• 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 Heathrow Spur Dropped

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,074
BBC - HS2: Heathrow spur plans dropped by transport minister

HS2: Heathrow spur plans dropped by transport minister

Plans for a new rail link to Heathrow Airport as part of the HS2 high-speed network have been ruled out by the transport minister Patrick McLoughlin.

He was responding to a question by MP Dominic Grieve about the Heathrow spur.

Mr McLoughlin said: "I would now like to make clear that we do not intend to build the spur as part of Phase 1 or 2 of the HS2 scheme".

Paul Prentice, assistant news editor at Rail magazine said it was a "very sensible decision. Bearing in mind there is already a spur tunnel to Heathrow and another western link being built".
An inevitable, common sense decision - the high cost, limited frequency and wasteful use of paths for the likely traffic was never going to be justified.

Presumably Higgins will suggest an alternative use for the paths this frees up, extra classic compatibles to destinations in the North one imagines?

Chris
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
I would think four trains per hour to the main three destinations would give a better return.
Or perhaps preserving two paths so that Edinburgh and Glasgow can recieve two full length trains per hour once the inevitable Scottish extension is signed off.


Although the way passenger growth is going we are going to need a second HS2 pretty soon.....
 
Last edited:

CdBrux

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2014
Messages
768
Location
Munich
What were the phase 2 plans, for an actual spur, or just passive provision, I think the latter? If so don't suppose this saves much money, just takes away some uncertainties from those on the potential route and maybe allows for increased benefits to be claimed through the use of better alternatives for the paths
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
A more appropriate option would be the proposal to connection Heathrow to HS1, but the cost would have been prohibitive.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
Not a great surprise.

HS2 with old oak common interchange still offers a far better journey from the north to Heathrow than at present. Currently 3 1/2 hours from Leeds to Heathrow. Changing at OOC will get you there in 1 3/4. The spur might have cut this down by another 15 minutes, and you'd still probably have to change trains to get to your terminal. The right decision.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
TBH I think Labour were planning to drop it as well. Conservative getting in that they would drop it before the formal finding of the review due after the election possibly trying to pre-empt labour scoring a few electoral points.
 
Last edited:

GrimsbyPacer

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2014
Messages
2,256
Location
Grimsby
Birmingham and Manchester airports are near the route anyway.
The idea of HS2 is just extending the reach of London's transport.
It will be London Birmingham airport and this high speed link will allow the current WCML to become a commuter line. So some Londoners who can afford to travel long distance will buy houses and put house prices up making a false economy up in Birmingham while increasing wealth concentration in London.

The Heathrow spur would only have had one benefit, that overseas arrivals get the train instead of the plane on some journeys Northwards.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
The Heathrow spur would only have had one benefit, that overseas arrivals get the train instead of the plane on some journeys Northwards.

The benefit is still there, by changing at old oak common. It's only a 12 minute connection from Heathrow. That's quicker than the time it takes for some flights to taxi at Schipol. In effect Old Oak Common could operate as a satellite Heathrow terminal, just with trains rather than planes. I can't see there being many feeder flights to Manchester or Leeds after HS2 phase 2opens.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
BBC - HS2: Heathrow spur plans dropped by transport minister


An inevitable, common sense decision - the high cost, limited frequency and wasteful use of paths for the likely traffic was never going to be justified.

Presumably Higgins will suggest an alternative use for the paths this frees up, extra classic compatibles to destinations in the North one imagines?

Chris

It was inevitable but good to see it's finally been admitted.

I suspect a CC path to Manchester via Lichfield spur, Stoke, Macclesfield and Stockport should be high up the list for the extra paths. Politically it gives at least 3 more local authorities direct HS2 links.

No brainier for me.
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
The benefit is still there, by changing at old oak common. It's only a 12 minute connection from Heathrow. That's quicker than the time it takes for some flights to taxi at Schiphol. In effect Old Oak Common could operate as a satellite Heathrow terminal, just with trains rather than planes. I can't see there being many feeder flights to Manchester or Leeds after HS2 phase 2opens.

Correction to an error often made, hope you don't mind.
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
The Mawhinney report shewed only maximum 10% of HS2 traffic possibly for Heathrow so just not justified.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
2nd train per hour to Liverpool anyone?





I'll get my coat...

Already assumed for Phase 1 and 2. See "Updated economic case for HS2 (August 2012): Explanation of the service patterns" January 2013
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It was inevitable but good to see it's finally been admitted.

I suspect a CC path to Manchester via Lichfield spur, Stoke, Macclesfield and Stockport should be high up the list for the extra paths. Politically it gives at least 3 more local authorities direct HS2 links.

No brainier for me.

I'd say that's actually one of the brainier posts on this forum. Eminently sensible suggestion.

Any Heathrow station within walking distance of a terminal would have to be created in a horribly expensive and risky way by hollowing out platform tunnels under the runways. A surface station alongside the M25 might be possible (although the runway expansion plans would probably cover over part of it) but it would be far enough even from T5 to need a shuttle - or Hammond's 600m of corridor. And once that happens it's not much more hassle to go to Old Oak where there would be a much greater choice of HS2 services.
 
Joined
5 Aug 2011
Messages
779
It was inevitable but good to see it's finally been admitted.

I suspect a CC path to Manchester via Lichfield spur, Stoke, Macclesfield and Stockport should be high up the list for the extra paths. Politically it gives at least 3 more local authorities direct HS2 links.

No brainier for me.

Hopefully some of the money saved can be used to fund Crewe-Chester-North Wales electrification and allow HS2 CC services to operate.
 

RichmondCommu

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond, London
Hopefully some of the money saved can be used to fund Crewe-Chester-North Wales electrification and allow HS2 CC services to operate.

Alternatively a link from HS2 to both Nottingham and Derby. Two trains in the morning (both being joined at the East Midlands HS2 station) and two trains back in the evening. I would argue the case for this is stronger than North Wales electrification but hey this forum is all about opinions! :)
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
There is one of them an hour anyway, doubt you'll get two.

Last thing I saw - the Higgins presentation to the Bill Committee that Paul linked from his blog a few weeks ago - A Stoke service was included in Phase 1 but then dropped in Phase 2.

This seems an easy win both in terms of getting Stoke onside and the Cheshire market for HS2 so it's always puzzled me why it isn't in Phase 2 service plans?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hopefully some of the money saved can be used to fund Crewe-Chester-North Wales electrification and allow HS2 CC services to operate.

Chester services must not be mentioned by HS2 or some think tank will try and add the cost of electrifying to Holyhead onto HS2 in the style of Crossrail 2.

Once Chester is electrified though an HS2 service could be easily delivered without needing an extra path as it can split/join with one of the 2tph to Liverpool at Crewe.

The other Liverpool service should split/join with the Preston service to save it having to join a Birmingham service at Birmingham Interchange.

Also you could easily extend the Preston terminator alternately to Lancaster and Blackpool.

So for 1 extra path we've added 8 new locations and 7 new local authorities to the HS2 network:
Stoke
Macclesfield
Stockport
Chester
Blackpool
Poulton-le-Fylde
Kirkham & Wesham
Lancaster.

LAs
Stoke-on-Trent
Stockport
Cheshire West & Chester
Blackpool
Wyre
Fylde
City of Lancaster

Political gold dust that is. Count the marginal seats...
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Stockport's traffic is going to suffer major abstractions by Manchester Airport though.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201
Stockport's traffic is going to suffer major abstractions by Manchester Airport though.

If Crewe HS2 station goes ahead will Manchester Airport station be dropped? Given that it is really a parkway station for south Manchester and Cheshire and virtually no-one is going to change between HS2 and the airport there is no real purpose for it anymore
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
There was always going to be a HS2 service at Crewe from the earliest proposals, either at a new Crewe Hub or by having trains stopping at the existing station. So I don't think anything that has changed since (certainly not the subject of this discussion) affects the case for a station in south Manchester.

If TfGM gets their way the "airport" HS2 station will have some pretty good Metrolink connections so won't be just a Parkway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Alternatively a link from HS2 to both Nottingham and Derby. Two trains in the morning (both being joined at the East Midlands HS2 station) and two trains back in the evening. I would argue the case for this is stronger than North Wales electrification but hey this forum is all about opinions! :)

If HS2 goes to Toton a south-facing connection there would be relatively easy to do, allowing Nottingham and Derby services which would reverse as well as splitting/joining at Toton. Such a connection has been suggested to allow Leicester trains to use HS2 north of Toton. I would suggest though that any such service should run all day, and unsurprisingly I have no idea what the business case would look like. More difficult for a route via Breaston though.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
The mantra of the modern railway is "Clockface, Clockface, Clockface"
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
Now they need to can the hare-brained idea of tunnelling under London just to reach Euston.

If they must build the bloody thing - which I think is a monumental waste of money - then terminate it at Old Oak Common which will have decent access to the West End and the City by Crossrail.

Turning Euston into a building site for goodness knows how many years together with the additional crowding on the tube there is not a good idea.
 

TrickyHex

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
25
Just seen in a related article that they are looking into tunnelling between Ruislip and the Chilterns tunnel at Chalfont. At the rate they are going, it will be underground all the way up t'north...
 
Joined
5 Aug 2011
Messages
779
Now they need to can the hare-brained idea of tunnelling under London just to reach Euston.

If they must build the bloody thing - which I think is a monumental waste of money - then terminate it at Old Oak Common which will have decent access to the West End and the City by Crossrail.

Turning Euston into a building site for goodness knows how many years together with the additional crowding on the tube there is not a good idea.

Won't that just lead to severe overcrowding on Crossrail which is forcast to be busy from when it first openes without having to deal with ALL the passengers from HS2 as well?
 

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
4,089
Location
Birmingham
Turning Euston into a building site for goodness knows how many years together with the additional crowding on the tube there is not a good idea.

Ironic that if the anti-HS2 mob got their way, they would turn the WCML into a building site for how many knows years. Been there before and got the t-shirt :)

Mind you Euston will need to be rebuilt with or without HS2 so it would be inevitable
 

Voglitz

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2015
Messages
249
Ironic that if the anti-HS2 mob got their way, they would turn the WCML into a building site for how many knows years.

There's no irony, or "mob" involvement. At periodic intervals, parts of the infrastructure have to be renewed, if a railway is to remain open. Oftentimes, that maintenance requires closure, or part-closure, to traffic.

As its name implies, the West Coast Route Modernisation was just such a scheme. So the West Coast was "a building site", in much the same way as many other railways have to be, at one point or another. At some point, HS1 will become a "building site", too.

The HS2 scheme would entail massive disruption to existing main lines at Euston, Armitage, Crewe, Golborne, Meadowhall, etc.

Mind you Euston will need to be rebuilt with or without HS2 so it would be inevitable

There's no evidence whatsoever that Euston "needs" to be rebuilt. If there is, produce it.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The HS2 scheme would entail massive disruption to existing main lines at Euston, Armitage, Crewe, Golborne, Meadowhall, etc.

At the likes of Armitage and Golborne the disruption is limited to constructing a new grade separated junction which moves some of the tracks over to one side. This is very similar to what is currently being done at Norton Bridge and most of it can be done without affecting existing services. Meadowhall has no connection to the existing route and the only disruption will be to build a bridge over it to carry HS2 and to make some alterations to passenger facilities so they link to the new stations. It is not yet clear what will happen at Crewe. So the phrase "massive disruption" only really applies to Euston.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top