• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

HS2 construction updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,420
And pretty much the same spot for feeding EWR and part of the Chiltern, should the money ever be forthcoming. They keep all the electric at East Claydon, you see...



Yes, as per HS1, LGV etc.
Looking at East Claydon substation ( big innit!) on google maps there are obvious routes where new utilities have been laid, one of which goes to a site on HS2 route. Are they related to supply or just diversions?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
Looking at East Claydon substation ( big innit!) on google maps there are obvious routes where new utilities have been laid, one of which goes to a site on HS2 route. Are they related to supply or just diversions?

Don't know. There was work to take a new (non rail) supply to Bicester from East Claydon in recent years.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
Looking at East Claydon substation ( big innit!) on google maps there are obvious routes where new utilities have been laid, one of which goes to a site on HS2 route. Are they related to supply or just diversions?
Don't know. There was work to take a new (non rail) supply to Bicester from East Claydon in recent years.
That one is pretty easily tracked across to Launton/Bicester, however there is another trace that ends up pretty much where the HS2 IMD is going to be which I suspect is a utility, likely gas,
diversion around the HS2 site.
 

mwmbwls

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2009
Messages
645
With TBM’s now boring the first HS2 tunnels – Tunnel Talk has reported that suggestions have been made for revisions to the Wendover section

HS 2 Wendover Tunnel simplification proposal by Mwmbwls, on Flickr

Is it too late for mitigation measures to be considered?
This came up today in PMQ's
"Hansard:
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
My constituents in Wendover will be worst affected by the construction of phase 1 of High Speed 2, according to the House of Lords. The best mitigation for the village would undoubtedly be a bored mined tunnel, but that has been refused. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that decision? If so, will he ensure that HS2 Ltd and its contractors works constructively with the Wendover HS2 Action Group to minimise noise pollution and avoid damaging the aquifer by other means? [906859]

The Prime Minister
As the Prime Minister, I totally support HS2 and the ambition of linking up our country better. As a local MP, I feel my hon. Friend’s pain and I understand exactly where he is coming from. I have been assured in my conversations with HS2 that it is having extensive engagement with the Wendover group. I know Wendover well, as he knows. I will ask the relevant Minister to make contact with him."

At the moment, the Prime Minister needs all the friends he can find. Knowing the locals I think they will follow the "this ain't over till its over approach".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
At the moment, the Prime Minister needs all the friends he can find. Knowing the locals I think they will follow the "this ain't over till its over approach".

Perhaps it’s not clear.

Diverging from the current plan to build a tunnel would add 5 years to the schedule and several billion to the cost. The extra cost be all the costs of termination existing contracts, and retendering them again in 5 years, plus the costs of having the programme team on board for another five years.

It’s not going to happen. What the PMs answer says is - JS2 will do what they have committed to do to minimise the impact on Wendover.

As it happens I know Wendover too, and the impact on the town itself is relatively small, as the route is going to be in tunnel for 3/4 mile where it runs close to it.
 
Joined
3 Jan 2014
Messages
31
Perhaps it’s not clear.

Diverging from the current plan to build a tunnel would add 5 years to the schedule and several billion to the cost. The extra cost be all the costs of termination existing contracts, and retendering them again in 5 years, plus the costs of having the programme team on board for another five years.

It’s not going to happen. What the PMs answer says is - JS2 will do what they have committed to do to minimise the impact on Wendover.

As it happens I know Wendover too, and the impact on the town itself is relatively small, as the route is going to be in tunnel for 3/4 mile where it runs close to it.
As a resident of Wendover its never been really explained why the Chiltern long tunnel stops on top of the Chilterns, the line then coming down hill and dropping below ground level for the cut and cover green tunnel for Wendover. Is there any particular reason why this is so? It just gives the impression that the residents of Gerrards Cross, the Chalfonts and Amersham had more sway.
 

nick.c

Member
Joined
12 Mar 2012
Messages
64
As a resident of Wendover its never been really explained why the Chiltern long tunnel stops on top of the Chilterns, the line then coming down hill and dropping below ground level for the cut and cover green tunnel for Wendover. Is there any particular reason why this is so? It just gives the impression that the residents of Gerrards Cross, the Chalfonts and Amersham had more sway.

International railway regulations have probably been a major factor.

The planned route runs from just inside the M25 near junction 17 for some 15.8km to just beyond South Heath - exiting as you say "on top of the Chilterns". A few years ago there were proposals for a Chilterns Long Tunnel starting from the same point near the M25, but running for some 24.2km all the way to Wendover. This route would have been slightly shorter and more level - not needing to climb up the hills. I think the reason that option wasn't progressed is that tunnels over 20km are required to provide major underground fire fighting facilities that are extremely expensive.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,634
This route would have been slightly shorter and more level - not needing to climb up the hills. I think the reason that option wasn't progressed is that tunnels over 20km are required to provide major underground fire fighting facilities that are extremely expensive.

Given the ludicrous cost of everything HS2 related I have to wonder just how significant an increase in costs that would be if it further reduced interactions with landowners/local residents etc.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,641
Given the ludicrous cost of everything HS2 related I have to wonder just how significant an increase in costs that would be if it further reduced interactions with landowners/local residents etc.

https://assets.publishing.service.g.../436541/6._C222-ATK-TN-REP-020-000012_P03.pdf is a HS2 prepared report on the Chiltern Long Tunnel proposal. It includes this paragraph (I’ve not read through the whole thing yet)
5.1.8 To determine a more definitive cost comparison, HS2 has prepared a construction cost of the CLT. This cost comparison has determined that the PBA proposed CLT will cost approximately £485 million more than the Proposed Scheme.
It also suggests there would still be significant interactions with the local residents during construction (just in a different place) and ongoing costs/restrictions from maintenance in a longer tunnel.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Given the ludicrous cost of everything HS2 related I have to wonder just how significant an increase in costs that would be if it further reduced interactions with landowners/local residents etc.

Though firefighting facilities wouldn't just have the cost of building them - there'd be the ongoing cost of staffing and equipping them, and probably places a whole heap of additional safety requirements on HS2 during operation.
 
Joined
18 Oct 2017
Messages
214
do we know where traction power will be fed into HS2?

Maybe the 2013 "fly though" video of the route will help - IIRC it annunciated various feed points, ATFS stations and so on. Of course, the vid is now well out of date as the design has evolved, but it might serve as a jumping off point alongside the Environment Statement mapbooks if they are still online.


Though firefighting facilities wouldn't just have the cost of building them - there'd be the ongoing cost of staffing and equipping them, and probably places a whole heap of additional safety requirements on HS2 during operation.

And land take - AIUI the "intervention gaps" would need access to get kit (emergency services vehicles) into the tunnels, designated sized areas of (otherwise unproductive - ie unfarmed) hard standing, (possibly even space in the open to "birth" and evacuate a train - I'll have to check that assertion) and porous portal structures either side joining it all up to the tunnels amongst others. As another contributor said, extending the tunnels to Wendover doesn't remove surface impacts, it just moves them "somewhere else." And of course, longer tunnels increases the traction power bill ongoing.
 
Last edited:

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,477
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
So, AFAICT, the Phase 1 electrical distribution sites are, in order of appearance in the above video, and referred to in the Plan Maps:
  • Curzon Street ATS
  • Bromford ATS (Adj. to Bromford Tunnel W Portal)
  • Castle Bromwich ATS
  • Attleboro Lane Package Substation
  • (Birmingham) Interchange ATS
  • Bradnock ATS
  • Burton Green ATS
  • Crackley ATS
  • Furzen Hill ATS
  • Offchurch Express Feeder ATS
  • Stoney Thorpe ATS (by Long Itchington Wood Tunnel S Portal)
  • Lower Radbourne ATS
  • Boddington ATS
  • Chipping Warden MPATS (by Chipping Warden Tunnel S Portal)
  • Danes Moor ATS
  • Greatworth ATS
  • Whitfield ATS
  • Tibbetts Farm EFATS (Express Feeder ATS)
  • Chetwode ATS
  • Portway Farm ATS (adj to EWR Route)
  • Quainton ATFS (linked to nearby NG site)
  • Putlowes ATS
  • Sedrup EFATS
  • Nash Lee Package Substation
  • Stoke Grove ATS
  • Wendover ATS
  • South Heath MPATS (nr South Heath Green Tunnel N Portal)
  • Little Missenden Shaft (Chiltern Tunnel) & ATS
  • Chalfont St. Giles Shaft (Chiltern Tunnel) & ATS
  • West Hyde ATS & SSE Substation (by Chiltern Tunnel S Portal)
  • Ickenham ATFS (linked to nearby NG site)
  • South Ruislip Shaft, Headhouse & ATS
  • Greenpark Way Shaft, Headhouse & EFATS
  • Victoria Rd (Old Oak Common) Crossover Box & ATS
  • Salusbury Road Shaft, Headhouse & ATS
  • Euston ATS (in Euston Tunnel Headhouse)

Then, on the Handsacre - Coleshill spur video, the site are as follows:
  • Lyntus ATS
  • Mare Brook Package Substation
  • Cappers Lane ATS
  • Flats Lane ATS
  • Drayton Lane ATS
  • Cuttle Mill MPATS
  • Faraday Avenue Package Substation
  • Gilson Road ATS (near the M42 Coleshill Viaducts)
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,634
And land take - AIUI the "intervention gaps" would need access to get kit (emergency services vehicles) into the tunnels, designated sized areas of (otherwise unproductive - ie unfarmed) hard standing, (possibly even space in the open to "birth" and evacuate a train - I'll have to check that assertion) and porous portal structures either side joining it all up to the tunnels amongst others. As another contributor said, extending the tunnels to Wendover doesn't remove surface impacts, it just moves them "somewhere else." And of course, longer tunnels increases the traction power bill ongoing.

Intervention Gaps are something you include in the design to avoid the need for underground firefighting facilities.
There is a well defined set of criteria for an underground firefighting station, space in the open is not in them - because that would be absurd in an alpine tunnel wouldn't it?

Land take for such static facilities is also likely to be far less objectionable to the public long term than a line in the open would be.
It also does not have to be hard standing, indeeed the EU of is the position it can inculde roads parks and other areas "suiitable for evacuation and rescue operations" and that it need not be a dedicated area.

Which do you think the local population would find more upsetting.
A noisy railway line stretching across the landscape that will be there forever, or a single underground firefighting station that consists of a small entrance building clad in appropriate local material, surrounded by 500 square meters of grass?

It also suggests there would still be significant interactions with the local residents during construction (just in a different place) and ongoing costs/restrictions from maintenance in a longer tunnel.

Construction impacts are one thing, and are nothing compared to "We are gouging a scar across the landscape that will be there forever, oh and it makes noise"
 
Last edited:

Joseph_Locke

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2012
Messages
1,878
Location
Within earshot of trains passing the one and half
a single underground firefighting station that consists of a small entrance building clad in appropriate local material, surrounded by 500 square meters of grass?
Have you read the SRT TSI? 500m2 and a tin shed is OK for a firefighting point outside a tunnel portal , but not for a evacuation and rescue point required to deal with an entire train load of lightly terrified passengers (c.f. 4.2.1.7.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,634
Have you read the SRT TSI? 500m2 and a tin shed is OK for a firefighting point outside a tunnel portal , but not for a evacuation and rescue point required to deal with an entire train load of lightly terrified passengers (c.f. 4.2.1.7.

My reading of the TSI is that those are the only surface structures required.

Given that those are the only ones that the people living around the tunnel will care about long term......
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Whilst there's been some cost overruns it appears that the first review comes out in The Guardian in a fairly positive light:



HS2’s costs have risen by another £800m, the government has admitted, barely a month after the official start of construction of the high-speed rail network.

The reshaping of Euston station is likely to cost at least £400m more than planned, while the discovery of more asbestos than expected in demolitions along the line of the route has added around another £400m.

In the first of the bi-annual updates pledged since the entire HS2 project was given a fresh go-ahead by the current government in February, the minister for HS2, Andrew Stephenson, said there were new “cost pressures” emerging.

He said more work was needed to check the Euston costs, which could be cut but had the potential to rise further.

However, Stephenson said that the spiralling budget for Euston and the preparatory works would be accounted for within the £5.3bn contingency that had been delegated for HS2 Ltd, keeping the first phase of works, from London to Birmingham, within an overall £44.6bn budget.

Just over 20% of that sum has now been spent, and another £11.5bn allotted in contracts, most of which were given notice to proceed during lockdown.
 
Last edited:

camflyer

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2018
Messages
876
Good news that they are still planning on a decent upgrade to Euston. It would have been a wasted opportunity if the station had just been patched up on the cheap.
 
Joined
18 Oct 2017
Messages
214
Stricly speaking not Phase 1 construction, but readers may be interested... House Of Lords Select Committee on Phase 2A has completed it's deliberations:
The Select Committee will publish its report on Monday 19 October 2020.

The Committee met for a final time in private on Wednesday 14 October. At that meeting it agreed its report and then reported the bill, as amended, to the House.

The report will be made available on the Committee’s webpage at 10am.

Committee concludes work and announces report publication date - Committees - UK Parliament
 

camflyer

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2018
Messages
876
Summary - “most concerns have been settled before getting here, HS2 has done all it reasonably can with the outstanding issues, one or two minor points of change, now get on with it”

Thanks for the translation. I did skim-read the report but I was struggling to work out what their conclusion was.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,164
Location
UK
The William Murray recommendation very sensible. Did anybody else notice there is a Lord Snape?
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
The William Murray recommendation very sensible. Did anybody else notice there is a Lord Snape?

There's also Lord Brabazon of Tara, grandson of the aviation pioneer.
He was a Tory junior Transport Minister succeeding Michael Portillo, during the time of construction of the Channel Tunnel.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Summary - “most concerns have been settled before getting here, HS2 has done all it reasonably can with the outstanding issues, one or two minor points of change, now get on with it”

That's a good summary and matches my reading of the report.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,477
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
Phase 2A electrical distribution sites, heading south from Crewe until reaching the Phase 1/2A interface:

  • South Crewe MPATS
  • Wrinehill Package Substation
  • Madeley North ATS
  • Whitmore North ATS
  • Stableford ATS
  • Swynnerton ATS
  • Yarnfield Lane ATS (nr proposed Filly Brook Viaduct)
  • Walton Heath Package Substation
  • Yarlet Express Feeder ATS
  • Sandon Road ATS (nr Hopton)
  • Mill Lane ATS (nr Little Ingestre)
  • Moreton ATS
  • Newlands Lane ATFS (nr Colton, Staffs)
  • Blithbury Package Substation
  • Pipe Ridware ATS
  • Bourne Brook ATS
 

Geeves

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2009
Messages
1,912
Location
Rochdale
Very interesting read. It appears that the report was written before (but published after) the track slab decision had been made though.


Shepton Mallet seems like an unuusual choice but I imagine the quarries near by would have influenced the decision.
 

bnsf734

Member
Joined
15 Oct 2007
Messages
563
Location
Nuneaton
Very interesting read. It appears that the report was written before (but published after) the track slab decision had been made though.


Shepton Mallet seems like an unusual choice but I imagine the quarries near by would have influenced the decision.

The postal address of Meldon Quarry is Shepton Mallet so that will probably be the site of the factory. As Meldon Quarry is now owned by Aggregate Industries, it all makes sense. Having a high quality rail link will also help getting the track slabs out.

Very interesting article on the 2 different designs of precast slab track.
 

stuu

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2011
Messages
2,729
The postal address of Meldon Quarry is Shepton Mallet so that will probably be the site of the factory. As Meldon Quarry is now owned by Aggregate Industries, it all makes sense. Having a high quality rail link will also help getting the track slabs out.

Very interesting article on the 2 different designs of precast slab track.
I assume you mean Merehead?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top