HS2

[Ron Ron Ron]

9 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

.....Therefore IF the British Government had decided to build a new airport at Wing / Cubbington and closed Heathrow than airlines wishing to serve London would have had no choice but to move. .....

 

There was absolutely NO proposal to replace Heathrow with Wing/Cubbington, or any of the other 1960's proposed site (e.g.Maplin Sands).

 

The proposal was for a 3rd London Airport, to complement Heathrow and Gatwick.

It was assumed at the time that both Heathrow and the new airport, would be the prime locations for scheduled services, as at the time, Gatwick was perceived as only serving the holiday charter market.

 

 

.

[Bernard Lamb]

9 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

 

Therefore IF the British Government had decided to build a new airport at Wing / Cubbington and closed Heathrow than airlines wishing to serve London would have had no choice but to move.  The site could have easily been served by a branch off the WCML while the A41 road corridor could have been developed much earlier than it did to provide a good connection to London and potentially the NW (by linking up with what became the M40 to Birmingham.

 

 

Except that scenario does not take into account out a major reason for needing HS2. A lack of capacity on the WCML.

It might well have worked for a few decades but the current situation would have come along much sooner.

Building HS2 as a solution to serve the airport brings us back to all the discussion about HS2 going via LHR.

Living in the A41 corridor I think that the right decision was made.

Bernard

[Pandora]

On 20/11/2021 at 17:35, Northmoor said:

The very high speeds expected by Northern city politicians were always pure vanity ("Look how important our city is, it's on the High Speed network); a huge increase in costs for very little point-to-point time reduction.  I suspect it's half the reason the Eastern Leg didn't wash its face financially, the trains either go fast OR they stop at Sheffield and Chesterfield.  They couldn't do both and the local politicians all wanted the trains to stop at their station but not the others.

The speed profile, where the train needs 30 miles to accelerate  from 0 mph  to achieve 225 mph, and 7 miles to brake from 225mph  to 0 mph , means station to station should be a minimum of 40 miles and probably 80 or 100 miles apart to justify such a high linespeed in the design. Any experts on the forum who could analyse the Liverpool -Leeds "HS3" for a suggested linespeed which will fit with the station to station distances of intended calling points  on the new line?

Edited November 22, 2021 by Pandora

[Ron Ron Ron]

One of the TBM cutting heads being lifted at the West Ruislip tunnel portal site.

(view looking west from the NR station road bridge)

 

 

 

 

.

[Edwin_m]

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The design speed of HS2 is still 250mph as far as I know. That does not preclude operators deciding to run at lower speeds of course.

 

In alignment terms there is virtually zero difference between 250 and 200mph but at 200mph you can have ballasted track and make some savings on OLE kit due to the lesser aerodynamic forces and power consumption while at 250mph you need slab track and a much beefier OLE / power supply system.

Last I heard, HS2 was using ballasted track further north but slab track on the busiest section south of Birmingham.  Design speed is 400km/h (250mph near enough) except where there is a reason to reduce it.  

[Edwin_m]

35 minutes ago, Pandora said:

The speed profile, where the train needs 30 miles to accelerate  from 0 mph  to achieve 225 mph, and 7 miles to brake from 225mph  to 0 mph , means station to station should be a minimum of 40 miles and probably 80 or 100 miles apart to justify such a high linespeed in the design. Any experts on the forum who could analyse the Liverpool -Leeds "HS3" for a suggested linespeed which will fit with the station to station distances of intended calling points  on the new line?

Gradient has an effect too.  I can't read the captions on the profile posted above, but when I did a similar one I concluded that the HS2 train would not be able to reach maximum speed northbound through the Chilterns.  A Pennine crossing could be on a severe gradient, but this also means the trains in the downhill direction will accelerate faster.  Normally it also means they will take longer to decelerate, which approximately cancels out, but in the case of the partial alignment on the west side the deceleration will be approaching Manchester where it's relatively flat.  

[Ron Ron Ron]

6 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

......I concluded that the HS2 train would not be able to reach maximum speed northbound through the Chilterns.  ......

 

I've read somewhere, the expected maximum speed restrictions within the tunnels, routing out through the West London and Chilterns Tunnels.

The size of the tunnel bore diameters varies according to the design speed for each of those tunnel sections.

Leaving London and heading north, acceleration to full line will occur once clear of the Chilterns Tunnels.

 

 

.

Edited November 22, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[corneliuslundie]

It's back to Doggerland then. Or somewhere in another country (I don't mean another part of the UK). We just don't have big empty flat spaces within easy reach of London.

So yes, let the train take the strain and cut unnecessary flying.

Jonathan

[melmerby]

5 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The design speed of HS2 is still 250mph as far as I know. That does not preclude operators deciding to run at lower speeds of course.

 

 

That AFAIK is exactly it .

250mph design speed, operational speed 200-205mph, which is similar to France where the running speed is lower than the design speed on some later LGVs

 

Maybe when the mythical source of free energy is found they can ramp them up to 250mph?

Edited November 22, 2021 by melmerby

[APOLLO]

3 hours ago, Pandora said:

 Any experts on the forum who could analyse the Liverpool -Leeds "HS3" for a suggested linespeed which will fit with the station to station distances of intended calling points  on the new line?

 

20mph into Yorkshire is 19mph too fast.

 

225mph out of Yorkshire back to Lancashire ain't fast enough !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Brit15

[Grovenor]

1 hour ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

I've read somewhere, the maximum speed restrictions within the tunnels, routing out through the West London and Chilterns Tunnels.

The tunnel bore diameters vary according to the design speed for those tunnel sections.

Leaving London and heading north, acceleration to full line will occur once clear of the Chilterns Tunnels.

Just a few posts back, clear on the posted speed profile.

 

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

I've read somewhere, the maximum speed restrictions within the tunnels, routing out through the West London and Chilterns Tunnels.

The tunnel bore diameters vary according to the design speed for those tunnel sections.

Leaving London and heading north, acceleration to full line will occur once clear of the Chilterns Tunnels.

 

 

.

Certainly the tunnel cross-section limits the speed, due to various factors including pressure effects on passengers and the air the train pushes out of the way causing a backdraught so the pantograph sees an airflow faster than the train speed.  

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, lmsforever said:

Some interesting replies about Wing airport  ,looking at the proposed area for  it the work required  was vast and would have been totaly disruptive . It is the spread of these places that is one of the results of placing a vast construction only five miles from Aylesbury ,five miles from L/Buzzard  approx ten miles from Bletchley and MK .All busy with existing populations even back in those days the road networks would have had to be completely rebuilt to carry all of the traffic that would be on offer.A link from the A41 is a simplistic solution and covers one direction only

 

And the building / expansion of Heathrow wasn't disruptive?

 

Before WW2 the area now covered by Heathrow was common land and small villages - all swept away to build an airport. Equally the M4 and later the M25 weren't just spontaneous things - a big chunk of their justification was to serve the new airport and had an alternative site been chosen then it would have received similar investment to ensure good road access.

 

I guess one difference would be Heathrows expansion over the decades was less of a shock to the system - the extra traffic / noise / pollution being overlaid onto what was already there so less noticeable (though no less harmful to human heath) than building the same capacity anew on a different site.

 

4 hours ago, lmsforever said:

largr airports will become white elephants in the future due the climate problems etc .Our existing sites are perfectly adequate for the traffic on offer ie  Luton  Heathrow and Gatwick  also the green movement is anti plane and they will prevail given how the world is going to be.The answer HS2 more train services using an environmental means of propulsion.

 

Again, you are confusing what 'might have been' with what 'will be'

 

As the whole 'Boris Island' demonstrated, any attempt to move Heathrow simply won't work and we are stuck with it.

 

However that doesn't change the base facts that it is a very unsuitable place for Londons main airport - just as never retesting motor vehicle drivers once they have got their licence is a stupid idea with respect to road safety.

 

As to air travel in general, I fear your optimism is misplaced - the average British voter will give the politicians a right old kicking if they are seen to take away the 'right*' to fly off to the sun / snow / Disneyland for holidays while big business will scare the Treasury with tales of how much of a shrinking of GDP / tax revenues will occur dare aviation usage be capped.

 

Hence the Governmental strategy of pushing things like electric cars and banning gas boilers as doing that frees up emissions to be used for the likes of airlines (for whom their is no real alternative to Kerosene for the foreseeable future).

 

 

 

* One of the biggest problems of 'the consumer / voter is always right' mentality peddled by politicians over the past 40 years or so is it gives people inflated and inaccurate idea of what a 'right' is!  'Rights' induce the basics such as a legal system which is fair / respects the UN declaration on human rights, access to clean water, basic healthcare and the ability to not starve on the streets due to lack of accommodation / food. They most certainly do NOT include the ability to drive wherever they want, fly as many times as they want, etc...

 

 

 

 

[phil-b259]

32 minutes ago, melmerby said:

That AFAIK is exactly it .

250mph design speed, operational speed 200-205mph, which is similar to France where the running speed is lower than the design speed on some later LGVs

 

 

Sorry, no French LGV (even the latest builds) is designed for more than 200mph running and no French TGV is timetabled to run faster than 186mph.

 

This is the result of considerable work comparing energy requirements against speed - and even in a country with significantly larger distances between population centres going faster is poor value for money.

 

When HS2 was being designed, an outbreak of Whitehall willy waving (1) combined with the traditional British desire to squish as much as possible into a single project (2) saw what would be termed 'best practice' cast aside.

 

 

(1) designed make the UK look better than anyone else despite it been extremely late to the High speed rail table)

(2) i.e. serve Leeds so as to not to have to build a new / seriously upgrade the ECML

[lmsforever]

Thank goodness Wing never happenned at least we still have a locality that is worth living inspite a council that seems eo give carte blanche to any house builder  to build here. HS2 will be just a rail line and will blend in to the countryside .the new houses by the way seem to be having many build problems .

[phil-b259]

56 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

It's back to Doggerland then. Or somewhere in another country (I don't mean another part of the UK). We just don't have big empty flat spaces within easy reach of London.

 

This is of course the nub of the problem  - and why Wing / Cubbington was suggested in the first place as its about as close as you can get to London while still satisfying the perimeters of flat land, reasonably (or as far as is possible in SE England) away from large population centres / estuary environments.

 

So very much a case of 'the 'least worst option' rather than 'the best solution' territory.... not that is going to make any difference these days of course.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by phil-b259

[62613]

9 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

Thank goodness Wing never happenned at least we still have a locality that is worth living inspite a council that seems eo give carte blanche to any house builder  to build here. HS2 will be just a rail line and will blend in to the countryside .the new houses by the way seem to be having many build problems .

I suspect that that's the government ordering the local authority to build so many houses; every LA in England has been instructed to do so. If the LA has got it's head screwed on, it will be drawing up a plan, which would allow them to say to developers, "Here, and nowhere else"

 

[phil-b259]

5 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

Thank goodness Wing never happenned at least we still have a locality that is worth living inspite a council that seems eo give carte blanche to any house builder  to build here. HS2 will be just a rail line and will blend in to the countryside .the new houses by the way seem to be having many build problems .

 

However much of that development is driven by the same basic principles as the 1970s airport plan - namely London (and existing towns) simply don't have enough space to build all the new housing required without causing significant harm (by concreting over what green places do exist in urban areas or abandoning the green belt principle).

 

Like it or not, as with airports, the facts don't lie! With statistics showing far grater levels of marriage breakdown, far less people willing to co-habit with relatives, population growth and the way politicians have pursued policies which saw economic activity centred on London / the South East (at the expense of elsewhere), its a fact that there is insufficient land to accommodate housing needs without significant development in traditionally rural areas.

 

Again, as with Heathrow airport, many of the political policies which have given rise state of affairs are stupid and not supported by factual analysis  - but are so ingrained that its impossible to change them such that additional development cannot be avoided.

 

Its also rather ironic that had an airport at Wing / Cubbington been built it would have made the area very unattractive for housing. That lack of airport development on the other hand made it very attractive decades later to help address the very real housing crisis...

[DK123GWR]

12 minutes ago, 62613 said:

I suspect that that's the government ordering the local authority to build so many houses; every LA in England has been instructed to do so. If the LA has got it's head screwed on, it will be drawing up a plan, which would allow them to say to developers, "Here, and nowhere else"

 

Which is a strange policy, given that there are more empty long-term homes than homeless people. One might think that selectively building in areas where there is a shortage and redistributing some of those empty homes might be a more sustainable solution.

 

One might also imagine, on issues such as choice of transport or diet, that the Behavioural Insights Team could investigate ways to persuade people to eat less meat and use public or active transport instead of private vehicles, at the same time as fiscal policy and re-regulation is used to facilitate these changes. Instead, we get ministers waffling on about how much hard-working people deserve a steak when they get home from work and a PM telling business leaders that a Tesla can get away from traffic lights faster than a Ferrari. A little bit of really straightforward inside-the-box thinking would go a long way sometimes, and transport policy is no exception.

[phil-b259]

Just now, DK123GWR said:

Which is a strange policy, given that there are more empty long-term homes than homeless people. One might think that selectively building in areas where there is a shortage and redistributing some of those empty homes might be a more sustainable solution.

 

 

 

We have discussed this before elsewhere

 

The WESTMINSTER GOVERNMENT have rigged the planning process in favour of their developer mates. Basically....

 

A WESTMINSTER GOVERNMENT quango decides how much new housing is 'needed' in each local authority area and instructs said local authorities to find and set aside XX hectares of land for housing in 5 yearly housing plans.

 

If the local authority does not do this, or does not keep its housing plan 'up to date' then planning law has been adjusted and developers MUST be granted planning permission to build wherever they want (unless its an SSI, AONB, a NP or Greenbelt). Refusal to give permission will see the developer win on appeal to the secretary of state. If this happens the developer also has the ability to avoid paying S106 contributions to local authorities to help with stuff like extra schools provision, etc

 

As a result local authorities don't have much choice other than to do the WESTMINSTER GOVERNMENTS dirty work and are often forced to set aside land for development against the wishes of locals. This is worse where the local authority has lots of environmental restrictions (e.g. AONBs or Greenbelt) which effectively forces the development to be concentrated in a few places rather than being spread out more evenly amongst existing settlements.

 

If you don't like it then rather than complaining to / about local authorities then you need to get writing to your MPs - because they (or the Government they are meant to control) are the ones setting the agenda here....

 

My hometown for example is earmarked for huge levels of housing precisely because an awful lot of the rest of Mid Sussex is covered by ANOB restrictions and its one of the few places development can be done. Local authorities in the vicinity of the Chilterns will be facing similar dilemmas...

 

 

 

[APOLLO]

I read the integrated report a bit more earlier. Re this paragraph, page 12

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1034359/integrated-rail-plan-for-the-north-and-midlands-print.pdf

 

We will build High Speed 2 (HS2) from Crewe to Manchester… on the route and line speed as previously planned with new stations at Manchester Airport5 and Manchester Piccadilly. HS2 trains will run from London to Manchester in 1 hour 11 minutes6 , and from Birmingham to Manchester in 41–51 minutes7 . This line and Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) will allow direct high speed services from Birmingham to Leeds, taking 79–89 minutes8 . NPR trains between Liverpool and Manchester will also use part of this route. The Union Connectivity Review is considering the case for alternatives to the Golborne Spur for faster and higher capacity connections from HS2 services to Scotland. Our plans allow the Crewe Hub vision to be realised, with up to 5–7 HS2 trains per hour able to call at Crewe which would also enhance connectivity to much of the West Midlands, Cheshire and North Wales not directly served by HS2.

 

So the Golborne spur, or an alternative will be built. Interesting. I can't find anything in the current Union Connectivity Review.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/970476/Union-Connectivity-Review-Interim-Report-March-2021-accessible.pdf

 

Golborne as a choice for the WCML connection is quite fine, open farmland, the WCML here is four track and a flying junction not difficult. Going north the 4 tracks become 6 to Springs Branch then 5  for the mile or so to Wigan North Western (One track is bi directional for Liverpool bound EMU's terminating in Wigan.)

 

It is at Wigan NW where the problems begin. the station is two long, narrow island platforms (with a bay for Manchester trains). There is a bend at both ends with around an 60mph (or so - may be a bit higher) speed limit. For the next 7 miles or so the line is double track to beyond Coppull - it's straight though and the 1 in 105 gradient shouldn't cause problems. The line is four tracks from here to Preston. Once it was 4 tracked from Standish Junction, and was electrified as 4 tracks, later cut to 2 from here towards Coppull. The OLE headspans are still in place.

 

The Wigan-Coppull section is already a bottleneck at times, I live alongside it and traffic is heavy. At times late running southbound trains calling at NW cause slow running Pendolinos etc. Not ideal for long & fast HS trains.  If the Edinburgh services are also to use this line also it will be mayhem.

 

The alternative, as I see it, is to not connect at Golborne, but construct the HS2 spur to Lowton, then continue along the extant old GC route to Hindley, onto the old LNWR Whelley Loop line around Wigan to Standish Junction & 4 track again to Coppull.

 

Expensive but feasible, no (too) sharp curves, and most of the route exists as footpaths. Hardly any property would need demolishing either. I wonder if this route may be considered ?

 

Anyway, I think lots can happen between now and spades in ground (10 years plus ?).

Brit15

 

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by APOLLO
typo

[DK123GWR]

23 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

We have discussed this before elsewhere

 

The WESTMINSTER GOVERNMENT have rigged the planning process in favour of their developer mates. Basically....

 

A WESTMINSTER GOVERNMENT quango decides how much new housing is 'needed' in each local authority area and instructs said local authorities to find and set aside XX hectares of land for housing in 5 yearly housing plans.

 

If the local authority does not do this, or does not keep its housing plan 'up to date' then planning law has been adjusted and developers MUST be granted planning permission to build wherever they want (unless its an SSI, AONB, a NP or Greenbelt). Refusal to give permission will see the developer win on appeal to the secretary of state. If this happens the developer also has the ability to avoid paying S106 contributions to local authorities to help with stuff like extra schools provision, etc

 

As a result local authorities don't have much choice other than to do the WESTMINSTER GOVERNMENTS dirty work and are often forced to set aside land for development against the wishes of locals. This is worse where the local authority has lots of environmental restrictions (e.g. AONBs or Greenbelt) which effectively forces the development to be concentrated in a few places rather than being spread out more evenly amongst existing settlements.

 

If you don't like it then rather than complaining to / about local authorities then you need to get writing to your MPs - because they (or the Government they are meant to control) are the ones setting the agenda here....

 

My hometown for example is earmarked for huge levels of housing precisely because an awful lot of the rest of Mid Sussex is covered by ANOB restrictions and its one of the few places development can be done. Local authorities in the vicinity of the Chilterns will be facing similar dilemmas...

 

 

 

Just in case you've mis-read my post (or I've been unclear) I know most of this from some of the positions I held before going to university (particularly on my town's Youth Council) and my criticism was directed at Westminster gov - I just didn't want to accelerate the tangent on planning policy given that it is the HS2 thread.

[APOLLO]

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) - Wot's won ov thoze ?

 

I doubt the Whelley loop line will be under such restrictions !!

 

 

Brit15

 

 

[JeffP]

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

20mph into Yorkshire is 19mph too fast.

 

225mph out of Yorkshire back to Lancashire ain't fast enough !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Brit15

That's God's own county you're mocking there.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

We have discussed this before elsewhere

 

The WESTMINSTER GOVERNMENT have rigged the planning process in favour of their developer mates. Basically....

 

A WESTMINSTER GOVERNMENT quango decides how much new housing is 'needed' in each local authority area and instructs said local authorities to find and set aside XX hectares of land for housing in 5 yearly housing plans.

 

If the local authority does not do this, or does not keep its housing plan 'up to date' then planning law has been adjusted and developers MUST be granted planning permission to build wherever they want (unless its an SSI, AONB, a NP or Greenbelt). Refusal to give permission will see the developer win on appeal to the secretary of state. If this happens the developer also has the ability to avoid paying S106 contributions to local authorities to help with stuff like extra schools provision, etc

 

As a result local authorities don't have much choice other than to do the WESTMINSTER GOVERNMENTS dirty work and are often forced to set aside land for development against the wishes of locals. This is worse where the local authority has lots of environmental restrictions (e.g. AONBs or Greenbelt) which effectively forces the development to be concentrated in a few places rather than being spread out more evenly amongst existing settlements.

 

If you don't like it then rather than complaining to / about local authorities then you need to get writing to your MPs - because they (or the Government they are meant to control) are the ones setting the agenda here....

 

My hometown for example is earmarked for huge levels of housing precisely because an awful lot of the rest of Mid Sussex is covered by ANOB restrictions and its one of the few places development can be done. Local authorities in the vicinity of the Chilterns will be facing similar dilemmas...

 

 

 

STOP SHOUTING please

Edited November 22, 2021 by melmerby