HS2 via the M40

[Sad Sprinter]

There's a lot of talk in the news at the moment about HS2's environmental destruction. This I'm not too surprised about, considering HS2 would pass mainly over open country rather than, as we all thought, over the ex-GCR alignment.

Would the M40 route have been less environmentally destructive in the end?

 

[The Planner]

There's a lot of talk in the news at the moment about HS2's environmental destruction. This I'm not too surprised about, considering HS2 would pass mainly over open country rather than, as we all thought, over the ex-GCR alignment.

Would the M40 route have been less environmentally destructive in the end?

Not really, remember the M40 was shifted to go around Otmoor and the cutting at Lewknor would now probably have to be a tunnel. The M40 isnt that divorced from the current route.

 

[swt_passenger]

There's a lot of talk in the news at the moment about HS2's environmental destruction. This I'm not too surprised about, considering HS2 would pass mainly over open country rather than, as we all thought, over the ex-GCR alignment.

Would the M40 route have been less environmentally destructive in the end?

We definitely did not all think the ex GCR alignment would be used. That comes from politicians waffling about impossible alternative choices that had already been ruled out at the time.

It was always perfectly clear it only just touched on the GC route near Calvert, and even then it’s only superimposed for a very few miles.

 

[JonathanH]

There's a lot of talk in the news at the moment about HS2's environmental destruction. This I'm not too surprised about, considering HS2 would pass mainly over open country rather than, as we all thought, over the ex-GCR alignment.

To the extent that the GCR is an abandoned alignment, reusing it is no less environmental damage than going though open country.

The trackbed of an abandoned railway is often allowed to go 'back to nature' in a way that cultivated landscapes aren't.

Would the M40 route have been less environmentally destructive in the end?

Any route is environmentally destructive. Putting it right next to a motorway widens the barrier that the combined routes make.

 

[30907]

The M40 and M1 options were considered and ruled out; I no longer recall the details of the arguments but - as one who thought a route via the M40 to the ex GC would be chosen, I recall being convinced by the case for the 0resent route.

 

[swt_passenger]

The M40 and M1 options were considered and ruled out; I no longer recall the details of the arguments but - as one who thought a route via the M40 to the ex GC would be chosen, I recall being convinced by the case for the 0resent route.

Yes, there was a fairly detailed document that could be found online at one time, which included an overview map showing the numerous route alternatives between the M40 and M1 that were considered and explained exactly why each of them they were ruled out.

 

[D6130]

I would imagine that the M40 North of the Chilterns would have far too many curves to be paralleled by a high speed rail route.

 

[HSTEd]

Almost all surface terrain in the UK is comparatively highly populated or protected environmentally, or both.

Whatever alignment was chosen, if it was on the surface, it was going to lead to huge political furore over environmental or amenity damage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would imagine that the M40 North of the Chilterns would have far too many curves to be paralleled by a high speed rail route.

Bar the southern part of the M1 which was built before this was decided, UK motorways are deliberately built with long, sweeping curves, on the basis that needing to change steering input reduces driver fatigue. Whereas you want high speed rail to be dead straight.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Yes, there was a fairly detailed document that could be found online at one time, which included an overview map showing the numerous route alternatives between the M40 and M1 that were considered and explained exactly why each of them they were ruled out.

I think they considered running it parallel and south of the M40 past Beaconsfield and High Wycombe. Following motorways can introduce a lot of curves and it would have needed a massive viaduct to cross the Wye valley near Wooburn Green.

If you only wanted additional capacity between London and Birmingham rather than absolute high speed, quadrupling the GCR/GWR route now mostly used by Chiltern could have been an option. At least some of it used to be quadruple anyway. Lack of capacity at Marylebone and Paddington shouldn't have been an issue. It's feasible to build a large station at Old Oak Common or even a new tunnel to Euston.

 

[snowball]

The HS2 east midlands arm will, if it goes ahead, follow substantial stretches of the M42 and A42. Its continuation as previously planned would have followed substantial stretches of the M1 and M18. But there are places where wiggles in the roads force islands in between.

 

[Bartsimho]

The big thing with those bringing up the environmental impact forget is the environmental impact of continued and ever-increasing car usage.

With all the News around HS2 recently it appears that some groups want it shelved for their own gain.

Luckily I think Hunt has stated that he wants even more High-Speed rail afterwards and while they won't be in power this presence backs the current plans until the next GE.

 

[Bald Rick]

As others have said, the M40 corridor was looked at. It was a bit longer, but also came closer to some fairly big settlements, including Wycombe and Banbury.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There's a lot of talk in the news at the moment about HS2's environmental destruction. This I'm not too surprised about, considering HS2 would pass mainly over open country rather than, as we all thought, over the ex-GCR alignment.

I never thought that.

 

[RT4038]

There's a lot of talk in the news at the moment about HS2's environmental destruction. This I'm not too surprised about, considering HS2 would pass mainly over open country rather than, as we all thought, over the ex-GCR alignment.

I never thought this either! The ex GC route had a couple of handicaps from the start - (a) until you get past Aylesbury/Ashendon it is still a working railway, quite unsuited to sustained High Speed running, and massive disruption (probably line closure for 5 years or more) to rebuild it to accommodate both high speed and local trains, and (b) it doesn't go anywhere near Birmingham, so was always going to require virgin railway across North Oxfordshire/ South Warwickshire to get there, if going in a reasonably direct line.

 

[swt_passenger]

I never thought this either! The ex GC route had a couple of handicaps from the start - (a) until you get past Aylesbury/Ashendon it is still a working railway, quite unsuited to sustained High Speed running, and massive disruption (probably line closure for 5 years or more) to rebuild it to accommodate both high speed and local trains, and (b) it doesn't go anywhere near Birmingham, so was always going to require virgin railway across North Oxfordshire/ South Warwickshire to get there, if going in a reasonably direct line.

The “reuse the GC“ fans probably all subscribe to the great Railway Myth that it was already a modern continental gauged route just awaiting a bit of track…

 

[6Gman]

The “reuse the GC“ fans probably all subscribe to the great Railway Myth that it was already a modern continental gauged route just awaiting a bit of track…

And that the routes through the towns and cities en route are still available . . .

And that it would be a sensible way of getting to Birmingham or Manchester . . .

 

[A0wen]

And that the routes through the towns and cities en route are still available . . .

And that it would be a sensible way of getting to Birmingham or Manchester . . .

A fair point on Birmingham, but the GC did run to Manchester via the Woodhead route and as an end to end London to Manchester route I'm not sure the GC's was any worse than the WCML or Midland routes to Manchester.

 

[RT4038]

A fair point on Birmingham, but the GC did run to Manchester via the Woodhead route and as an end to end London to Manchester route I'm not sure the GC's was any worse than the WCML or Midland routes to Manchester.

Apart from being a lot slower?

 

[Meole]

Woodhead is still in use for commuter trains into Manchester at its western end, the tunnels carry national grid cabling, never an option.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Don't know why it's such a bad thing to be fascinated by the Great Central Railway. It's always going to have that star quality being a full mainline railway that closed.

 

[A0wen]

Apart from being a lot slower?

Not as much as you might think.

Taking a look at the 1955 BR timetable - there's a summary of London - Manchester trains, 3 examples:

2.45 Euston arr Manchester London Road 6.46 - journey time 4h 01m.
2.15 St P arr Manchester Victoria 6.35 - journey time 4h 20m
3.20 Marylebone arr Manchester 8.27 which included 10 min wait at Sheffield - journey time 5h 7m.

We know from the improvements made under modernisation - linespeed, junctions etc that journey times could easily be improved.

The GC was 205 miles from Marylebone to Manchester, the current Euston - Manchester route is 183 - so there's 20 miles in it. And the GC served what were, even then, 3 major cities en route - Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield, whereas the WCML only served Stoke as part of its Manchester - London services.

 

[6Gman]

A fair point on Birmingham, but the GC did run to Manchester via the Woodhead route and as an end to end London to Manchester route I'm not sure the GC's was any worse than the WCML or Midland routes to Manchester.

Significantly further. Significantly longer journey time. When I've got a minute I'll compare journey times.

EDIT: I've had a minute! 1934 morning trains (between 8 and 9 in the morning from London).

0825 St Pancras to Central 4hrs 28m
0830 Euston to London Road 3hrs 48m
0845 Marylebone to London Road 5hrs 8m
0845 Kings Cross to London Road 5hrs 8m (presumably changing at Retford and Sheffield, connecting into the GC service - maybe a through coach?)

So 35% longer journey time ex-GC v ex-LNWR

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Surprising that the Midland route took so much longer. I always thought it was slightly quicker.

I was looking at 1950s GC journey times earlier and it seems Manchester trains stopped at High Wycombe, Woodford, Brackley - quite a few towns you'd think an "express" wouldn't stop at. I wonder how long a Marylebone, Sheffield, Manchester would take.

 

[RT4038]

Surprising that the Midland route took so much longer. I always thought it was slightly quicker.

I was looking at 1950s GC journey times earlier and it seems Manchester trains stopped at High Wycombe, Woodford, Brackley - quite a few towns you'd think an "express" wouldn't stop at. I wonder how long a Marylebone, Sheffield, Manchester would take.

It would be unlikely that there would be enough passengers to do London-Sheffield non stop, and, when the GC was open, would be quite a job non-stop for a steam loco (although quite possible!)

In 1956 the best train of the day was the 'Master Cutler' which did 6.18pm Marylebone to Sheffield in 3h40 stopping only at Rugby, Leicester [engine change] and Nottingham. The fastest Sheffield-Manchester timing was 55 min, stopping at Penistone, Dinting and Guide Bridge. In those days through trains were booked 5 min for an engine change at Sheffield V. So an overall time of 4h 40min.

The best train on the LNWR route was the 6pm 'Mancunian' stopping only at Stockport, in 3h35min. Even if your GC trains had made only the Sheffield stop, I don't expect the overall time would have been less than 4h10m

The 6.40pm from St Pancras arrived Manchester at 11.8pm (4h28m) stopping at Kettering, Leicester, Loughborough, Derby Matlock, Miller's Dale, Chinley and Didsbury.

In 1965, the Midland Pullman from St Pancras did it in 3h10, and the best schedule by a Pendolino is about 2hr.