Two HS2 questions (speculative)

[Shrop]

Please let me introduce myself. I joined this site today and have a lifelong interest in railways, although I’ve never been employed in the industry. I’ve just retired from working in transport and traffic management, but mainly with roads. My interest in railways leads me to ask two questions about HS2 and I wondered if anyone on this site could shed any light on them.

Some 15 years ago I was at a presentation about HS2 in Manchester, to Chartered Engineers. During question time, I asked why the route was to run via Heathrow since the M1 corridor route seemed a much more logical choice. I said Heathrow shouldn’t be necessary, but that it would force the continuation to run via the Chilterns, which would lead to masses of objections. The answer was that it had already been decided and very little more, yet lo and behold the Heathrow imperative was later dropped. Nevertheless, despite the M1 corridor offering many advantages including a cost saving of some £20bn, no change has even been considered.

So question 1 – is the refusal to change now that Heathrow has been downgraded, purely because it would be too politically embarrassing to do so (both in Government and among HS2 hierarchy)?

And question 2 – was HS2 considered as complete project, or is the truth that Phase One was considered in isolation with nothing more than lip service to anything beyond Birmingham? This then led to Phase Two being designed with Phase One as a given, which of course makes Phase Two vulnerable and hence the crazy talk that in order to save money, it may only ever go as far as Birmingham. Was it really always a complete project to benefit the country or is any talk of this just a smokescreen to cover the mistake of not actually doing so?

I would be very pleased to learn more about the project from anyone who knows about it!

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Please let me introduce myself. I joined this site today and have a lifelong interest in railways, although I’ve never been employed in the industry. I’ve just retired from working in transport and traffic management, but mainly with roads. My interest in railways leads me to ask two questions about HS2 and I wondered if anyone on this site could shed any light on them.

Some 15 years ago I was at a presentation about HS2 in Manchester, to Chartered Engineers. During question time, I asked why the route was to run via Heathrow since the M1 corridor route seemed a much more logical choice. I said Heathrow shouldn’t be necessary, but that it would force the continuation to run via the Chilterns, which would lead to masses of objections. The answer was that it had already been decided and very little more, yet lo and behold the Heathrow imperative was later dropped. Nevertheless, despite the M1 corridor offering many advantages including a cost saving of some £20bn, no change has even been considered.

So question 1 – is the refusal to change now that Heathrow has been downgraded, purely because it would be too politically embarrassing to do so (both in Government and among HS2 hierarchy)?

And question 2 – was HS2 considered as complete project, or is the truth that Phase One was considered in isolation with nothing more than lip service to anything beyond Birmingham? This then led to Phase Two being designed with Phase One as a given, which of course makes Phase Two vulnerable and hence the crazy talk that in order to save money, it may only ever go as far as Birmingham. Was it really always a complete project to benefit the country or is any talk of this just a smokescreen to cover the mistake of not actually doing so?

I would be very pleased to learn more about the project from anyone who knows about it!

Do you know that for certain? If so, the answer maybe Old Oak Common a massive interchange in West London.

I think it has always been considered as one project in two phases.

 

[Camden]

"That was the decision" seems to be at the heart of anything HS2. It's nothing more than the realisation of a set of arbitrary lines drawn between arbitrarily decided places. To admit one seedy truth would be to have to admit them all to be true, and so the project rumbles on, with progress only undermining opportunities to put things right

Your point about phase 1 v phase 2 is interesting. When judged on its own merits, Phase 1 (or even Phase 1 plus the western side of Phase 2) could never have been passed. The benefit to cost ratio would have been too low. It was only as a full project (and on the basis of those now known to be iffy prices) that it dubiously and creatively managed to score above the necessary 2.

Were only phase 1 to be built, or only phase 1 and 2a, it would mean "we" have built something which we otherwise wouldn't have had it been judged on its own merits.

 

[quantinghome]

Nevertheless, despite the M1 corridor offering many advantages including a cost saving of some £20bn, no change has even been considered.

I don't know where the figure of £20bn you quote comes from. I doubt that an alternative route would offer significant savings, particularly one along the M1 corridor where there is greater population than the proposed route and therefore more housing demolition and/or tunnelling. I can't see any advantages to be honest. Contrary to what some posters express, many routes were considered by HS2 before deciding on the current one, including the M1 corridor.

The planned route via a station in West London provides a direct connection to Crossrail, Heathrow Express and Great Western, which will be a massive improvement in connectivity compared to the existing main lines to the Midlands and North. A route via the M1 would just continue the poor connectivity we currently have to live with.

 

[Geezertronic]

I also assume that a route via the M1 corridor wouldn't offer the same speeds that the current route offers due to its more twisty nature

 

[Jocques]

The cost has spiralled from £15-20 billion to more than double because they keep underestimating things. Additionally, places like Liverpool are trying to bribe them to get the route extended there by offering partial funding.

Originally, the plan was just London to Birmingham. However, because this would be yet another debacle that divides the country, the route was extended at a much higher price than would make sense (double the length wouldn't be double the price).

I'm all for progress, but HS2 is a massive folly. I admit though that this is off topic, we'd be here all day discussing that, so I'll keep the ranting to a minimum.

 

[Bald Rick]

To answer the questions:

1) the route was never to go via Heathrow. There was a proposal for a separate branch, which was not pursued. Hundreds of routes were considered. The one chosen was because it offered the best balance of cost and benefit. It is also, notably, just about as short as possible between Londo and the West Midlands, (and thus offers the best journey time). Going via the ‘M1’ corridor would be longer and likely to be more expensive. It would certainly not be £20bn cheaper, as the latest Ph1 cost is £27bn.

2) HS2 was always developed, from the start, in full. It was divided into phases to spread the spend and resource profile and help with the consents.

 

[squizzler]

HS2 is an emotive topic on this forum (indeed, in transport discourse at large) and there is as such a lot of trolling on the topic. Regrettably my own alarm bells are ringing as to the sincerity of your post:

• This is the first time you have posted to this forum.
• You claim to be a lifelong transport professional but you ask questions about HS2 within National transport policy I would assume to be elementary to transport insiders.
• You claim to be a lifelong rail fan yet have not followed this project outside a presentation as part of your professional career, 15 years ago.

I apologise if you are genuinely seeking answers, I suggest you use some of your retirement time to catch up on back issues of your trade journal (or check the Wikipedia page)!

 

[6Gman]

Nevertheless, despite the M1 corridor offering many advantages including a cost saving of some £20bn, no change has even been considered.

Could you list some of these "many advantages"?

 

[AM9]

HS2 is an emotive topic on this forum (indeed, in transport discourse at large) and there is as such a lot of trolling on the topic. Regrettably my own alarm bells are ringing as to the sincerity of your post:

• This is the first time you have posted to this forum.
• You claim to be a lifelong transport professional but you ask questions about HS2 within National transport policy I would assume to be elementary to transport insiders.
• You claim to be a lifelong rail fan yet have not followed this project outside a presentation as part of your professional career, 15 years ago.

I apologise if you are genuinely seeking answers, I suggest you use some of your retirement time to catch up on back issues of your trade journal (or check the Wikipedia page)!

Maybe it is somebody we have seen here before, trying to appear as a new member. It is againnst the forum's rules but I believe that there have been a few in the past.

 

[sprunt]

a set of arbitrary lines drawn between arbitrarily decided places.

What's arbitrary about the two biggest cities in the UK?

 

[Alex McKenna]

It has been firmly established - over and over again - that following the M1 Route would be a financial disaster - an impossibility. (Where all these anti-HS2 "facts" come from is an interesting subject on its own.) And the old Heathrow red-herring - as if one rail line could join up every conceivable transport objective in the entire country..

 

[PeterC]

Could you list some of these "many advantages"?

I don't know any details of the costings but going through the Wendover gap avoids most major conurbations between London and Birmingham. To go through either the Tring or Dunstable gaps would create a strong political pressure for intermediate stops as major centres such as Luton and MK would be much closer. I can see the M1 route as a distinct "advantage" if and only if you simply wanted to put in an additional classic route and possibly remove stops to speed up the existing WCML.

 

[Shrop]

Thanks to everyone who has responded, there are too many comments to answer in full, but I will address some as follows.

Firstly, lack of spare time has prevented my joining this forum earlier – there is no need for alarm bells, I am absolutely genuine and have not joined previously under any other name! But in addition I have many experiences of rail travel with shoddy treatment of passengers which has led to dismay and my making complaints, but the replies have often been poor to say the least, which has led me to pursue other interests rather than just becoming frustrated with the rail industry. However, answers to the questions I have asked have always eluded me which is why I have joined this site now, and I hope this leads to constructive discussions.

Yes, I understand the Crossrail draw, but I still believe the West London route was heavily influenced by the proximity of Heathrow.

Years after my Manchester meeting I learned about the HSUK proposals. I trust that most or all respondents to my post are familiar with this? I have no connections to this group but their proposals are worth looking at http://www.highspeeduk.co.uk/. Note that this proposal runs to Manchester and Liverpool via Sheffield, thus making much of the Northern Powerhouse corridor inherent, instead of the huge cost implications of a whole new route for this corridor.

I firmly support the need for a new high speed route, it’s as important to the railways as motorways are to the road network, ie to relieve congestion on existing routes. The need for an HS route is even more important as it has potential benefits to the road network too, because of the much improved capacity it would generate on existing rail routes for intermediate stations and freight.

I’ve not seen a convincing answer about priorities for northern cities such as Sheffield, Leeds, Teesside, Tyneside and Scotland, and also for Manchester and Liverpool. All of these seem to benefit only from the Phase One Birmingham route via the Chilterns, and as many regularly point out in the general press, saving just half an hour between London and Birmingham simply doesn’t justify the project cost. Think about it, except for a couple of southbound services in the morning peak, try finding any train running between Birmingham and London that stops less than THREE TIMES in only just over 110 miles. What does this say about the need for faster end to end services on this section?

The benefits to cities further north should have been the first priority, it seems to be only the way our country panders to politics that has made Phase One so important. Other countries consider projects like this as a whole rather than in fragments, it's just a shame that we apparently can't do so.

 

[30907]

The planned route via a station in West London provides a direct connection to Crossrail, Heathrow Express and Great Western, which will be a massive improvement in connectivity compared to the existing main lines to the Midlands and North. A route via the M1 would just continue the poor connectivity we currently have to live with.

The other practical reason for a West London routing is the existence of the redundant ex-GW railway formation through the suburbs.

 

[Ianno87]

All of these seem to benefit only from the Phase One Birmingham route via the Chilterns, and as many regularly point out in the general press, saving just half an hour between London and Birmingham simply doesn’t justify the project cost. Think about it, except for a couple of southbound services in the morning peak, try finding any train running between Birmingham and London that stops less than THREE TIMES in only just over 110 miles. What does this say about the need for faster end to end services on this section?

In spite of its name, speed is only peripheral to the purpose of HS2.

It's real point is to be a new line to take existing fast services off the WCML onto a new pair of tracks, meaning the capacity of theexisting tracks can be used to better serve places like Milton Keynes, Rugby and Northampton (rather than residents of those places just watch fast trains pass them by)

But if you're going to build a new line, you might as well make it high speed for the relatively small extra cost this entails. And higher speed means you need fewer trains, smaller depots, etc.

Yes, I understand the Crossrail draw, but I still believe the West London route was heavily influenced by the proximity of Heathrow.

Of course it was. The route offers the link to Heathrow, and dispersal onto Crossrail and the shortest route to Birmingham. Those three things together make it a (pardon the term) "No Brainer"

The benefits to cities further north should have been the first priority,

Northern cities will benefit from faster trains to Euston, and potentially better links to the Home Counties via WCML services, from Day 1.

 

[edwin_m]

The other practical reason for a West London routing is the existence of the redundant ex-GW railway formation through the suburbs.

However after further work it turned out to be cheaper to put HS2 underground on this section than to upgrade the existing surface route. So it could have left London in pretty much any direction at similar cost. At least it means the surface route is still there, though severed by the Old Oak Common station, with the prospect of using it for Chiltern services to OOC.

 

[si404]

I can't be bothered to deal with detailed points beyond it being very good value to save £20 billion on a phase 1 costed until recently at £16 billion.

In no particular order:
1) the Wendover gap route is the flattest and shortest route between London and the Midlands - Amersham was on the original plans for the Grand Union Canal, West Coast Mainline and was even an option for the M1 (other routes too). But opposition in Bucks and encouragement from Herts routed the major corridor away each time (GCML excepted, but the NIMBYs got it away from the Misbourne Valley instead climbing up to the ridge where people didn't live, and then down into the Chess Valley with a pretty steep hill).

2) the M1 goes through the Chilterns. And when I say through, I mean against the grain and everything. I don't think the vertical curvature of the terrain is particularly suited to High Speed Rail - it would need to have either a lot of visual impact with viaducts, or be a tunnel most of the way to soften the changes in grade (the Chilterns tunnel is to avoid urban areas, and the cutting to minimise impact on the AONB). Luton/Dunstable would need to be tunnelled anyway. They can't even widen the M1 (smart motorways were a relief to the team wondering how to widen J10-12 without adding more tarmac) as the urban area hems it in - there's no way you'll get a railway there!

3) building High Speed Railways alongside motorways is a mistake environmentally as it creates islands where wildlife can't access/escape from. We learnt lessons from HS1.

4) the New North Mainline provides an easy tunneling corridor out of London that even the Midland Mainline corridor doesn't - pretty easy to put vent shafts in, few foundations to avoid, not many residential areas right on top.

 

[Shrop]

In spite of its name, speed is only peripheral to the purpose of HS2.

It's real point is to be a new line to take existing fast services off the WCML onto a new pair of tracks, meaning the capacity of theexisting tracks can be used to better serve places like Milton Keynes, Rugby and Northampton (rather than residents of those places just watch fast trains pass them by)

But if you're going to build a new line, you might as well make it high speed for the relatively small extra cost this entails. And higher speed means you need fewer trains, smaller depots, etc.



Of course it was. The route offers the link to Heathrow, and dispersal onto Crossrail and the shortest route to Birmingham. Those three things together make it a (pardon the term) "No Brainer"



Northern cities will benefit from faster trains to Euston, and potentially better links to the Home Counties via WCML services, from Day 1.

Your first point ... Yes, I agree
Your second point ... The shortest route to Birmingham is a poor objective, as I've said. Northern cities should have been the primary objective.
Your third point ... You've simply highlighted the point that Northern cities are a secondary objective, which should not be the case. You've also ignored my point about the benefits of the Northern Powerhouse corridor, which thus negates your second point about the Heathrow Link - Birmingham choice being a No-Brainer. Crossrail isn't the only consideration here, Euston is served by several underground lines, whereas Crossrail is also served by HS1. Ah, but lo and behold, we come to another shortfall of HS2, ie its lack of link to HS1. There is so little joined up thinking here, and unfortunately all you seem to have done is toe the line of the blinkered HS2 programme!

 

[swt_passenger]

Your first point ... Yes, I agree
Your second point ... The shortest route to Birmingham is a poor objective, as I've said. Northern cities should have been the primary objective.
Your third point ... You've simply highlighted the point that Northern cities are a secondary objective, which should not be the case. You've also ignored my point about the benefits of the Northern Powerhouse corridor, which thus negates your second point about the Heathrow Link - Birmingham choice being a No-Brainer. Crossrail isn't the only consideration here, Euston is served by several underground lines, whereas Crossrail is also served by HS1. Ah, but lo and behold, we come to another shortfall of HS2, ie its lack of link to HS1. There is so little joined up thinking here, and unfortunately all you seem to have done is toe the line of the blinkered HS2 programme!

With respect, your questions have been asked and answered so many times before though, when you started a few days ago you missed the live thread about HS2 general discussion. I think many people who would have provided satisfactory answers are suffering from HS2 fatigue...

 

[yoyothehobo]

The reason there is no link from HS2 to HS1 is that its not really required. I cant imagine there are a vast number of people living in Birmingham who need to travel quickly to Ashford International on a daily basis. There are not going to be through services to the continent as you would need baggage and passport control at every single station on the route where you wished to offer through services. There is absolutely no need to connect the two with through services.

I still dont get why you think having the shortest route to Birmingham is a poor objective? Birmingham is geographically north-south halfway between London and the North, It is half way east-west between Leeds and Manchester, you build two links up either side and get some major population centres each side.

Of course the Northern cities are a secondary objective, if you dont build phase 1 to Birmingham, none of the rest of it gets built. If you build phase 2 first for some reason you end up with a bunch of high speed trains then having nowhere to go on the congested network to London.

If you look at how the French have built there LGV network they nearly all were built starting in Paris and incremently working their way outwards.

Northern powerhouse rail is a completely different kettle of fish and the east-west long distance flows are much less compared to the north-south long distance flows.

 

[si404]

Ah, but lo and behold, we come to another shortfall of HS2, ie its lack of link to HS1.

The study that pushed for a physical direct track link (as commissioned to make case for it) had to have people get off trains at Stratford (including from East London and Docklands places served directly by Crossrail!), walk to Stratford International and then get a train to the North that runs through OOC. The walk through Westfield is nearly as far as the one from Euston to St Pancras but no one was modelled walking that as that would completely kill any case!

The majority of people arriving at OOC from HS1 got off and boarded Crossrail or GWML trains (with Crossrail the most popular option). And fewer than a quarter crossed the Channel (with most of those that did having a British destination in SE England, accessed via OOC, rather than the north. It would be an expensive intra-SE link with less than a quarter of users crossing the M25 on both HS1 and HS2 (and most of those are coming from Kentish Commuter Belt destinations).

And that's before we get to the problem that through trains are going to be limited in northern and continental destinations - Curzon Street wouldn't see such trains, nor Brussels. They can stop everywhere en route to maximise ridership, but then we slow the trains down by so much that it's no quicker and thus easier to change in London for Manchester-Paris (especially if LGV Picardie is built) journeys.

For a tenth of the cost a moving walkway could be built between the London termini and not only serve all the same flows as a physical track connection but stuff like HS2-Thameslink, WCML-HS1 and HS1-2 flows like Liverpool-Paris, Birmingham-Brussels and Manchester-Disney that a track link couldn't serve without severing links to central London (even 1tph is going to be hard to fit on HS2 without dropping a Euston-North train. Ditto the GWML into Paddington, and probably the case for Eurostar that a beyond-London train has to replace a London train).

There is so little joined up thinking here

"joined up thinking" doesn't mean joining stuff up unthinkingly, as proponents of the HS1-2 link like to do.

 

[Geezertronic]

2) the M1 goes through the Chilterns. And when I say through, I mean against the grain and everything. I don't think the vertical curvature of the terrain is particularly suited to High Speed Rail - it would need to have either a lot of visual impact with viaducts, or be a tunnel most of the way to soften the changes in grade (the Chilterns tunnel is to avoid urban areas, and the cutting to minimise impact on the AONB). Luton/Dunstable would need to be tunnelled anyway. They can't even widen the M1 (smart motorways were a relief to the team wondering how to widen J10-12 without adding more tarmac) as the urban area hems it in - there's no way you'll get a railway there!

I would suggest that you mean the M40 not the M1 as the M40 goes straight through the Chilterns AONB area

 

[EE Andy b1]

For me HS2 should have happened 30 years ago when Europe were building there High Speed railways.

I really believe that if HS2 and the DfT was serious about going to the North West & East Midlands/North East then the build would have started from both ends and then join up towards Litchfield and Birmingham. I think they came up with the right route in the end as others have said.

The way it's going (if it does) the money will all be used up getting to Birmingham and perhaps Crewe and then that will be it.

 

[si404]

@Geezertronic - no, I definitely meant the M1 - the mention of Luton/Dunstable ought to have tipped you off that I'm not confused.

The M1 in Herts goes through dip slope landscape that is little different to other bits that are protected across the county boundary in Bucks (and Dacorum / Three Rivers have finally starting pressing for the inclusion of the Bovingdon-Chipperfield area in Herts - that's was near identical to the area the other side of the Gade until Hemel Hempstead and the M1 were built over it). The scarp slope area in Beds/N Herts north and east of Luton that wasn't already built on after 10 years of M1-related development is protected, but the horse had bolted for the rest.

The Hills don't end where the protection that AONB status gives does, but even if you ignore that Herts were much more stingy about dip slope inclusion than Bucks and that Beds doesn't put anywhere that might see reasonable development (urban areas, motorways) in then you still can't deny that the AONB gets very close to the Motorway and the route from the Colne to Chalton is mostly in cutting or embankment due to the hilly nature of the terrain (the bit that doesn't, from Hemel to Redbourn is classic Chiltern chalk plateau) - and despite that remains a motorway whose vertical profile is 'rolling'.

You'd be hard pushed to not have pretty much the whole of a High Speed railway along the M1 in tunnel, deep cutting or viaduct from Central London to the Chiltern ridge - OK, the actual route likewise, but Chalton is further than Stoke Mandeville!

Obviously the M40 likewise bashes through the Chilterns problematically (in a worse way than the M1 - not least due to the way it doesn't find a gap to cross the Ridge), but the discussion was M1 and I meant M1.

 

[MarkyT]

For a tenth of the cost a moving walkway could be built between the London termini and not only serve all the same flows as a physical track connection but stuff like HS2-Thameslink, WCML-HS1 and HS1-2 flows like Liverpool-Paris, Birmingham-Brussels and Manchester-Disney that a track link couldn't serve without severing links to central London (even 1tph is going to be hard to fit on HS2 without dropping a Euston-North train. Ditto the GWML into Paddington, and probably the case for Eurostar that a beyond-London train has to replace a London train).
"joined up thinking" doesn't mean joining stuff up unthinkingly, as proponents of the HS1-2 link like to do.

Even without an improved pedestrian connection it would be difficult to take more than 10 to 15 minutes to walk between any of the the Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross terminals, but it is the quality of the various alternative on street routes that makes it seem a bigger gap than it really is. At their closest points St Pancras and Euston stations are no more than 500m apart, but individual platform to platform interchange distances will vary and always be rather more than this, with existing road layouts also all imposing a fairly roundabout route between the terminals and adding further distance and requiring multiple at grade interactions with road traffic with time and safety impacts. As you state from the study, fairly infrequent international paths would be a complete waste of capacity on HS2 and the lack of frequency and paucity of destinations could never be very attractive compared to the all day hub and spoke operation that a notional London interchange could offer. With London in the bottom right corner of the UK it can function very well as the continental gateway for Europe while not taking away any of the lucrative London market journey possibilities and frequencies on any of the domestic intercity and HS routes. The three North London terminals arrayed along the Euston Road are all fairly close together and could be considered as the unified long distance domestic and International gateway hub for London. Any new linkage between them, whether with APM, moving walkways, or simply a vastly improved protected and prioritised route for walking alone would be a similar distance to, and in some cases significantly shorter than, many airport inter terminal and terminal to gate links. The single dual entrance Crossrail 2 station planned to serve both Kings Cross/St Pancras and Euston complexes demonstrates the proximity of the terminals already and if built will provide a covered route via its platforms, but at the expense of a full descent and ascent to platfrom level via escalators, and possibly fighting through crowds along the platform at busy times if a through centre tunnel between the platforms isn't provided for the full length. I expect for those who already have Oyster and other TfL valid tickets, that will provide a fairly fast and viable route nonetheless, even if only when it is raining! Using the tube (Victoria say) for a one stop short hop would require just as much walking to and from subteranean platforms as any surface route, and much more than the possible Crossrail 2 alternative. It would also involve a wait for a train and the train journey time itself.

 

[si404]

I think waiting for CR2 to provide a high quality link would be a mistake.

 

[MarkyT]

I think waiting for CR2 to provide a high quality link would be a mistake.

I agree it should be pursued by local authorities as something that would bring much benefit today. It struck me as perverse that the local urban planning studies that were carried out for Euston completely omitted these considerations while going into vast detail on community access across the new station site. Another consideration is the vast former railway lands development north of Kings Cross which really deserves a much improved pedestrian linkage across to Euston. Jumping on the tube for one stop is bonkers as it involves just as much walking underground as if you walked all the way on the surface. When I lived in Herts and occasionally used WCML, I never ever used tube or bus to transfer from KX, even in the rain, and despite the walk alongside Euston Road exposing me to possibly some of the worst urban air quality in the western world.

 

[edwin_m]

Part of the problem with Euston-KX walking links (including moving walkways) is that the existing Euston station is in between the HS2 station site and the quickest route to St Pancras (via the back streets, into the entrance near Thameslink, continue straight on for Kings Cross). There are vague ideas about re-building the classic Euston station, but HS2 doesn't want to be dependent on that or to pay for it, and it probably makes sense to wait until after completion of the Phase 2 station when there will be less pressure on the existing platforms.

 

[Shrop]

With respect, your questions have been asked and answered so many times before though, when you started a few days ago you missed the live thread about HS2 general discussion. I think many people who would have provided satisfactory answers are suffering from HS2 fatigue...

Thanks, yes I probably have missed a good few of the answers. The thing is though, from recent comments since I've started this thread, I've not seen anything that's convinced me about the merits of the Chiltern route, I've only seen one regularly repeated train of thought (pun not intended!) which is to find the same old unconvincing reasons to support this route, possibly only ever to Birmingham and maybe Crewe, without enough consideration of either Northern cities, or the HS1-HS2 link. The argument that people won't want to travel from Birmingham to Ashford is a crazy example, when Birmingham or Manchester, or Sheffield, or Leeds, or Liverpool, or Tyneside etc to Amsterdam, Brussels, Frankfurt, Munich, Cologne, Paris, Lyon and a host of other European destinations are very real journey options. People don't always want these trips by plane because they don't give much chance to eat, sleep, work etc, whereas train trips do. This is one of the reason why Concorde stopped, because people were finding three hours was too short. There's a parallel here for HS1-HS2 to replace a lot of air trips, and that's without even thinking about the merits of night travel.