Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I see that the route maps have been published today:

 

Main Line

 

Birmingham 'branch'

 

List of individual maps

 

So, I'll be able to look forward to a trip to Euston in less than an hour one day as HS2 will rejoin the WCML near Handsacre. cool.gif

 

I see that the Birmingham Station has a name of 'Fazeley Street'; I can see that changing. laugh.gif

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I was just downloading those Andy, fascinating to see the route in so much detail. Will make my 'eventual' model of the line much more accurate.

 

Anyone got a spare A0 colour printer though...? B)

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great stuff, thanks Andy. Where abouts is 'NIMBY central' in all this? There has been reported in Rail Magazine some strong opposition with some very silly and spurious objections. Bring it all on! This new line is just what the railways need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from a changed alignment at Brackley and at Litchfield, the main line seems to be the same as the previous set of maps (based on a comparison of the master plans). The alignment into Birmingham seems to be the same too (except perhaps at the terminus end).

 

Adrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were a load of Nimby's alongside HS1 I seem to remember, all insisting on huge noise barriers/bunds etc, at the same time new houses were springing up and selling like hot cakes alongside the ECML at Grantham right up against the lineside fences.

 

Jamie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from a changed alignment at Brackley and at Litchfield, the main line seems to be the same as the previous set of maps (based on a comparison of the master plans). The alignment into Birmingham seems to be the same too (except perhaps at the terminus end).

 

Adrian

 

Suggestion is that 50% is on a different route, although much of this is only slightly different from that originally proposed, so I guess that this does not show up much on the map.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggestion is that 50% is on a different route, although much of this is only slightly different from that originally proposed, so I guess that this does not show up much on the map.

 

A quick look at some of the detail maps shows that a lot of it is subtly different. Looking at map 17 as an example, the alignment is different by less than 200m, and it appears that the newer route requires more engineering works (viaducts across a floodplain rather than avoiding the problem). On map 11 the alignment is the same, but the track is at a different height, changing cuttings and embankments, and appearing to require more extensive changes to the affected roads (A41 and Blackgrove Road climb up and over the ground-leveltrack rather than being dug down slightly to under the track running on an embankment).

 

Adrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think it will be an "international" station, as that has to include customs, seperation of doemstic and international passengers etc. For instant the Heathrow station wont be international (even though doing so makes sense from the point of view of atracting air transfer passengers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The existng Birmingham International doesn't have Customs. It's named because of the proximity of the airport.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Belgian

Why call it HS2 - it's (almost) the Great Central! It was always said that Watkin was ahead of his time, with his proposal to build a dedicated main line from the north through London and onto a Channel Tunnel. At last his vision (after a bit of an intermission!) may come true.

 

How right were those people who said the GC right-of-way should have been protected - that would have prevented the Nimbyisms, as any building would have taken place subject to the knowledge that a railway might be re-instated and save the huge compensation payouts. Politicians can never be accused of long-term thinking, although this plan may well break that tradition!

 

JE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the signalling renewals at Saltley will have to be completed as it goes straight through the Power Box.

Possible site for maintenance depot is the old Metro Cammell / Alstom factory at Washwood Heath ( about 400 yards from where it was proposed to put an HST depot for NE/SW HST's).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the other sites affeected - it is now confirmed that a large new block of student housing will be demolished - http://en.wikipedia....iki/Curzon_Gate - gives my university problems.And we're still trying to get the money back we'd already invested in putting a new campus exactly on the site of the station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great stuff, thanks Andy. Where abouts is 'NIMBY central' in all this? There has been reported in Rail Magazine some strong opposition with some very silly and spurious objections. Bring it all on! This new line is just what the railways need.

Great Missenden from all accounts.

I had to put up with quite a bit of it at a lunch in Ballinger last week. A cross toast for all who supported the project got quite a few people on their feet. The NIMBYs did not have it all their own way.

Bernard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great stuff, thanks Andy. Where abouts is 'NIMBY central' in all this? There has been reported in Rail Magazine some strong opposition with some very silly and spurious objections. Bring it all on! This new line is just what the railways need.

 

There is alot of opposition in Coventry and around Warwickshire, either due to the nearest station being at the airport (which is better located for Coventry's residents than Brummies, and concerns of how the line would damage the fresh water table in Warwickshire. Then there are the inevitable Nimby's whose property will be directly affected, as it would if an airport, motorway or conventional line was being built. Although I can sympathise with them, we don't own this land and are merely custodians of it for future generations, which means serving them well. HS2 is more important in this respect than some farmer's B&B buiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...it appears that the newer route requires more engineering works...

 

That's a natural consequence of the process. The engineers will have chosen the best alignment in engineering terms, taking account of the environmental constraints that were considered important at the time. Now it has been decided that there are more environmental issues to worry about, extra engineering is required to get round (or under) them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read a number of documents on the HS2 proposals I think that there will surely be some provision for international travel from other stations in the country. The Tory Government has come in and encouraged the designs to include links to HS1 which makes sense as it does encourage travel from other UK destinations to further afield and would certainly assist in reducing the amount of short haul flights in the UK. If I remember correctly (and I might not be here so if someone could clarify I would be most grateful) the previous proposals announced under the previous government allowed for only an interchange at St Pancreas as opposed to direct running to the continent. From my point of view as a traveller that breaks the journey and would encourage me to fly to avoid the ordeal of interchanging in London.

 

I am pleased to see that the line wont be too far from me (at the moment but who knows where I will be living soon) so maybe in 16 years we will hear the sounds of fantastic high speed trains down the road!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

encouraged the designs to include links to HS1 which makes sense as it does encourage travel from other UK destinations to further afield and would certainly assist in reducing the amount of short haul flights in the UK. If I remember correctly (and I might not be here so if someone could clarify I would be most grateful) the previous proposals announced under the previous government allowed for only an interchange at St Pancreas as opposed to direct running to the continent.

 

According to this map - http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/assets.dft.gov.uk/hs2-apr-00-dr-rw-04001.pdf there will be a link from HS1 to HS2 without running into St Pancras. The plan does not show any chord from St Pancras to the HS1/HS2 link.

 

Based on the plan through running should be possible but I'm sure any TOC would be twitchy about not including a London stop.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched the interviews with NIMBYs on some of the TV channels last night. Ironic how the media that rushes out to find protesters are the same ones decrying the fact that continental European trains are faster than ours. Someone said that the cost would be £34 billion. What? Is it going to be in a tunnel all the way or something? By the way, are occupation crossings and level crossings banned on HS1, and presumably on HS2?

 

Geoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the drawing linked by Andy the HS1-HS2 link appears to join the two main tracks just outside Euston/St Pancras but continues as a third tunnel (presumably single line) all the way to Old Oak. Not sure why this should be, having a junction in the tunnel would seem to be both cheaper and more flexible. I must have a look at these in more detail.

 

Level crossing don't feature on any of the European HS routes as far as I'm aware, one of the main reasons for the excellent safety record of these routes, and I don't think anyone would seriously consider putting them on HS2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to this map - http://s3-eu-west-1....dr-rw-04001.pdf there will be a link from HS1 to HS2 without running into St Pancras. The plan does not show any chord from St Pancras to the HS1/HS2 link.

 

Based on the plan through running should be possible but I'm sure any TOC would be twitchy about not including a London stop.

 

 

I'm not so sure about that latter point Andy, what the drawing seems to present is a flyover off the up side just outside the exit from the CTRL covered way (over the ECML) then curving round to join the North London Line end of the chord out of St Pancras international platforms towards the NLL heading west. I understand that some of the work in that vicinity was never carried out/completed when the new layout at St Pancras was brought into use but I'm not at all sure what - if anything - wasn't done.

However even if the proposal is built like that (which seems a bit odd as all it might do is provide a flying junction at considerable expense) there could still be a connection further west between the NLL and the new route which would allow access to St Pancras.

Whether the proposition of a London reversal - and the time cost - would be popular with through passengers 'from the north' is another issue and one which I suspect will never be resolved until it is tried. However if through running were introduced it would then make sense to have a station on HS2 just north of London which would be very attractive commercially for international travellers - somewhere near Chalfont St Peters where HS2 crosses the M25 would be an ideal spot (except with the local residents no doubt).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that do not know what the locals are saying here is an extract from one of the propaganda emails that are doing the rounds.

Bernard

 

 

 

It is clear that the Coalition intends to press ahead with

HS2 along its preferred route - the A413 corridor. The

fact that they now have an Exceptional Hardship Scheme

in place only for this route, and none of the others

theoretically under consideration speaks for itself.

 

They are unwilling to quantify the business case that will

allow the desecration of an Area of Outstanding Natural

Beauty - in the national interest - and have not released a

detailed Environmental Impact study. The consensus among

those speaking at the rally who have had meetings with various

government ministers is that the case, such as it is, is weak,

and based entirely on financial constraints: the compensation

that will have to be offered for cutting a swathe through this

part of the Chilterns is negligible when compared with, for

example, the obvious alternative of the M40 corridor.

 

A tape of the deafening noise generated by one of these

high-speed trains as it would sound in Gt. Miss. was played

at the rally, but it could not be delivered at full volume, because

of Health and Safety regulations!! There will be 28 trains per

hour, day and night travelling at up to 260 mph, with line repairs

going on throughout the night. What could not be demonstrated

was the light pollution from the line, which will be illuminated

all night supposedly for maintenance purposes.

 

The proposed route will be officially announced before the end of

2010, after which there will be a consultation period, with the

government acting as advocate, judge and jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.