There's a linear work along the valley to the south of the town - almost like they are going to tunnel cut-and-cover a couple of hundred metres north of the actual line.
Maybe they are digging a big hole to put the tunnel spoil in
There's a linear work along the valley to the south of the town - almost like they are going to tunnel cut-and-cover a couple of hundred metres north of the actual line.
Nah, four tunnels, two for trains and two for spoil.Maybe they are digging a big hole to put the tunnel spoil in
They are still hoping to get the Phase 2A Bill though Parliament by the end of 2020. There are only 35 petitions of the Bill for the Lords to consider and some of them have been settled already, withdrawn or not selected. The original Lords programme from March 2020 had them hearing all petitions over a timescale of about two weeks. After that, there's a day or so for Opposition amendments to be considered, a "Special Report" to be written, and the remaining Parliamentary stages of Report, Third Reading and Royal Assent which usually don't take much more than a few days, albeit spread over a few weeks. If I remember correctly, the Lords' Second Reading debate didn't even go to a division (vote) and was thusly passed unanimously, therefore one one expects the remaining Lords votes to be something of a formality.
A newsletter published on the Staffs and Cheshire HS2 "Commonplace" web sites has some commentary on what's upcoming for Phase 2A in the second half of 2020...
Is it clear what the current legislation says about the line between Ruislip and Old Oak Common, what state it will be in?
TunnelIs it clear what the current legislation says about the line between Ruislip and Old Oak Common, what state it will be in?
Thank you both for the links. They refer to the current "Network Rail Wycombe Single", which is the line I'm interested in. Appears to be a long possession with no mention of doubling it.Could you elaborate a bit - I am not quite sure what you wish to explore.
For example, the alignments and so forth have been "settled" for years (in tunnel between the two,) Hillingdon Council have approved a "Schedule 17" Planning application for the Ruislip Portal (here for anyone interested https://planning.hillingdon.gov.uk/...rence=75317/APP/2019/4141&from=planningSearch,) enabling works for construction have been ongoing for years, sites are presently mobilising for construction of the ventilation/intervention shafts along the route, etc.
The redoubling it and extending it to OOC (I know it reached there before the HS2 works started!) is a different project that's at a much earlier stage of development.Appears to be a long possession with no mention of doubling it.
Yes, but it's a separate scheme from HS2 that's only really at the embryonic stage. I've not seen detailed plans, or anything beyond a bag-of-fag-pack notion of costs, a few sentences and a couple of diagrams showing potential service patterns.There was certainly still interest in using the Wycombe Single to provide passenger services to OOC when I last heard a few months ago.
Yes, required as HS2 steams through the middle of the existing A452 roundabout over the M42.There's a closure of the M42 on August 7-9 which looks like it will be putting the new bridge near Birmingham Interchange on its abutments (for a road diverted due to HS2, not HS2 itself).
Thank you both for the links. They refer to the current "Network Rail Wycombe Single", which is the line I'm interested in. Appears to be a long possession with no mention of doubling it.
There's a closure of the M42 on August 7-9 which looks like it will be putting the new bridge near Birmingham Interchange on its abutments (for a road diverted due to HS2, not HS2 itself).
There was a fair amount of chatter at least until a year ago, some of it coming out of Chiltern, about adding a couple of platforms for it at OOC and making it a second terminus for Chiltern trains. The thinking was that it's a good interchange, while Marylebone is painfully constrained and bad for interchange. No idea about the current status of any plans, and I would have thought the platforms themselves would prevent the main obstacle, but on the face of it the bridge looks like it's being built with plenty of space for the track to be reconnected.If you refer to the line that branched off the GWML at the western end of OOC heading towards West Ruislip, I believe it only ran a "Parliamentary" train and even that has been terminated.
Plans submitted for the re-alignment of Old Oak Common Lane suggest that the route is to be permanently severed. The location of the bridge abutments in the plans linked below suggests to me there is no imminent plan to reinstate the route, let alone double it.
Planning application for Old Oak Common Lane re-alignement: http://planningregister.opdc.london.gov.uk/oak/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=20/0011/HS2OPDC&backURL=%3Ca%20href%3Dwphappcriteria.display%3FpaSearchKey%3D221967%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C%2Fa%3E > <a href='wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=283068%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href%3Dwphappcriteria.display%3FpaSearchKey%3D221967%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C%2Fa%3E'>Search Results</a>
This plan shows the area I'm referring to: http://planningregister.opdc.london.gov.uk/oak/MediaTemp/9396-1396789469.pdf
(Planning application 20/0011/HS2OPDC on the OPDC web site if the links go dead.)
At one time, the HS2 scheme had the GMWL "Up Relief" (AKA "Slow" or "Crossrail" line) passing over on a viaduct so that the OOC Crossrail turnback sidings could run underneath (it's in the 2016 plans Si404 linked) which could possibly have been reworked in future to provide a through line, but more recent renders and planning applications for OOC suggest this has been dropped.
Er, not the lawyers.No surprise, but what a waste of everyone's time.
Mr Packham has lost his appeal.
Full judgement here.
Mr Packham has lost his appeal.
Full judgement here.
The text of the judgement includes:But the London Borough of Hillingdon have won theirs. Off to the Supreme Court we go, no doubt...
The council had refused to approve an application for HS2 works to be undertaken on a site in the borough of archaeological importance on the basis that HS2 Ltd had submitted insufficient information in support of it.
HS2 Ltd disagreed with the council's refusal decision and challenged it, by appealing to the government, on the basis that it was not required to provide the information which the council required as it could instead rely upon a suite of non-statutory documents, known as Environmental Minimum Requirements, which would provide the council with the necessary assurances that the archaeological integrity of the site would be maintained and that HS2 Ltd would, if necessary, carry out its own future investigations as a means of safeguarding it.
That suggests the Hillingdon case isn’t aimed at stopping the project.
The only real beneficiaries of all these political games is the lawyers and civil servants who get some extra work producing additional bits of paper. Anyone thinking the Schedule 17 mechanism provides a way to torpedo HS2 is going to be sadly mistaken.