Two HS2 questions (speculative)

[The Ham]

Have you looked at the HSUK proposals? The Northern cities are well served, and services to Birmingham are improved, but as countless people have said, spending a fortune to shave not very much time off this section really isn’t worth a lot.

To say “if you don't build phase 1 to Birmingham, none of the rest of it gets built” is completely wrong. Have a look, especially at their maps ... http://www.highspeeduk.co.uk/B00 161222 HSUK Brochure.pdf

If you look at the detailed maps they show that to get out of Central London they are, rather than proposing a new line, proposing the use of the MML. Given the number of existing services which use it (including some Thameslink services) there's not going to be much capacity for more services.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If you look at the detailed maps they show that to get out of Central London they are, rather than proposing a new line, proposing the use of the MML. Given the number of existing services which use it (including some Thameslink services) there's not going to be much capacity for more services.

I don't think that's quite correct. On page 4 of the quoted document, they state:

HSUK’s route to central London alongside the Midland Main Line allows for a simple link to HS1, costing less than £1 million, built on existing operational railway land.

In other words, it looks to me like they are proposing to build 4 additional tracks alongside the Midland Main line in London and then alongside the M1 further North. I can't figure out from that document where in London they are proposing to terminate it though. (Still not sure how they propose to get that to work though, as a quick look at Google maps suggests the required spare land alongside the MML in London just isn't there, other than a shortish stretch around Cricklewood. And I would imagine that the curves on the M1 are far too tight for high speed rail running)

 

[The Ham]

I don't think that's quite correct. On page 4 of the quoted document, they state:



In other words, it looks to me like they are proposing to build 4 additional tracks alongside the Midland Main line in London and then alongside the M1 further North. I can't figure out from that document where in London they are proposing to terminate it though. (Still not sure how they propose to get that to work though, as a quick look at Google maps suggests the required spare land alongside the MML in London just isn't there, other than a shortish stretch around Cricklewood. And I would imagine that the curves on the M1 are far too tight for high speed rail running)

Whether it's using the existing line or a new pair of lines alongside (the cost of rebuilding the stations would be interesting to see) there's going to be capacity constraints by doing so.

For instance, if you build a new line alongside; what do you do when you get to a junction, do you build the new line over/under, are you able to do so due to other bridges in the area?

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't think that's quite correct. On page 4 of the quoted document, they state:

In other words, it looks to me like they are proposing to build 4 additional tracks alongside the Midland Main line in London and then alongside the M1 further North. I can't figure out from that document where in London they are proposing to terminate it though. (Still not sure how they propose to get that to work though, as a quick look at Google maps suggests the required spare land alongside the MML in London just isn't there, other than a shortish stretch around Cricklewood. And I would imagine that the curves on the M1 are far too tight for high speed rail running)

It’s crayoning of the worst sort.

 

[The Ham]

View media item 3340
With regards to the question relating to why head to Birmingham before heading northwards the above figures may give you a bit of a clue.

In that London flows for the North West in 2008/09 were broadly the same as, but a bit lower than, Yorkshire and the Humber.

Given that the NW had received improved journey times through the West Coast Upgrade it was likely that it would the see greater growth than a route aiming for the NE.

The same is also true of the West Vs East Midlands decision.

Since then the table shows that growth had followed what was expected (only at a higher rate of growth than expected).

As such you would be fairly hard pushed to argue now that the route is the wrong one in terms of East Vs West.