HS2 Detailed plans and route

[The Planner]

See here ladies and gents !! People of the Chilterns are not going to be happy !!

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/route/

Mods, please feel free to move to infrastructure if people think it is better suited there.

 

[General Zod]

I see that the planned route just narrowly avoids Gerrards Cross !

 

[GNERman]

also here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8561286.stm

 

[CCF23]

Makes the WCML upgrade seem like a complete waste of time, although I'm not sure whether it will go to Glasgow but it does look good and finally makes the U.K looking better in the high-speed rail department compared to many other rich and developed countries like France and Japan which have had high-speed rail for many years, so it's sort of about time. Also it doesn't justify an upgrade for the Midland main line as HS2 should serve East Midlands and Sheffield.

 

[Proud Salopian]

Well as HS2 won't be up-and-running until the 2020s (if ever) the WCML will still be the main railway artery for quite a long time. Even when (if) HS2 is in use, the WCML will be in great demand for freight and for other London-bound services, such as from Shrewsbury! (Ha!)

 

[Ploughman]

Just watched the London - Glasgow in 5 minutes film on the BBC link.
For a main rail artery there is not a lot of passing traffic.
Is the new line needed?
Obviously not for capacity reasons.

 

[The Planner]

Is that a wind up ?? the WCML isnt far from capacity at the southern end !!

 

[bengley]

It will go through Gt. Missenden. I'd like that.

Wow, and Amersham!

 

[Mojo]

I see it'll go into Euston.

The government says there will be enough room, but a bit of a squeeze surely?

Map here: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/londoneuston/pdf/leaflet.pdf

 

[TDK]

See here ladies and gents !! People of the Chilterns are not going to be happy !!

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/route/

Mods, please feel free to move to infrastructure if people think it is better suited there.

This is a pipe dream, they will never find the money for it unless basic rate of tax goes up and that won't be popular, I think it is election propaganda myself

 

[Mojo]

Seems to follow the Met/GC joint line from Chalfont to Aylesbury, and then following quite close (or possibly on) the GC London Extension from Aylesbury to Claydon L&NE Junction (I don't know much of the route North of there so may go on a bit further)

 

[Donny Dave]

Makes the WCML upgrade seem like a complete waste of time, although I'm not sure whether it will go to Glasgow but it does look good and finally makes the U.K looking better in the high-speed rail department compared to many other rich and developed countries like France and Japan which have had high-speed rail for many years, so it's sort of about time. Also it doesn't justify an upgrade for the Midland main line as HS2 should serve East Midlands and Sheffield.

I'm against high speed rail in the UK, as apart from the Channel Tunnel link, we don't need it.

In response to the part of the quote I've highlighted, the big difference between, the likes of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Japan, is that they have the space to build a network of high speed lines. The UK doesn't.

I would much rather see the countless billions needed to build the HS line (and stock) used to upgrade the current network, instead of building a huge white elephant. This would provide work for people and companies, same as building the HS line, but with more overall benefit to the country as a whole.

 

[Mojo]

But the WCML and ECML are very fast approaching capacity. Building a new line would be a good value way of doing it (upgrading existing lines is very costly), with the added benefit of faster journeytimes!

 

[Donny Dave]

Building a whole new route (plus bulldozing your way through various towns and cities) isn't very expensive?

 

[WatcherZero]

Actually not compared to closing a line a bit at a time and working slowly along it while maintaing as best as possible a normal service, also the corridor may not be wide enough in points where a new route can be routed for minimum demolition.

 

[Mojo]

Building a whole new route (plus bulldozing your way through various towns and cities) isn't very expensive?

I should imagine so especially when you consider the economic benefits and extra paths that would be available for new trains set against the huge cost of upgrading existing lines.

Don't forget that the cost to upgrade the WCML for 225km/h operation was estimated at £22 billion, which is roughly what we are being quoted now for the new high speed line (I've rounded up the figures in their report). I don't know the actual cost of the finished WCML upgrade cost, but the latest estimate I can find is from Nov 08 and that was £13.2 billion. Maybe they did manage to cut it down, I don't know? Perhaps someone else has better ideas on how much it cost.

 

[mindfeeder]

Avoids my house by 4 miles, darn!

Also goes straight through Ufton Wood (5 miles south of Leamington) which is well known as a dogging hotspot.

 

[CosherB]

If only because we need the capacity, this must go ahead. The fast journey times will be a bonus. But why doesn't it connect to HS1?

Having two HS lines that come within less than a mile of each other at the London end, but are not interconnected, seems daft!

 

[paul1609]

Is that a wind up ?? the WCML isnt far from capacity at the southern end !!

I'd contest that, seriously the WCML is at best only achieving 50% of the capacity of lines South of London.

 

[BRX]

I should imagine so especially when you consider the economic benefits and extra paths that would be available for new trains set against the huge cost of upgrading existing lines.

Don't forget that the cost to upgrade the WCML for 225km/h operation was estimated at £22 billion, which is roughly what we are being quoted now for the new high speed line (I've rounded up the figures in their report). I don't know the actual cost of the finished WCML upgrade cost, but the latest estimate I can find is from Nov 08 and that was £13.2 billion. Maybe they did manage to cut it down, I don't know? Perhaps someone else has better ideas on how much it cost.

22bn? As far as I can see:

WCML estimated upgrade cost, London-Glasgow, for 140mph running: £2bn
WCML actual upgrade cost (125mph running): £10-15bn

HS2 estimated cost, London-Manchester/Leeds: £30bn
HS2 actual cost......????

(Although to be fair HS1 was delivered pretty much on budget I think)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What is the bit of "existing" HS line between Manchester and Liverpool?

 

[Pumbaa]

I'd contest that, seriously the WCML is at best only achieving 50% of the capacity of lines South of London.

Between MK and Euston, I have no way of backing this up with official info, but 9 x 125mph and 2 x 100mph trains down the fasts each hour? With a 3-min headway on the 125s and 5 on the 100s, thats 37mins eaten out of the hour. I don't think it would be easy to chuck anything else in that wouldn't impact majorly on performance.

 

[Mojo]

22bn? As far as I can see:

WCML estimated upgrade cost, London-Glasgow, for 140mph running: £2bn
WCML actual upgrade cost (125mph running): £10-15bn

£2bn was the original cost estimate by Railtrack right at the beginning. The revised cost for 225km/h running was actually closer to £22bn hence the changes.

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2008/12/02-wcml-real-cost.html

 

[LE Greys]

The thing about these plans is that they look strangely familiar. I'm sure I saw something practically identical in a book on Intercity (written I think by its former boss, John Prideux) showing a 186 mph line following exactly the same route, to be completed three years after the CTRL. This was published in 1995. It's taken until now to sanction it.

 

[Bedpan]

Well, that doesn't surprise me. I recall that sort of thing happening with various road schemes. I wonder if I'll still be alive when/if its finished.

I think its a good route, utilising a substantial stretch of the GC London Extension north of Quainton Road. I assume they will put a flyover/dive under at Colwich Junction as I can see that being a bit of a bottleneck. Mind you, I can remember them starting to build a Channel Tunnel when I was a lad which was then abandoned and replaced 20 odd years later by the one we have now.

 

[The Planner]

Between MK and Euston, I have no way of backing this up with official info, but 9 x 125mph and 2 x 100mph trains down the fasts each hour? With a 3-min headway on the 125s and 5 on the 100s, thats 37mins eaten out of the hour. I don't think it would be easy to chuck anything else in that wouldn't impact majorly on performance.

Its a 3 minute headway regardless of speed, you just try and get the 350s behind the Pendos !! As you state, you would never put 11 trains on a 3 minute headway as it is a recipe for disaster as if one goes wrong it is like a pack of cards. Ideally you would path 3 or 4 on headway, have a firebreak, then another 3 or 4, then another firebreak and so on.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I don't know where the idea that Germany has a network of high speed lines comes from, it doesn't.

There are a few sections of high speed lines, with a top speed of 200mph:

Stuttgart-Mannheim
Frankfurt Airport-Cologne
Ingolstadt-Nuremburg
Fulda-Kassel
Hamburg-Berlin
Hannover-Berlin
Berlin-Leipzig (possibly)
Nuremburg-Leipzig (under construction, started 1996, may be finished by 2016)

However, the rest of the mainlines which form the majority of the track in germany has a lower top speed than the UK, somthing like 100mph

 

[Geezertronic]

Its a 3 minute headway regardless of speed, you just try and get the 350s behind the Pendos !! As you state, you would never put 11 trains on a 3 minute headway as it is a recipe for disaster as if one goes wrong it is like a pack of cards. Ideally you would path 3 or 4 on headway, have a firebreak, then another 3 or 4, then another firebreak and so on.

That's the sensible way of doing it, but people see that nothing has gone down the line for a few minutes and asume that a path is available to be filled (hence not running at capacity). Like you say, if that was done then the simplest of problems can lead to massive disruption. WCML South not running close to capacity, some people need to take a closer look

 

[d.collins26]

Anyone see the quite large feature about HS2 scheme and talk about Old oak Common?

Quite interesting.

 

[Waverley125]

I think we need to remain focused on what the purpose of HS2 is. Firstly,it is to reduce journey times between major centres. Secondly, it is to increase capacity on existing flows. What we can do, is take a list of Britain's most major cities, and then work out which will be connected when and where. So that would give us:

London
Birmingham
Glasgow
Leeds
Manchester
Liverpool
Edinburgh
Newcastle
Sheffield
Nottingham
Dundee
Aberdeen
Bristol
Cardiff

and from this we can work out a basic plan for expansion of the HS Network

HS2: London-Birmingham-Manchester/Liverpool-Glasgow
HS3: London-Nottingham-Sheffield-Leeds-Newcastle-Edinburgh
HS4: London-Bristol-Cardiff
HS5: Leeds-Manchester
HS6: Birmingham-Bristol
HS7: Edinburgh-Glasgow
HS8: Edinburgh-Dundee-Aberdeen

you then have a basic network linking all the main cities of the UK, from which you can expand either southwest to Exeter & Plymouth, northwest via a tunnel in Dumfries to Belfast, or via another Tunnel at Ipswich to the Hague and on, via Rotterdam, to Amsterdam. Dublin via Liverpool would be another possibility (along with Belfast-Dublin).

If you compare that to the amount of work on 'classic lines' that would need to be done to bring all major flows up to 140mph, you'd have to put OHL across the whole of the south, upgrade the ECML, MML, GEML, WoEML, GWML etc etc etc.
HS is the best way to achieve our aims. While the classic lines should not be neglected, i think the most important thing there is to work towards a 'national speed target' of 110mph on all lines (with a few exceptions) and on re-openings to provide new journey opportunities.

 

[Ivo]

As interested as I am by these lines, I do find a couple of issues. Firstly, I don't think that there is a case for HS8. The demand would be too low to justify the cost. Also, with regards to Liverpool, why not just extend HS5 there and allow through running to Glasgow from Manchester? Other than that though, I do quite like these ideas. Not so sure about a tunnel from the Ipswich area to Holland though! And lastly, I'm not sure that you can justify a high-speed tunnel to Belfast either. Dublin yes, but Belfast is just too far and too small.