANCHESTER VICTORIA-Farnworth-Lostock-PRESTON-Winmarleigh-Stodday-Ackenthwaite-OXENHOLME-Langwathby-CARLISLE-Moffat-Limekilburn-GLASGOW CENTRAL

HS2b: Rickmansworth-Hemel Mepstead-Dunstable-Stagdsen-Corby-Wyfordby-Clipston-NOTTINGHAM-Newstead-Calow-Dore-SHEFFIELD-Meadowhall-Jump-Newmillderdam-Ossett-Beeston-LEEDS-Scholes-Sharrow-Shildon-Blaydon-NEWCASTLE-Wideopen-Coldstream-Dalkeith-EDINBURGH

You then use the 'classic lines' to provide better journey connections in between the major centres, as a short journey time already exists. So, for instance, ECML services to Leeds might extend on to Bradford Forster Square, Harrogate or Skipton, while also making additional calls at Hitchin and Huntingdon.

On the MML Luton, St Albans, Bedford, Kettering etc. might all get regular services to Sheffield, while Rotherham, Barnsley, Melton Mowbray, Mansfield, Worksop and Matlock could all get direct London services.

On the WCML calls could be reintroduced at Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield etc. to give better connections to the north from the Trent Valley.

 

[The Planner]

This would allow the current Marylebone-Aylesbury service to extend to Quainton Road, Verney Junction, Buckingham and possibly Towcester and Northampton. There would be a branch to Silverstone for the Grand Prix and some other meetings.

The Silverstone branch would be a white elephant as it would hardly ever be used.

Marylebone-High Wycombe locals would extend onwards from Aynho Junction to Brackley, Woodford and Rugby (the high speed line would be four track as far as Rugby).

You would need a reversal at Banbury to get to Brackley, the Brackley branch ran from the station and veered off before Aynho in the wrong direction. Woodford could be done by going off on the old track to the North of Banbury.

 

[Geezertronic]

HS2a: LONDON EUSTON-Brent-Harrow-Rickmansworth-Bovingdon-Miswell-Buckingham-Warwick-BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL-Tysesley-BIRMINGHAM NEW STREET-Chasetown-Colwich-Calverswall-Gawsworth-Hazel Grove-Woodley-MANCHESTER VICTORIA-Farnworth-Lostock-PRESTON-Winmarleigh-Stodday-Ackenthwaite-OXENHOLME-Langwathby-CARLISLE-Moffat-Limekilburn-GLASGOW CENTRAL

People keep going on about Birmingham International and Birmingham New Street, I would sure like to know how either station could handle the extra capacity that a High Speed line would require, especially the through lines which would seem to be impossible at New Street unless you want to trundle through the station at 10mph

 

[LE Greys]

The Silverstone branch would be a white elephant as it would hardly ever be used.



You would need a reversal at Banbury to get to Brackley, the Brackley branch ran from the station and veered off before Aynho in the wrong direction. Woodford could be done by going off on the old track to the North of Banbury.

I meant Ashendon Junction between Haddenham and Biecester. XC services coming in from the south would call Reading-Oxford-Banbury-Brackley (reverse)-Rugby Central.

Incidentally, the GCR was to Berne gauge, and any structures that would have fouled the loading gauge have either been demolished or are in positions where the alignment can be adjusted around them. It may not be entirely to high speed alignments, but there's no reason why the contractor can't be creative in places. It's not as if there is any track on most of it. In quadrupled sections, the 100 mph relief lines would probably run better on the old trackbed and structures, leaving the 200 mph fast lines to find a new alignment parallel to the old one. They already have to divert around the edge of Brackley and find an all-new route between Leicester and Nottingham.

 

[The Planner]

I meant Ashendon Junction between Haddenham and Biecester. XC services coming in from the south would call Reading-Oxford-Banbury-Brackley (reverse)-Rugby Central.

Still need a reverse at Banbury for the XC services, you cant go Banbury Brackley without one.

 

[Christopher125]

Incidentally, the GCR was to Berne gauge

If i remember correctly this is one of those 'urban myths' that has grown up over time - it was built to a generous gauge for the UK, but it wasnt to continental standards.

Chris

 

[starrymarkb]

Indeed - esp as the GCR was built before Bern Gauge was adopted as the standard...

 

[tripleseis]

I would keep the route pretty much as it is planned to be, but include a station and junction somewhere near Bicester to connect with the east west rail link

This.

I'd build a parkway station similar to Haute-Picardie in France (with 4 tracks to allow for passing trains). You'd obviously have an interchange with the East-West/Varsity Line to allow rail connections to Oxford and Bletchley and beyond. Plus a road link with a Park & Ride to allow people to park their cars and catch the train to London or Birmingham.

 

[jopsuk]

How much money have I got to play with? If it's "put in a ridiculously low estimate and then go wildly over budget to an extent that makes the Scottish Parliament building project look wel managed): Basically, I wouldn't build HS2. Whilst it would cause more disruption for longer, I'd work on converting the GWML, WCML, MML and ECML to be four track throughout with the "fast" lines up the middle (re)built to 300KM/h (or more) LGV standards.

Most intermediate stations would have slow-line only platforms, larger regional ones four platforms with through roads in the middle, under, over or (where none of these is feasible) diverted round town completely.

In (conjested) places, I'd have an extra pair of freight lines, not always running paralel but perhaps diverted away to better serve industry- for instance, bypassing towns but with freight interchanges by industrial parks.

I'd look to upgrade the GEML, Brighton ML, SWML, Transpenine main routes and Edinburgh-Falkirk-Glasgow to 200km/h min as well (125mph).

With major spend and extended period of pain, we could potentially tranform our Victorian network into a 21st century network.

 

[j0hn0]

well that certainly would be a MAJOR spend if the WCML "upgrade" was anything to go by
I think that the published plan is pretty much spot on. I am sure that in many years, more and more will be built due to the benefits of living in one city/near an interchange and being able to work in another city.
For people like me and my girlfriend, it is very appealing.

I like the use of existing corridors and the fact that the termini will both be in the middle of the cities (almost)

Really can't fault it, and that suprises me

 

[Geezertronic]

With major spend and extended period of pain, we could potentially tranform our Victorian network into a 21st century network.

You've obviously been at the alcohol already

 

[marty92]

If id come up with the plans they have I shoot myself, I am not against a HS network but surely it should be entirely underground, we have proved beyond doubt that 10mlof snow or rain and Britain grounds to a halt, an overground HS rail is pathetic - just take a look at the overground section of HS1 dead in winter!

I watched the speech in parliament today talk about a boy looking for a new toy!

 

[jon0844]

Entirely underground? Is that a joke???

 

[Geezertronic]

Entirely underground? Is that a joke???

He must think that the HS2 is 300bn for the amount all that tunneling will cost

 

[jon0844]

Naturally, it would have to be built as two cores, with a central escape tunnel, for emergencies.. and maybe have it come to the surface a few times for access. Should be dirt cheap to build.

Still, it would join up nicely with HS3 that will run to New York... although it's HS4 to Oz that I'm eagerly awaiting most.

 

[marty92]

This will likely end up costing at least 10x more than we are told so 300bn sounds pretty good.

What will be the true environmental/personal cost ...300bn suddenly looks positively cheap doesn't it!

They could have a straight line route without all the overland disruption and all the errors they make during construction would be hidden!!

Further the central tunnel could be the new unaffected by weather M40!

 

[jon0844]

If HS2 overspends by 10x and ends up costing £300bn, then the tunnel idea would presumably cost £3000bn.

I doubt I'd be able to afford the HS2 surcharge for a while.

 

[WatcherZero]

Well if 18km twin bore tunnels (Crossrail) cost almost exactly £1.25bn, say conservately £1.875bn for triple bore (I know a overexageration but work with me), thats £18.75bn for just 180km of HS2 length tunnels alone, not including track, trains, signals, stations, electrification, etc...., tunneling is 1/13th of Crossrails total cost, so grand total of £243bn?

 

[marty92]

not including track, trains, signals, stations, electrification, etc....

Are they not required if its overland then....

243bn sounds a little extortionate maybe we should get the Eastern European labour to dig it would be more like 24.3bn

Why does this country insist on paying top dollar for everything!