HS2 under review

[John Tomlinson]

In answer to 62613 I'm talking about whatever benefits were computed in the original project appraisal, short, medium and long.

 

With official unemployment figures at the lowest for decades, I'd very much doubt if many of the people involved would otherwise be on universal credit or indeed any other form of state benefit, certainly those at the higher professional end, more likely other work would simply be brought forward to take up the slack. Arguably the non-spend if the project were not to go ahead would also reduce the public debt and its servicing cost, although we're into quite complex economic modelling here which frankly is well beyond the scope of a discussion on RMweb.

 

Any project has to have an evaluation of costs compared to benefits, however flawed that might be, otherwise those in control could simply pursue vanity or self interest projects at will with no recourse, plus of course its our money! Surely you're not suggesting something takes place and hang the cost? Equally any infrastructure project isn't automatically a good thing and it depends on whether the costs of it are way in excess of the anticipated returns. Any commercial enterprise would recognise these statements as truths that have to be at the core of decision making, otherwise the enterprise wouldn't be in business for very long.

 

Capacity is an interesting question. I'm sure there is a capacity issue in the Home Counties and Southeast generally, with more and more people commuting into London and its immediate environs. Elsewhere, well not so sure, certainly not on the MML around Leicestershire near me where anyone going out to watch the trains has plenty of time for a snooze between the action. But even the London related capacity issue has a deeper question, if a serious attempt were to be made to re-balance the economy between north and south, would the London problem diminish, particularly if we do leave the EU and some of the froth comes off the financial services sector?

 

Quite clearly a lot of the Victorian railway system had a life span and usefulness well below the hope/ anticipation at the time of construction. The GC London Extension is a good example, much as I love the history of it and motive power. Many secondary and local lines are in the same category and have been legitimately closed in my lifetime. To be fair to the Victorians there will always be a problem of imperfect foresight, which becomes more imperfect the farther out in time you go. A classic example of decisions being wrong in quite a short time horizon was that of the construction of freight marshalling yards by BR in the late'50's/ early 60's, as we all know none of these reached anything near their potential usage, and were rapidly contracted and taken out of service. Fortunately the general inflation that took off in the late '60's effectively diminished the cost borne on these "White Elephants" in terms of public financing.

 

So to sum up, all I'm asking for is that if we are to do a re-appraisal of HS2, let's do it properly and to the best of our ability, looking at both the benefits and their worth, and whatever a realistic expectation of costs is likely to be. I couldn't agree more with the preceding point by the Stationmaster that you also need to see what the possible up's and down's are, and thier consequences, at the same time.

 

John.

[62613]

19 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

In answer to 62613 I'm talking about whatever benefits were computed in the original project appraisal, short, medium and long.

 

With official unemployment figures at the lowest for decades,

Who told you that? A perfect example of lies, damned lies and statistics.

[John Tomlinson]

I suspect Radio 4. Would you like to elaborate on your doubts?

 

John.

[Mark Saunders]

1 hour ago, John Tomlinson said:

I suspect Radio 4. Would you like to elaborate on your doubts?

 

John.

 

There is currently a programme about lobbying on Radio 4 and the term astroturfing is introduced, worth listening to!

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

 

 

With official unemployment figures at the lowest for decades,

 

John.

 

1 hour ago, 62613 said:

Who told you that? A perfect example of lies, damned lies and statistics.

Official figures:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment

 

"Lowest since 1974"

 

[Siberian Snooper]

Having met a few politicians,  I can assure you that you get the message that they think you want to hear.  I

I wouldn't trust anyone of them any further than I could pick up and throw them.

 

 

[Mike Storey]

More detail than available in the BBC report, here:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/20/hs2-could-go-30bn-over-budget

 

The rumoured letter reportedly says "from £70b to £85b" i.e. a range. The chairman is yet to submit a final report. An indication of where he might be able to propose savings are in two of the following:

 

"A source close to the project told the newspaper the costs had increased because of a “combination of poor ground conditions found during the surveying work, the costs of engineering a railway to a very high specification, and the further additional costs of it being designed to run at even higher speeds than other comparable rail projects".

 

I am not sure how "engineering a railway to a very high specification" is any surprise cost-wise, but one could presume that is, at least partly, a reference to the multiple environmental provisions now required, and not the higher speeds, which are mentioned separately. So we might conclude this is where he might suggest some savings, or at least funding by others for the former.

 

 That is the point at which I guess they will then have to re-calculate cost v benefit. I recall the last figure used for direct financial benefit of the entire scheme (including Phase 2 b) which was calculated in 2014/5 and reported in an update for the White Paper in 2016, was £93 billion (at 2014 prices), over 30 years, I think. That benefit could also be assumed to have increased by 10% (at ave inflation since then). That was at the journey times currently quoted, which do not rely on 250mph running, but 225 mph.

 

Interesting that BoJo has asked a near-80 year old, Douglas Oakervee (who wanted to retire to his model railway hobby years ago), to report on the project. He was a previous Chair of HS2 and faced much the same criticism at the time, as the others since - see:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/douglas-oakervee-i-think-the-name-hs2-is-unfortunate-8803430.html

 

I suspect, given his disquiet about the name "High Speed 2" right from the off, that he will be amenable to recommending a scope reduction on the max speed front, if that gives a significant financial saving. No surprise there - HS2 had already suggested that (a 30 mph reduction) to Parliament last November, along with a reduction in maximum frequency, from 18 to 14 tph (the DfT Business Case only assumes 13 tph anyway) and the replacement of most slab track sections with normal HS ballasted type.

 

What surprises me is that nobody in government has yet responded to that suggestion, and leaks of letters like this just keep putting the HS2 peeps in the Bad Boys limelight, instead of Leadsom (who demanded the info originally), Truss (who holds the purse strings) or Grayling ....nuff said.

 

[John Tomlinson]

Mark Saunders, yes I've caught a few of these with dear old Michael Crick who's always a pleasure to listen to!

 

Siberian Snooper, couldn't agree more, I wouldn't trust them even that far, particularly the farther up the chain you go!

 

62613, I think you posted a very interesting response on the statistics, or rather what sits beneath them - I even googled "workfare", but your post seems to have vanished?

 

John.

[Mike Storey]

6 hours ago, adb968008 said:

In my opinion HS2 isnt the problem, it is a solution.

 

However Euston and Old Oak are problems.

 

the only useful purpose of Old Oak is a red light to queue trains into London, but as an interchange its pointless... no car, bus, tube even the canal misses it. Nearest Overground is suggested over 1/4 of a mile away.. people today wont even change at Shepherds bush and thats across the street.

 

Only the brave or the foolhardy will risk a flight connection to two changes of train connections dragging cases without a large safety buffer, which loses the benefit right there to the car or a connecting flight (reassured a  connection / responsibility of airline, plus no dragging baggage).

 

Euston is a missed opportunity...

 

Just as HS2 stock exits in the north on to normal infrastructure tracks, it could have done so on the southern end too...

 

if it was designed to use cross rail, HS2 could be going to Kent & Anglia as thru services stopping across the capital, the money saved could have funded a south bound spur towards clapham and the country could have benefitted from true long distance non-change services from the South East, Anglia to the North and South West.

 

instead we have a palace at Euston, a palace at Brum, and a nice line in between... that though makes a nice neat trainset to sell if the government were to privatise it in the future.

 

I dont see a use case for Londoners (most of whom dont livein London), as they still have lots of suitcase dragging connections across london, and if with kids will take a car.

Neither do i believe families from the South are going to move to Brum and commute at higher cost to London, when a zone 6 travelcard today breaks the finances of a London wage as it is.

 

The best use as is its a Pendolino replacement, so lets not pretend its going to generate new revenues, just because its going to save 15 mins on a trip to Brum.

 

I don't disagree about Euston being a problem, but from the 14 different options explored, it turned out to be the least worst.

 

But I fear you have not read much about the GLA's and TfL's future plans for Old Oak and its environs. If this all comes to pass, it will indeed become a major transport hub, much like Stratford is now, with potential Overground/Southern services, Central Line, multiple bus routes and cycle routes. It makes very good sense, especially as a much easier change into CrossRail, from/to central London, Canary Wharf, Essex and North Kent, as well as Heathrow and arguably (Mike SM passim) to the West. That covers quite a substantial percentage of journey opportunities. Direct links through to more places are always welcome of course, but then there is the corresponding knock to punctuality, as Thameslink often shows. Devil and Deep Blue Sea on that one.

 

[Mike Storey]

36 minutes ago, melmerby said:

 

Official figures:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment

 

"Lowest since 1974"

 

 

Unfortunately, you cannot rely on such data, particularly prior to 1983, when the unemployment count changed from those registered as unemployed to just those claiming unemployment-related benefit, which suddenly reduced the "official" total. As time went on, eligibility for benefits changed significantly too, so comparisons to past figures are somewhat unreliable. The "number of people in work" is probably a more consistent guide, although even that is contested by some economists, due to the "gig" economy, and the increasing number of people with more than one job - how many people/jobs are counted there?

 

http://www.radstats.org.uk/no072/article4.htm

 

[Mark Saunders]

The only way to calculate Employment & Unemployment would be in a similar way to container ports showing numbers of containers moved in TEU twenty foot equivalent units, so 20 hour a week job would be half and 40 a whole job!

 

Mark Saunders 

[caradoc]

Regarding the Old Oak Common interchange, IMHO it will be extremely useful, as long as sufficient trains on both main routes (GWML and HS2) stop there; I regularly travel between Oxford and Glasgow, which currently means queezing onto a Voyager and changing at New St. The alternative of changing at a brand new and shiny Old Oak to a high speed service north is highly attractive to me, and if also for many others in the Thames Valley, HS2 will relieve the increasingly busy Reading/Birmingham corridor as well as the WCML.

 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I don't disagree about Euston being a problem, but from the 14 different options explored, it turned out to be the least worst.

 

But I fear you have not read much about the GLA's and TfL's future plans for Old Oak and its environs. If this all comes to pass, it will indeed become a major transport hub, much like Stratford is now, with potential Overground/Southern services, Central Line, multiple bus routes and cycle routes. It makes very good sense, especially as a much easier change into CrossRail, from/to central London, Canary Wharf, Essex and North Kent, as well as Heathrow and arguably (Mike SM passim) to the West. That covers quite a substantial percentage of journey opportunities. Direct links through to more places are always welcome of course, but then there is the corresponding knock to punctuality, as Thameslink often shows. Devil and Deep Blue Sea on that one.

 

I think the problem in comparing Old Oak interchange with Stratford is that it is never going to be anywhere near as compact.  At Stratford everything is - the International station apart - next to or literally on top of something else, and it was like that before it developed to 'hub' status.   There is definitely considerable interchange to/from Norwich trains at Stratford  and I would suspect that while some of it has relocated from Liverpool St a lot of it comes from routes within London that couldn't easily access Liverpool St in the past.

 

Old Oak Common is rather different with Overground/Southern Services on either the North London or West London Lines both a considerable distance from the GWML/HS2 station and in the case of the West London Line a distance which would present considerable difficulties and costs in creating an interchange which would inevitably need some sort of travelator because of the distance involved.  The same could probably be said of the North London Line and Central Line although they are at least nearer to the site of the HS2/GWML stations.  It might be possible to construct a new and nearer Central Line station as most of the quadruple track land still seems to be there underneath the jungle that now covers it.  The North London Line would be a more difficult place to provide a new station but it might be feasible up by the junction into South West Sidings but both it and a new Central Line station would still be a considerable distance from the HS2/GWML stations and wouldn't offer the sort of easy interchange that exists between the Central Line/DLR  and the GEML at Stratford. 

 

In order to get any 'buses nearer the existing route would have to be diverted to a new 'bus station but currently there is only that one route along the lower part of Old Oak Common Lane at the nearest point to the new stations.  A considerable contrast with Stratford which has a long established pattern of routes - 11 in all plus 2 night routes - using the stops immediately outside the station.   No doubt  TfL could presumably do something about creating additional routes, especially in view of the major residential developments in the area, but Old Oak Common Lane is hardly in the same category as Stratford with no sort of local shopping centre, let alone a major one, or other facilities such as a cinema and theatre nearby.  In 'bus terms Old Oak is not a hub at present and without major retail and residential development nearby is probably never going to be one.

 

The CrossRail interchange is probably likely to be better than Paddington in some respects and will obviously provide the best possible link between Crossrail and HS2  but Paddington Crossrail station has hopefully, has in any case been designed as an interchange so it would amount to duplication as far interchange with GWML long distance services is concerned.

[Edwin_m]

Any discussion of costs needs to be clear about whether it's talking about the spot estimate or whether contingency or optimism bias has been included in the quoted figures.  This can make a huge difference. 

[Mike Storey]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

I think the problem in comparing Old Oak interchange with Stratford is that it is never going to be anywhere near as compact.  At Stratford everything is - the International station apart - next to or literally on top of something else, and it was like that before it developed to 'hub' status.   There is definitely considerable interchange to/from Norwich trains at Stratford  and I would suspect that while some of it has relocated from Liverpool St a lot of it comes from routes within London that couldn't easily access Liverpool St in the past.

 

Old Oak Common is rather different with Overground/Southern Services on either the North London or West London Lines both a considerable distance from the GWML/HS2 station and in the case of the West London Line a distance which would present considerable difficulties and costs in creating an interchange which would inevitably need some sort of travelator because of the distance involved.  The same could probably be said of the North London Line and Central Line although they are at least nearer to the site of the HS2/GWML stations.  It might be possible to construct a new and nearer Central Line station as most of the quadruple track land still seems to be there underneath the jungle that now covers it.  The North London Line would be a more difficult place to provide a new station but it might be feasible up by the junction into South West Sidings but both it and a new Central Line station would still be a considerable distance from the HS2/GWML stations and wouldn't offer the sort of easy interchange that exists between the Central Line/DLR  and the GEML at Stratford. 

 

In order to get any 'buses nearer the existing route would have to be diverted to a new 'bus station but currently there is only that one route along the lower part of Old Oak Common Lane at the nearest point to the new stations.  A considerable contrast with Stratford which has a long established pattern of routes - 11 in all plus 2 night routes - using the stops immediately outside the station.   No doubt  TfL could presumably do something about creating additional routes, especially in view of the major residential developments in the area, but Old Oak Common Lane is hardly in the same category as Stratford with no sort of local shopping centre, let alone a major one, or other facilities such as a cinema and theatre nearby.  In 'bus terms Old Oak is not a hub at present and without major retail and residential development nearby is probably never going to be one.

 

The CrossRail interchange is probably likely to be better than Paddington in some respects and will obviously provide the best possible link between Crossrail and HS2  but Paddington Crossrail station has hopefully, has in any case been designed as an interchange so it would amount to duplication as far interchange with GWML long distance services is concerned.

 

I get why you are saying that. Much the same was said about Stratford (East London) 20 years ago, and very few Norwich trains called there then, as there was simply insufficient platform and signalling capacity to do so without major impact on all other services. The bus station was on the verge of being closed, for a variety of operational and social/policing reasons (in fact it would have helped me and the ODA considerably if it had shut, but that was deemed a step too far.) The "shopping centre" was a complete dive, which the local constabulary would only enter in pairs, when called. I was verbally "attacked" for wearing a suit, in the first year or two we were there, doing our initial surveys. I was even chased down a very long road by a gypsy scrap camp untethered guard dog licenced recycling business's security protection Alsatian. That site alone cost us £1 million. The plans were there to make Stratford what it is now (primarily because of Canary Wharf), but it would have taken 40 years or so. The 2012 Olympics accelerated all that, and we made it happen. You can't buy a house in Leyton now for under half-a-mill. They were giving them away before. (I am not saying that is a good thing - where on earth have the locals gone?)

 

Paddington will never be a decent interchange, and I suspect even you will admit that privately, in the snug bar, but not here in the open.....

 

That, and the regeneration that the new NLL and subsequent Overground extensions have driven, has set the new benchmark for such developments. I have therefore absolutely no doubt that the GLA aspirations for Old Oak are both realistic and achievable - there are no Chelsea Preservation Societies to stop them for a start. The only question is timing, which depends on the economy and thus on a number of things that may affect that.

 

There is some doubt, as you have demonstrated, over benefits to the West Country, and I make no comment. But the rest of it, IMHO, is bang on.

Edited July 20, 2019 by Mike Storey

[Bernard Lamb]

4 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

 You can't buy a house in Leyton now for under half-a-mill. They were giving them away before. (I am not saying that is a good thing - where on earth have the locals gone?)

 

 

Halifax according to an item on the local news yesterday.

The "legacy" of 2012 is another subject, well beyond the scope of this topic.

Leyton is cheap. Try Wapping for eye watering property prices.  Or even a couple of streets in Walthamstow Village.

Bernard

[Mike Storey]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Halifax according to an item on the local news yesterday.

The "legacy" of 2012 is another subject, well beyond the scope of this topic.

Leyton is cheap. Try Wapping for eye watering property prices.  Or even a couple of streets in Walthamstow Village.

Bernard

 

Indeed, but Leyton is only cheap compared to others, but light years from what it used to be only a decade or so earlier. Wapping has become a favourite for pied-a-terre residency, even in the old council flats (which a not inconsiderable number of our contracted-in bethren had bought). I remember Walthamstow from my mis-spent youth, and the "Village" was a joke. All of which all supports what regeneration can do to an area like Old Oak. 

 

It also supports what can happen in areas like Birmingham, Sheffield, Manchester, Stoke, Leeds, Crewe and of course Liverpool. It is already happening on the strength of both key industries moving north (especially the meeja) and the future, long term potential of HS2 and HS3. Whilst Old Oak is a probable certainty, as there are so few other areas of London left to exploit, the Northern cities present a different issue. Those in denial, suggest that the vast benefit of HS2 will be for the South. Buzzer sounds. Uh-ugh. Wrong!!!. There is almost nothing left to exploit down there. Instead, HS2 and HS3 will suddenly make areas that have never seen something more memorable than a few pot-holes repaired or a vast shopping centre that is now struggling to fill its vacant lots, turn into Vegas, or at least Hampstead. These things are already happening.

 

People in the North seem to want this, and who are we to argue?

 

Personally, I want to see HS2 and HS3, as a transport professional (according to my grossly inflated CV), but I sometimes wonder, having now seen at close hand just what it has done to a place like Hebden Bridge, whether that is a "good thing"?

[Shed]

On 08/02/2019 at 13:05, Ron Ron Ron said:

Hi Mike, Answering your points....

 

 

I don't think there is any firm plan yet on main line stopping patterns, other than the obvious contingency provision for Relief Line outage.

I expect there will be at least some services on the Main Lines stopping at OOC, facilitated by the dual island platforms per line.

 

 

 

There is no plan to build a platform between the Down Main and the Hitachi depot.

Every outline plan, track diagram and artists renderings, show the GWML platforms as 4x islands.

 

Indeed the whole track formation north of the Down Main is going to be significantly slewed.

In fact I think slewed is rather understating the the scale of the actual relocation and replacement of the current track formation.

The outline diagrams shown so far, indicate the new Main Line platforms will cover the whole of the existing Main and Relief line footprint and extending just into the current depot area.

The new Relief Line platforms will be located in what is currently the OOC depot site.

 

 

 

Apparently, the bridges on the western approach to the station are all in the pipeline to be widened.

Someone has posted some info on another forum, showing the proposed, significant widening of the Old Oak Common Lane and Central Line bridges.

 

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9L4C88xQieE/XExzaVWvW_I/AAAAAAAArxI/AhBEZ2Jb1IEwEqxwKf-AqIk0J97T-ryfACLcBGAs/s1000/2019-01%2BOld%2BOak%2BCommon%2BLane%2Bbridge.png

 

 

 

No doubt there will be a lot of disruption over quite a time frame.

Then again Mike, how else are they going to build a new station on a busy main line?

At least half of the new GWML station can be built clear of the existing running lines.

 

 

 

 

.

The substations have recently been fenced off and the old Wycombe line is now only accessible from the Hex depot 

[Shed]

11 hours ago, ess1uk said:

 

MPs backed the High Speed Rail (West Midlands to Crewe) Bill in the House of Commons by 263 votes in favour to 17 against.

who voted against?

How many MPs are there?

would the Welsh and North Irish vote on this?

[adb968008]

17 hours ago, melmerby said:

 

Official figures:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment

 

"Lowest since 1974"

 

Theres jobs, then theres mcJobs.

 

certainly in London if you want a delivery job, or other low skilled / zero hours contract theres loads of work..., those foreigners exiting the UK have left a vacuum of work to fill.

 

but at the professional end, IT, Finance, its a bloodbath in London, with salaries back 15 years ago and jobs with hundreds of applicants for each position. There is one anomaly though, Project Managers needed on migration projects to Europe.

 

celebrate low employment, but don't forget which ones pay taxes to fund everything.

Edited July 21, 2019 by adb968008

[adb968008]

18 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I don't disagree about Euston being a problem, but from the 14 different options explored, it turned out to be the least worst.

 

But I fear you have not read much about the GLA's and TfL's future plans for Old Oak and its environs. If this all comes to pass, it will indeed become a major transport hub, much like Stratford is now, with potential Overground/Southern services, Central Line, multiple bus routes and cycle routes. It makes very good sense, especially as a much easier change into CrossRail, from/to central London, Canary Wharf, Essex and North Kent, as well as Heathrow and arguably (Mike SM passim) to the West. That covers quite a substantial percentage of journey opportunities. Direct links through to more places are always welcome of course, but then there is the corresponding knock to punctuality, as Thameslink often shows. Devil and Deep Blue Sea on that one.

 

Maybe you can elaborate further on this hub plan....

 

Stratford has 2 DLR lines, 2 Tube lines plus rail, it was a hub before 2012, nothing was added, except a tube line to Stratford intl from Stratford, everything else existed before and was upgraded (NLL etc)

 

Old Oak has nothing today so if i missed the 4 new tube lines, bus connections, motorway link... please correct me ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Oak_Common_railway_station

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Oak_Common_railway_station#/media/File%3AWillesden_Junction_map_with_Old_Oak_Common.png

 

All i see is a Crossrail station and a very long walk 1/4 mile plus walk to another, as yet, pie in the sky Overground proposal which “no actual proposals exist to create an interchange with these lines.” And only offers an 8 stop journey to a further connecting station at Clapham..not suitable... North London passengers will find it easier to use Euston, East London, XR.

 

to me the business case for Old Oak relies on commuters to London via Crossrail... I’d like to see how London salaries are going to support hundreds of thousands of NEW commuters paying £60-£100 a day to commute, when £60 a week seems to be a barrier for most at Zone 6.

 

Simply put even professional salaries require a substantial sacrifice in terms of time, cost, quality of life, to sustain a commute at £10k a year (2019 fare for BHX to EUS via VT) levels, plus mortgage, car, day 2 day life... thats £4k per month just in costs, at todays rates.. you’ll need £100k salary just to have a normal life... those earning that today, dont need to live in Brum to work in London.

 

At best OC moves the interchange passengers of GWR to XR from Paddington to OC, though that could have been done at any other ‘close to london’ station on the system.

Edited July 21, 2019 by adb968008

[62613]

18 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

Mark Saunders, yes I've caught a few of these with dear old Michael Crick who's always a pleasure to listen to!

 

Siberian Snooper, couldn't agree more, I wouldn't trust them even that far, particularly the farther up the chain you go!

 

62613, I think you posted a very interesting response on the statistics, or rather what sits beneath them - I even googled "workfare", but your post seems to have vanished?

 

John.

Yes, it has, hasn't it? I wonder why?

 

[ess1uk]

11 hours ago, Shed said:

How many MPs are there?

would the Welsh and North Irish vote on this?

650 MPs in the commons 

so 370 didn’t even vote

 

[black and decker boy]

So today’s ‘leak’ is that Boris will cancel phase 1 and build NPR and HS2 north first

 

Well if he does then expect a bloodbath in the construction industry. Thousands have been employed, trained etc ready for HS2 south and all would be instantly redundant. HS2 north hasn’t yet finished in parliament let alone with a mature enough design for construction tenders to be issued. A gap of several years will ensue before the industry would need to gear up and recruit in the north. NPR / HS3 isn’t even at public consultation stage (route options etc) so still probably 10 years away from start of construction.

HS2 also has many obligations in the south as a result of the select committee hearings which if cancelled / delayed would have major implications on local infrastructure improvements and resulting much noisy lobbying for transfer of funds from DfT.

We’ve not yet mentioned the fact it’s WCML south that is creaking at the seams and with no HS2 phase 1, all those trains whizzing round the north would have no where to go when the hit Birmingham.

This would be a very bad idea.

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I get why you are saying that. Much the same was said about Stratford (East London) 20 years ago, and very few Norwich trains called there then, as there was simply insufficient platform and signalling capacity to do so without major impact on all other services. The bus station was on the verge of being closed, for a variety of operational and social/policing reasons (in fact it would have helped me and the ODA considerably if it had shut, but that was deemed a step too far.) The "shopping centre" was a complete dive, which the local constabulary would only enter in pairs, when called. I was verbally "attacked" for wearing a suit, in the first year or two we were there, doing our initial surveys. I was even chased down a very long road by a gypsy scrap camp untethered guard dog licenced recycling business's security protection Alsatian. That site alone cost us £1 million. The plans were there to make Stratford what it is now (primarily because of Canary Wharf), but it would have taken 40 years or so. The 2012 Olympics accelerated all that, and we made it happen. You can't buy a house in Leyton now for under half-a-mill. They were giving them away before. (I am not saying that is a good thing - where on earth have the locals gone?)

 

Paddington will never be a decent interchange, and I suspect even you will admit that privately, in the snug bar, but not here in the open.....

 

That, and the regeneration that the new NLL and subsequent Overground extensions have driven, has set the new benchmark for such developments. I have therefore absolutely no doubt that the GLA aspirations for Old Oak are both realistic and achievable - there are no Chelsea Preservation Societies to stop them for a start. The only question is timing, which depends on the economy and thus on a number of things that may affect that.

 

There is some doubt, as you have demonstrated, over benefits to the West Country, and I make no comment. But the rest of it, IMHO, is bang on.

Yes Mike but the essential difference with Stratford was that all those things were there if something could be done to retain and develop them - and fortunately the Olympics probably provided the best incentive to do that.

 

That is not the case at Old Oak Common where basically the 'hub' will be nothing except HS2, Crossrail, the GWML, and the 228 'bus route.  The nearest Central Line stations involve walking along muggers' alley in one case (North Acton) and the other is too far away although I think it might be possible to build a new station between the two if a route can be found round the substation.    But the NLL and WLL - even with the new stations built - are still too far away for 'ordinary' interchange although redevelopment of the area (as is already underway near the former entrance to Old Oak loco shed) will obviously have an impact and could justify their construction.

 

So in effect all that Old Oak could really be is a Crossrail/HS2 interchange plus some locally generated traffic from the proposed redevelopment plan (some of which is already underway as I've said).  Whether or not the existing housing on Old Oak Common Lane, and in the surrounding area, would undergo 'gentrification' is an open question in my view although theoretically the outlook towards the railway will improve considerably and 'open up' what is currently a very unattractive road.

 

I would in many respects agree with you regarding interchange at Paddington especially to the Hammersmith & City which is now far worse than it has ever been in the entire history of that line - nowadays you even have to go out in the weather to get to it from the main line station.  The Circle Line eastbound is a dismal prospect - again worse than it has ever been in its history due to the break of services at Edgware Road  which in turn means that use of the H&C has increased, despite its inaccessibility.  But the Inner Rail Circle service and the District towards Earls Court are still heavily used and no less accessible than at most other stations (and considerably better than, say, Kings Cross and St Pancras), while the Bakerloo is equally no less accessible than it is at, for example, Waterloo.    Crossrail will in many respects supplement the Bakerloo and Central Line providing a simpler journey for many and potentially opening new markets but access there depends really on what has been built at Paddington.  For most transfers to longer distance journeys on the GWML I can't really see it being supplanted by Old Oak although interchange might well be simpler - even if somebody is prepared to decelerate GWML long distance services.   And many travellers have strong preference for joining trains at the originating station as it allows more time and they stand a far better chance of getting the seat they want.

 

As it happens that final point is very apparent at Stratford where in my experience on Norwich trains many of those who join at Stratford seem to spend a considerable amount of time walking up & down looking for a seat they would like to sit in - on what are trains which left Liverpool St well loaded.