Jump to content
 

HS2 under review


Recommended Posts

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).

 

 

What about the link with Crossrail? Is this not central enough to London to be of benefit? The link with Crossrail is a through route on HS2 with excellent links with what will then be a fully operational rail link crossing London. Surely any stopping international service could call there instead of St Pancreas. Having a central location is good if you are trying to cater for everyone but surely the fact that people from the rest of the country can access the rail service at other locations means that Londoners could travel out to this interchange?

 

There was a ministerial statement released today following the announcement yesterday. It is worth a read because it clarifies some of the points but not all of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The question of a St Pancras reversal is both a technical and a commercial one.

 

On the commercial side the simple question is would an international train from, say, Birmingham to Paris load well enough to wash its financial face without also making a pick-up stop in the London area. and if it dies stop in the London area how accessible (and from where) does that stop need to be?

 

The technical issues are far more complex but start with the need to match HS2 pathing to the Tunnel and LGV Nord which also means matching with HS1/CTRL - at this stage there is a decision point. Should the HS 2 timetable be built around LGV Nord/the Tunnel or should it stand on its own two feet? And for just how long would it last on its own two (timetable) feet if Stationmaster Rail Inc bids to operate a through service between Koln and Birmingham and claims its legal right to be first on the graph on HS2 - thus potentially setting the shape of the entire HS2 timetableblink.gif So a 'break point' at St Pancras might offer timetabling flexibility (although in all honesty lack of platform capacity would probably shoot down that idea before it even gets off the ramp, let alone the ground. But that then opens up the bigger technical issue of Immigration and Customs controls plus whatever Transec are demanding to cope with the current flavour of the month terrorist threat. if controls take place on train the cost will be enormous unless they can be mitigated by dropping off people and kit before leaving England, and St Pancras would be an ideal place to do that as cheaply as possible.

 

So it's all a sight less straightforward than it might at first appear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question of a St Pancras reversal is both a technical and a commercial one.

 

On the commercial side the simple question is would an international train from, say, Birmingham to Paris load well enough to wash its financial face without also making a pick-up stop in the London area. and if it dies stop in the London area how accessible (and from where) does that stop need to be?

 

The technical issues are far more complex but start with the need to match HS2 pathing to the Tunnel and LGV Nord which also means matching with HS1/CTRL - at this stage there is a decision point. Should the HS 2 timetable be built around LGV Nord/the Tunnel or should it stand on its own two feet? And for just how long would it last on its own two (timetable) feet if Stationmaster Rail Inc bids to operate a through service between Koln and Birmingham and claims its legal right to be first on the graph on HS2 - thus potentially setting the shape of the entire HS2 timetableblink.gif So a 'break point' at St Pancras might offer timetabling flexibility (although in all honesty lack of platform capacity would probably shoot down that idea before it even gets off the ramp, let alone the ground. But that then opens up the bigger technical issue of Immigration and Customs controls plus whatever Transec are demanding to cope with the current flavour of the month terrorist threat. if controls take place on train the cost will be enormous unless they can be mitigated by dropping off people and kit before leaving England, and St Pancras would be an ideal place to do that as cheaply as possible.

 

So it's all a sight less straightforward than it might at first appear.

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/hammond20101220

 

Paragraph 8 and 11 seem to indicate that trains will run from the north to Europe using the connections mentioned in Para 8.

 

Surely if they are building new stations then they will design them in such a way to be friendly to international services. With them being new build this should theoretically be easier to do and if the Birmingham link is being constructed first then there is scope to see how it performs before adding the facillities at the other stations on the northern section.

 

As far as timetabling is concerned I doubt there would be a huge amount of trains running initially from Birmingham to the continent so the timetabling issue might not be a major stumbling block to start with. Anyway what are the real problems with having a timetable that links with HS1? Surely having say 8 to 10 trains a day running at a set time is not too difficult to plan around? Or am I being very naive?

Link to post
Share on other sites

.......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.......

The flyovers and rails were put in during the construction of HS1 and rebuilding of St. Pancras.

So the connection from the NLL to HS1 already exists, as does the chord from the NLL into St. Pancras International.

What I don't know is whether they can be used at present, or if they are locked out of use.

 

See here - Google Maps

Link to post
Share on other sites

If direct access onto the existing high speed route is provided , without reversal at St Pancras, there is of course already a London station available to call, with full international facilities, and extensive heavy duty Tube , surface rail light rail and bus connections. This would include very good access into a major Central London commercial district (or even 2 )

 

Stratford Intl

 

Commercially there should be no difficulty calling at Stratford with a through Birmingham/Paris train and letting Crossrail, Javelin, the Central Line, the GE, the Jubilee Line and the DLR take passengers into the City, West End and Docklands. The difficulty/cost is providing full international facilities a la Ashford and Ebbsfleet at stations nothe of London

Link to post
Share on other sites

.....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. .....

There's a certain amount of myth and wishful thinking around the subject of HS2 being a replacement for UK domestic air travel. Something the opportunist politicians and environmental lobby seem blind to.

The first phase of the line, London - Birmingham, will have absolutely no impact on air travel, as there isn't any between London and the Midlands (too short a distance).

 

The extensions to Manchester and Leeds may have very little impact on air travel between those cities and London.

 

Manchester - Heathrow passengers are largely connecting to other flights. A fast link from the OOC hub to Heathrow may be of benefit, but unless there's an out of town, or parkway style station at the Manchester end, the trek into the city centre may not be that appealing compared with the ease of getting to Manchester Airport (n.b. the larger part of the customer base is originating from Manchester's North West hinterland, e.g. South Lancashire or affluent Cheshire, rather than from within the city itself).

Domestic only passengers are often destined for points west or southwest of London itself (e.g. the Thames Valley). Heathrow is more conveniently placed for them than central London or OOC.

 

Manchester - Gatwick passengers are overwhelmingly connect with flights at the London end. Most domestic destinations are south of London and the south coast.

 

The only air connections left between Leeds and London are 3 flights a day to Gatwick. Again to provide connections to flights from that London airport. Aircraft size - 75+ seater Turboprop aircraft.

 

It's not worth talking about Scotland to the capital, as HS2 extensions to the far north are not yet a certainty (the business case gets weaker) and could be 20 to 30 years off.

 

In addition, as HS2 will only connect a few city pairs, it will go nowhere near many of the other air routes within the UK (of which there are now quite a lot).

 

Don't get the wrong idea; I'm in favour of the HS2 project (although I believe the money would be better spent elsewhere), but I firmly believe such a routes potential impact on aviation has been very heavily overplayed.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It may seem an attractive proposition to have international services from points north of London, but there are some difficult obstacles to that being a practical reality.

 

Firstly there's the potential market, which is actually quite limited for the train sizes involved.

Air routes such as Birmingham-Paris and Manchester-Paris are largely used by business travellers, who require a suitable frequency of flights during the day.

e.g

Birmingham-Paris 5/6 flights a day, all by aircraft with less than 100 seats.

Manchester-Paris 7/8 flights a day, with aircraft ranging fro 75 to 170 seats

The market from those cities to Brussels is about a quarter of that to Paris.

A 600 or 800 seat train isn't going to be able to provide a suitable frequency, even if the market doubles in size and one or two trains a day will have limited appeal the further away from London you go north.

If trains stop in London on the way, then the economic case for services from the regions rapidly gets weaker. Running part empty or half full trains north of London will no doubt hamper the viability of the services.

(Off the top of my head, Birmingham-Paris may just scrape it, but beyond that I think it's a pipe dream.)

 

Secondly there's customs and immigration control. The provision of facilities, especially for a limited number of services, would be rather expensive if placed at the UK provincial terminals.

There is the possibility of carrying out all the checks and controls at the Paris and Brussels ends of the line, or even on board the trains (potentially problematic and expensive).

 

Thirdly, there's the small issue of security.

If Cross Channel HS rail and the Channel Tunnel continue to be considered a target for terrorists, then any security checks and screening will have to be carried out prior to boarding.

It's no good doing it at the other end of the line or onboard the train, as it would be too late by then.

The current arrangements at St. Pancras and the other ends of the CT route may seem rather flimsy at present, but if the level of threat increases and is taken more seriously, then in all likelihood security measures may have to be made more stringent in future.

 

A combination of the factors above make it quite likely that a mix of domestic and international passengers, on services north of London, will not be allowed. Unless international passengers are required to de-train at a London stop to be suitably "processed".

Notwithstanding the issues raised above, it would seem that any international through trains from north of London will probably have to bypass a London stop.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite a while ago now and my memory isn't what it used to be but I seem to recall that when the chord between HS1 and NLL was designed in for through regional eurostar services from the WCML (and potential frieght services) it was envisaged that Stratford would be the 'London' call for these trains. As Eurostar didn't - and still hasn't - got a licence to carry domestic passengers within the UK, Stratford was designed as a pick-up for outbound and set-down for inbound continental passengers. I doubt that many trains starting from or finishing at St Pancras would have called at Stratford as the 'regionals' would provide capacity for business travellers to/from the Docklands area. Regionals from the ECML would have had to go into St Pancras and reverse - this route exists - as there is no direct link between the two routes.

 

The chord from St Pancras to the NLL was designed mainly for ecs moves as, at that time, Eurostar still planned to operate the depot at North Pole - as a point of interest you can see that the lines out of the international platforms are dual speed signed - the speedos on 373s show kmh when the train is in HS mode and mph when in classic BR/AC mode (as it would have been for access to the NLL).

 

The regional services were going to have passenger check in at stations - a number of lounges were built throughout the UK network - and outbound security was to take place onboard using portable equipment which would be taken off at Kensington Olympia (prior to HS1 opening) for return north. I think the regional services had been abandoned before HS1 opened so I don't suppose any detailed planning on security north of London took place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some wonderful logic here...

 

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.

 

Presume you need to identify the routes first in order to study it...?

 

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!!

 

Strangely I still have my hearing after watching trains pass on HS1!

 

There will be 28 trains per hour, day and night travelling at up to 260 mph, with line repairs

going on throughout the night.

 

Logically it would be quite difficult to run 28 trains per hour day and night if the night if the line is shut for maintainence 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.

 

Really?

 

I mean.....Really?

 

Don't get me wrong, I think they have a good case for arguing an alignment alongside an existing transport route (like the M40) has advantages, but spouting rubbish doesn't help their cause. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some wonderful logic here...

 

Don't get me wrong, I think they have a good case for arguing an alignment alongside an existing transport route (like the M40) has advantages, but spouting rubbish doesn't help their cause. :rolleyes:

 

Isn't there just. :O

The cutting on the M40 is far too steep for a rail line from what I know of it, so logic would be to put it next to the existing rail line.

The piece of the spiel that I did not bother to quote went on to say that we, I am speaking here for them, should not act like NIMBYs but should counter the idea of HS2 with rational arguement. If that is rational arguement I would not loke to meet them on a bad day. :O

Bernard

Link to post
Share on other sites

The flyovers and rails were put in during the construction of HS1 and rebuilding of St. Pancras.

So the connection from the NLL to HS1 already exists, as does the chord from the NLL into St. Pancras International.

What I don't know is whether they can be used at present, or if they are locked out of use.

 

See here - Google Maps

They could be used, subject to recommissioning (they haven't been used in the time since they were installed and tested, I believe). The problem is that since the start of Section 2 of HS1 is that the passenger services on the NLL have increased so much that pathing an incoming working from HS1 on to it could cause delays on HS1 inbound as far as Ebbsfleet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there just. :O

The cutting on the M40 is far too steep for a rail line from what I know of it, so logic would be to put it next to the existing rail line.

 

I think it could run on a broadly similar alignment to the M40, but there are bits where an M40 alignment would also give lots of engineering issues, Gerrards Cross to the other side of High Wycombe would be both awkward from the point of view of fitting it in and coping with difficult terrain for example - following the Chiltern line is worse in terms of fitting it in (and would I suspect give you even more NIMBY's - a friend of mine who lives up there forwarded me a typical local scare story about 200mph trains going through High Wycombe station, which is a laugh if you know the curves throught there!)

 

Following a motorway at least gives you the advantage that it's much less noisy and less ugly than what's already there. ;)

 

The piece of the spiel that I did not bother to quote went on to say that we, I am speaking here for them, should not act like NIMBYs but should counter the idea of HS2 with rational arguement. If that is rational arguement I would not loke to meet them on a bad day. :O

 

Quite! :P

 

They could be used, subject to recommissioning (they haven't been used in the time since they were installed and tested, I believe). The problem is that since the start of Section 2 of HS1 is that the passenger services on the NLL have increased so much that pathing an incoming working from HS1 on to it could cause delays on HS1 inbound as far as Ebbsfleet.

 

I think you would need at least one dedicated line through Camden Road for it with no conflicts with the NLL (and ideally no conflicts with the freight connection to the WCML either) if you planned to make using it a regular occurence - there is room for 4 tracks at Camden Road East and through the station, but you'd have to then widen the viaduct at Camden Road W.Jcn (it wouldn't need to be a very long length of widening from memory?) to get rid of the NLL conflict - do that and I think it may be workable, although you're then up to about "plan J" in terms of NLL modernisation in that area I think! :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the maps they provide a good idea what is proposed,I note that they have moved it nearer to me so I shall be able to listen to .the trains roar by easier,it is going to take part of a public golf course and be hidden from Hartwell House ,hooray, perhaps some of the money could be transferred to the ECML so as to refurb the OLE constructed on the cheap .I still do not think that this line will be worthwhile when the rest of the network needs an injection of money to provide upgrades that will provide value for money .and aid the growth that is on the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It's quite a while ago now and my memory isn't what it used to be but I seem to recall that when the chord between HS1 and NLL was designed in for through regional eurostar services from the WCML (and potential frieght services) it was envisaged that Stratford would be the 'London' call for these trains. As Eurostar didn't - and still hasn't - got a licence to carry domestic passengers within the UK, Stratford was designed as a pick-up for outbound and set-down for inbound continental passengers. I doubt that many trains starting from or finishing at St Pancras would have called at Stratford as the 'regionals' would provide capacity for business travellers to/from the Docklands area. Regionals from the ECML would have had to go into St Pancras and reverse - this route exists - as there is no direct link between the two routes.

 

The chord from St Pancras to the NLL was designed mainly for ecs moves as, at that time, Eurostar still planned to operate the depot at North Pole - as a point of interest you can see that the lines out of the international platforms are dual speed signed - the speedos on 373s show kmh when the train is in HS mode and mph when in classic BR/AC mode (as it would have been for access to the NLL).

 

The regional services were going to have passenger check in at stations - a number of lounges were built throughout the UK network - and outbound security was to take place onboard using portable equipment which would be taken off at Kensington Olympia (prior to HS1 opening) for return north. I think the regional services had been abandoned before HS1 opened so I don't suppose any detailed planning on security north of London took place.

 

The main purpose of the connection between the NLL and the covered way over the ECML was for freight services although it was always recognised that it could be used by passenger trains although by then they were totally out of the picture as far as London & Continental were concerned.

 

The chord towards the NLL was intended primarily for ecs trains to/from North Pole but also was always recognised as a potential passenger train route. Any through international trains off the ECML would have to reverse in St Pancras so the situation would be no different - other than time spent/wasted for trains off the WCML. The commercial question of calling at St Pancras is a sort of two edged sword - in reality there is little international traffic from 'beyond London' to justify any more than a train or two per day (if that) once you get north of the London area suburbs (where there is potential) - thus calling at St Pancras could help to fill otherwise underloaded trains and provide additional capacity out of London. But the other edge of the sword is that the time penalty of calling at St Pancras off the WCML would undermine any journey time competitiveness the train might offer. That issue will, I suggest, never be resolved until some serious and intensive market research and survey work has been carried out - if any serious operator ever considers it worthwhile that is.

 

The Regional Eurostar services were, of course, abandoned long before the serious financial work started on CTRL/HS1 as they were early casualties (or, more accurately, 'sensible management decisions') of the L&CR takeover of Eurostar UK. Through trains from here there and everywhere in the UK into mainland Europe always sounds like a wonderful idea but as Ron has already indicated, and L&CR clearly knew, the real market for such travel is relatively limited. Regional Eurostar was always a largely political animal albeit supported by just enough market assessment to provide some support for the network as it emerged. But once the political impetus was gone it simply didn't make commercial sense.

 

Another fly in the the through train ointment is the one I've already mentioned and which Brian (Fat Controller) has also highlighted but at the London end. I think the HS1 plans suggest the route comes fairly close to the existing junction between the NLL and the HS1 access lines and in my view it won;t work unless it does. As Brian indicated the level of service on the NLL has increased and while that is a problem in itself there is also the considerable difficulty of getting the pointwork and signalling to fit in the very limited space available at Camden Road East Jcn (which possibly explains why things were rather left up in the air at the time the existing work was carried out?).

 

I think there will inevitably inevitably have to be some sort of timetable 'buffering' in the HS1/HS2 interface unless - as I've already said - it will be acceptable for the timings of probably a handful of international trains to decide the entire shape of the HS2 timetable (that sort of thing tends not to go down too well in this country). And it's possible that calls at St Pancras - if platform capacity can be found - might provide that buffer (although St Pancras will, in reality, probably not have that capacity due the limited number of international platforms).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I think you would need at least one dedicated line through Camden Road for it with no conflicts with the NLL (and ideally no conflicts with the freight connection to the WCML either) if you planned to make using it a regular occurence - there is room for 4 tracks at Camden Road East and through the station, but you'd have to then widen the viaduct at Camden Road W.Jcn (it wouldn't need to be a very long length of widening from memory?) to get rid of the NLL conflict - do that and I think it may be workable, although you're then up to about "plan J" in terms of NLL modernisation in that area I think! :P

 

The viaduct across Camden Terrace and Camden Gardens should be wide enough for 4 tracks right up to Kentish Town Road. The signal box was built where the two tracks to the Kentish Town line would have been with a 4-track junction. The back to back turnouts were about the width of Kentish Town Road apart.

 

The HS1-HS2 Link plan has a cryptic comment to the effect that some alterations to the existing layout of the NLL will be required. Hopefully this will include restoring the four tracks through the station and widening the Kentish Town Road brigde.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Brian indicated the level of service on the NLL has increased and while that is a problem in itself there is also the considerable difficulty of getting the pointwork and signalling to fit in the very limited space available at Camden Road East Jcn (which possibly explains why things were rather left up in the air at the time the existing work was carried out?).

 

Looking at the sateillite pics though my impression is that a lot of that may have been down to fitting in with the (then?) existing track arrangement on the NLL? There's a lot of space there to play with if you're not trying to cram all moves into the existing 2 platforms - maybe even more if you upgrade some of those old bridges?

 

The viaduct across Camden Terrace and Camden Gardens should be wide enough for 4 tracks right up to Kentish Town Road. The signal box was built where the two tracks to the Kentish Town line would have been with a 4-track junction. The back to back turnouts were about the width of Kentish Town Road apart.

 

The HS1-HS2 Link plan has a cryptic comment to the effect that some alterations to the existing layout of the NLL will be required. Hopefully this will include restoring the four tracks through the station and widening the Kentish Town Road brigde.

 

Not sure you neccesarily even need a 4 track alignment that end, I reckon 3 will do the job - something like this would also allow for the proposed ELL terminus, keep the HS traffic (and any WCML-ECML freights) away from the NLL and ELL (whilst retaining the existing links) - and even retain the capability for parrallel freight moves to/from the WCML - I suspect it might just give you enough length to hold even a Eurostar-sized train to wait for a path between Camden Rd West and HS1 as well?

 

post-6762-0-47838000-1293057892_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Looking at the sateillite pics though my impression is that a lot of that may have been down to fitting in with the (then?) existing track arrangement on the NLL? There's a lot of space there to play with if you're not trying to cram all moves into the existing 2 platforms - maybe even more if you upgrade some of those old bridges?

 

 

The problem was/is fitting in the pointwork and signal overlaps while at the saem time trying to get in the right geometry to link it into the NLL in the only site which was available. With a new line laid through from HS2 it could - and presumably would judging by the drawings - come through as effectively a single line until somewhere in the vicinity of of Camden Road East. But if you need to stand a Eurostar length train in clear of signals at both ends - which you would for regulating, and possibly timetable, purposes - the uconnection at Camden Road East would have to be further west and as I understood things there isn't enough formation width to do that. However with a lot of new build work widening the formation ceases to be a design problem and turns into a financial, social and political one.

 

 

Not sure you neccesarily even need a 4 track alignment that end, I reckon 3 will do the job - something like this would also allow for the proposed ELL terminus, keep the HS traffic (and any WCML-ECML freights) away from the NLL and ELL (whilst retaining the existing links) - and even retain the capability for parrallel freight moves to/from the WCML - I suspect it might just give you enough length to hold even a Eurostar-sized train to wait for a path between Camden Rd West and HS1 as well?

post-6762-0-47838000-1293057892_thumb.jpg

 

I think three would be adequate but see my comment above about getting in the required train length, plus the necessary signal overlaps. I think it would be sensible - if not found essential from timetable studies - to have provision for long passenger trains to be held/pass on that short section of double track. Basically there would be little or no timetable flexibility there because of constraints elsewhere - indeed that might even impact on the practicable length of single line in the HS1 - HS2 link.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • RMweb Premium

A colleague was reading a copy of horse magazine knowing i am in to railways see showed me an article lots of nibbys worried about trains spooking the horse

But according to the article the line will eat up 5000 yes 5000 square miles of countrysides !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the route from London to Birmingham is only 120 miles long, this means that the 2 track formation is going to be an average of 41 miles wide. Obviously they will need a bit more than 41 miles in width for the stations so the rest of the route will be slightly narrower than that (say 37.5 miles).

 

I guess this spells the end of modelling a modern main line on an exhibition layout that is 2' to 4' deep - the compression required just won't be believable :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just re-read through this thread after coming back from Bourg St Maurice on the Eurostar Ski Train last weekend. For those of you that don't know where Bourg is, it's in the Alps south of Lake Geneva and relatively close to the French/Italian border.

 

The comments about missing out London and starting from a point other than London are easily dealt with as the Ski Train amply demonstrates how easy that is as it misses out Paris completely. The platforms are fenced ott at Bourg and you go through the same baggage scanning as you do at St Pancras, Gare Du Nord, Brussels or Lille, but there is no UK passport inspection. The same arrangements apply at Moutiers. Admittedly, boarding is slower at Bourg, but there are only 2 Eurostar trains per week, Saturday morning and Saturday evening leaving Bourg, so bag scanning facilities are limited.

 

UK Customs board the train at Lille and pass through the train inspecting passports between there and Ashford.

 

So all that needs to happen is to apply those self same procedures at Birmingham, or Manchester or Nottingham, or Leeds or wherever else you want to start on an HS2-HS1-Chunnel route to Europe and you have a viable system. If loadings are sufficient on services starting north of London, then there is no reason why Stratford, Ebbsfleet, Ashford or even Lille shouldn't be the point where connection is made between HS2 trains from North of London and HS1 trains from St Pancras, the same way that Quantas use Singapore as an interchange for their flights to Australia from different starting points in Europe. I now live north of London and the idea of catching a Eurostar on the ECML and going through to Paris without stopping in London is very appealing!

 

The bag scanning is a complication and I suppose it is justified because the Eurostars go below sea level, but so do the Bakerloo, Jubilee, Northern and Victoria Lines in London. There is no similar luggage scanning for the Lotschberg base tunnel nor the Simplon tunnel, and as far a I know there won't be any on the Gotthard Base Tunnel either when that opens. A bomb going off in one of those tunnels wit hthe risk of fire would be as lethal as one in the Chunnel. I hesitate to say that securty checks are unnecessary, especially after 7/7 and the Madrid train bombings, but if that requirement were removed it would simplify check in and boarding significantly. if we also joined the Schengen agreement it would make it as easy as boarding any internal service.

 

The line looks like it follows much of the old GWR/GC alignment through WNW London which is where I grew up, conjuring up a line with Central Line Tube trains running alongside the successors to Eurostar out to West Ruislip. Now there's a modelling thought!

 

I do feel sorry for the folks who will be affected by HS2, but I do not agree with their objections. HS2 must be built. Lots of folks rave over the Ribblehead Viaduct, but just think of the outcry if it didn't exist and was proposed now as part of an HS2 Extension to Glasgow! Folks soon get used to new infrastructure, and money will buy off most of the remaining objections.

 

Using the GC route beyond Brackley still seems the most sensible option to me even though some of the alignment has been lost to housing and industry as it would allow connections to the WCML at Rugby, with the option of building additional High Speed tracks from there into Birmingham at a later date where capacity is already an issue, and to the Midland Line at Leicester, I think too much has been lost to join at Loughborough.

 

The French TGV system is excellent and shows how to do it - build a High Speed spine with exit points along it to existing lines as necessary. At least the previous and current Government seem to have grasped that point. However, I'm not convinced that the politicians won't bottle out over HS2 before the next election - all those Tory shires votes for them to worry about. So I'm not convinced that HS2 will be finished in my lifetime.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...