HS2 under review

[phil-b259]

I haven't seen any reference to it, but is there anywhere in the HS2 plans an option of building a second set of tunnels from say Stratford towards St Pancras running underneath the present HS1 tunnels via the St Pancras/Euston area to connect with HS2 north of Euston? That would allow HS2 services to run direct on to HS1 and the Tunnel and London could become an intermediate stop if a new station (London International?) was built on these link tunnels below Euston/St Pancras. Might be useful to relieve pressure on platform space in St Pancras as through trains to the North could use free paths on HS1 and the Tunnel without needing platform space at St Pancras, as well as giving those of us north of Watford a decent high speed service to the Continent. 

 

It might fit neatly with the scenario where some trains from HS2 ran through to Paris Gare Du Nord, via "London International", Whilst trains to destinations beyond Paris or Brussels could still start from St Pancras. This would, to my way of thinking, solve the baggage security as well as border control and customs problems. It would also allow the Javelin services to be extended north of London, a sort of ThamesLink on Steroids.

 

You never know, we might end up with a high speed rail network build to continental loading gauge after a few decades, but sadly probably not in my lifetime given the current timetables.

 

The option has been investigated but ruled out as far to costly. In any case we already have a "London International" station - its located over at Stratford and if Old Oak gets any international facilities then you will potentially be able to alight there also. In both cases Crossrail will provide a quick and frequent service into central London and Stratford also offers the DLR plus tube as options.

 

As to direct services to the north, without any relaxation of UK Passport and Immigration controls the possibility of through services even after HS1 looks slim (although Birmingham Curzon St will apparently get a platform suitable for international departures). Current modelling suggests the best option would be a service from Heathrow to Europe, calling at Old oak for passengers from the north to transfer in. The passenger numbers under this scenario are much more healthy and can support a decent service frequency whereas services to the north would probably be limited to one or two trains a day and unless they run full, they will be subject to accusations that they are stealing paths from domestic services.

[The Stationmaster]

OK, they may not be related according to the various parliamentary acts but it does raise the question if customs checks are totally separate from the question of immigration why is there such a resistance to any relaxation. Passengers between other EU countries don't face them and if the passengers are EU citizens there technically is no reason from a customs point of view to check them (note: customs can still perform random or intelligence lead checks - as they do regularly at Dover). Yes checks would hopefully pick up any potential terrorist threat but in truth is the threat really that much higher or the potential for casualties that much worse than any other train service or even the London Underground?

 

Besides the Channel Tunnel acts says lots of things, some of which have been shown to be unnecessary or unworkable over time - dividing trains mid tunnel in cases of fire, being able to walk right through the entire train (ref DBs plans) for example. Thus if a political decision were taken that checks were no longer necessary at all times (nothing to stop them being applied selectively) it would be possible to remove the requirement. 

 

Therefore my suspicion is that the need for customs checks is another 'useful' way of maintaining the current arrangements - to the detriment of travellers but which, from a political angle are any easy sell to an electorate concerned about the issue of immigration.

Don't confuse 'customs checks' with 'security checks' - they are two completely separate things carried out by different people.  Without delving through it as far as I'm aware the requirement in respect of Cutoms Checks on Channel Tunnel rail services is no different from that at any other 'port of entry' and the requirement that persons who have not cleared Customs should be allowed to mix with those who have (or to whom customs checks do not apply) still remains as far as I'm aware.  For example at Waterloo International (and presumably now at St Pancras?) it was not permitted to allow an incoming train to use the same island platform as an outgoing train - which is indeed taking it to extremes but that was the way Customs insisted it should be done (although it also made sense from a passenger flow viewpoint of course.

 

Thus in total there are three lots of checks applied to Channel Tunnel through rail passengers - Customs and Immigration are exactly the same as with any other mode;   immigration checks deal solely with ascertaining if people have permission to enter the UK (when heading towards London) while Customs are there to ensure that smuggling does not take place and that goods or items which are not permitted or are dutiable are suitably dealt with at 'port' of entry.

 

The security checks required by the Channel Tunnel Act are targetted at the prevention of terrorism and the movement of weapons etc; those are the things checked by luggage scans and passing through the scanning arch and are carried out by completely separate folk from Customs and Immigration. 

 

PS A service from Heathrow to Europe might well have advantages especially with HS1 in place and of course BA looked at it in detail back in the 1990s although it wasn't then practical from an infrastructure or journey time viewpoint (and I wonder if the line capacity for it would in any case exist in the future?).  However it would require either special rolling stock or major gauge clearance work in the Heathrow tunnel and I suspect that it will require a very good case to make that sort of investment.

Edited May 29, 2013 by The Stationmaster

[Edwin_m]

Presumably any European service to Heathrow would use part of the HS2 Heathrow loop for which provision is being made in the Phase 1 design.  However to my mind the problem previously identified still exists, that Heathrow isn't a single place and if you need a shuttle to get to the correct terminal then you might as well interchange at Old Oak and use Crossrail (or Heathrow Express) as the shuttle. 

 

All of this assumes of course that Heathrow remains in the same place with largely the same role. 

[The Stationmaster]

Presumably any European service to Heathrow would use part of the HS2 Heathrow loop for which provision is being made in the Phase 1 design.  However to my mind the problem previously identified still exists, that Heathrow isn't a single place and if you need a shuttle to get to the correct terminal then you might as well interchange at Old Oak and use Crossrail (or Heathrow Express) as the shuttle. 

 

All of this assumes of course that Heathrow remains in the same place with largely the same role. 

It all depends on why trains would (or wouldn't) go to Heathrow.  Past research has apparently show that airline travellers are very loath to change if there is a direct alternative.  This while hub airports can work they still have difficulty competing where direct flights are also offered.

 

I don't think it would be too much of a problem copying the Lufthansa idea at Heathrow and using trains (should it ever be physically possible) instead of aircraft on some hub feeder routes although there is also apparently a journey time sensitivity issue.  But as son as you introduce a need to change trains, in this case after a 12 minute or so trip, the attractiveness drops off considerably.  It will be interesting to see to what extent the domestic UK connections which theoretically become available at Old Oak will work but somehow I can't see them ever competing with or providing a truly attractive alternative to 'simply' transferring from one aircraft to another - even at Heathrow!.

[GoingUnderground]

Stratford is a waste of space. it is too close to St Pancras, and using it would only reduce the throughput. I have still to catch a Eurostar that stopped there. Nothing useful connects there as far as I know, only commuter services. The same would apply to Old Oak Common. We're talking speed here, and changing trains lengthens the journey time. They would do better to run the Heathrow Express through to a new terminal at "Euston Cross" instead of Paddington, than delay everyone by stopping trains at Old Oak Common. Remember that the Metropolitan Line was built in the 1860s to broad gauge to allow the GWR to run through to the City. Nothing's changed in 150 years.

 

The only check on immigration is the passport/border control. That is why your passport is ALWAYS checked when you enter the UK. It is NOT part of the Customs check, and is carried out by a completely separate government department, which I think has recently changed to being the Home Office from the discredited Border Agency. They are looking for people, illegal immigrants or persons who have been banned from entering/re-entering the UK, or people who are required to have a visa but do not have a valid visa. In the first instance they are simply not interested in smuggled goods or illegal importation of weapons etc., only people. Have you ever been asked to open your suitcase or hand baggage when passing through Border Control? No, and neither have I. You will have your suitcase with you if travelling by Eurostar, but if by air, you won't have got as far as baggage reclaim. There are no facilities for routinely inspecting luggage at Border Control points as far as planes and Eurostar are concerned.

 

The Customs check is carried out by the HMRC, which is part of the Treasury, I believe. They are not looking for illegal immigrants, only for dutiable goods or items which are not permitted to be imported into the UK. That is why you are very RARELY stopped and asked to open your luggage if you pass through the Blue or Green channels when entering the UK. How can you say that the Customs check is part of the drive to stop illegal immigrants into the UK when the checks are applied so randomly and infrequently? They may ask for your passport if they do stop you, but that is part of their routine to see how you react to being challenged to help them work out if you are importing items illegally. I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has travelled abroad by air, sea or rail thinks it helps deter illegal immigration, and I don't think that even our current crop of politicians, irrespective of their party, are that stupid.

 

The baggage security checks couldn't care who you are or what you have on you or in your baggage as long as it doesn't endanger your fellow travellers, the plane or train, or the area through/over which it is passing. It is no deterrent to illegal immigration.

[phil-b259]

Stratford is a waste of space. it is too close to St Pancras, and using it would only reduce the throughput.

 

Stratford International (Eurostar platforms) were only built so that it could act as the 'London' stop for international trains coming from the north (Pick up only Europe only, drop off only Birmingham / Manchester bound) which would by-pass St Pancras. It also potentially provides a place Eurostar could terminate at in an emergency with the added bonus that onward travel is a damn sight easier than Ebsfleet. As you say Eurostar have said its not worth serving for St Pancras bound services, especially as people can use South Eastern services to Stratford from both Ebsfleet & St Pancras but they have also said that they wouldn't rule out using it if services were every extended beyond London.

 

The only check on immigration is the passport/border control. That is why your passport is ALWAYS checked when you enter the UK. It is NOT part of the Customs check, and is carried out by a completely separate government department, which I think has recently changed to being the Home Office from the discredited Border Agency. They are looking for people, illegal immigrants or persons who have been banned from entering/re-entering the UK, or people who are required to have a visa but do not have a valid visa. In the first instance they are simply not interested in smuggled goods or illegal importation of weapons etc., only people. Have you ever been asked to open your suitcase or hand baggage when passing through Border Control? No, and neither have I. You will have your suitcase with you if travelling by Eurostar, but if by air, you won't have got as far as baggage reclaim. There are no facilities for routinely inspecting luggage at Border Control points as far as planes and Eurostar are concerned.

 

The Customs check is carried out by the HMRC, which is part of the Treasury, I believe. They are not looking for illegal immigrants, only for dutiable goods or items which are not permitted to be imported into the UK. That is why you are very RARELY stopped and asked to open your luggage if you pass through the Blue or Green channels when entering the UK. How can you say that the Customs check is part of the drive to stop illegal immigrants into the UK when the checks are applied so randomly and infrequently? They may ask for your passport if they do stop you, but that is part of their routine to see how you react to being challenged to help them work out if you are importing items illegally. I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has travelled abroad by air, sea or rail thinks it helps deter illegal immigration, and I don't think that even our current crop of politicians, irrespective of their party, are that stupid.

 

The baggage security checks couldn't care who you are or what you have on you or in your baggage as long as it doesn't endanger your fellow travellers, the plane or train, or the area through/over which it is passing. It is no deterrent to illegal immigration.

 

I accept I may have become confused with who does what but what I would say is, from a travellers perspective it really makes no difference what Government department does what. Customs / security / passport checks all form part of a single 'process' that must be gone through before boarding the train. What I would say - again as a traveller - is that the procedures in place for Eurostar do seem a tad excessive compared to those employed at other points of entry (e.g. Dover) although they are better than those experienced at airports but I'm not sure that in the light of almost 20 years experience some aspects of the process cannot be improved. Equally I have also been made aware that thanks to the way channel tunnel act is drafted changes to some aspects would require legislative changes and if I have got muddled up between departments there is a good chance the same would happen in the media. Hence my comment about politicians and immigration i.e. while any changes to the channel tunnel act would not affect anything other than perhaps some minor modification to the security setup it could be played by sections of the media as opening up our borders to mass migration.

 

Besides the main thing, which I'm sure we can agree on, is that unless the current arrangements change the dream of some travellers to be able to simply jump on a Eurostar wherever they please and travel direct to Paris in the same way people in Germany, Belgium, Italy can will remain just that, a dream.

[lmsforever]

I shall be visiting my local enviromental exhibition on Friday and I hope that answers will be forthcoming on matters arising on the local section.In the latest Rail Magazine there is the usual pro publicity for HS2 and a representation of interchange at Old Oak Common for Heathrow and the GWR main line ,this is okay but will add to journey times on said GWR route.The comments by the supporters of the line who are wheeled out to do promo work are still talking up jobs going out to the regions but I cant see this happenning as all busineses want to be in the south not in the frozen north unfortunaly.

[Glorious NSE]

this is okay but will add to journey times on said GWR route

Leaving aside the additional connections, practically, for many folk it could reduce their overall times by giving an easier interchange to a Crossrail service towards the West End, East End or City.

[lmsforever]

Today I went to the local presentation on HS2 at Waddesdon as it covers the part past my house towards Waddesdon,it was a very informative and profesional event.The map books and enviromental statements are extremely useful with detailed maps and lots of information about all stages from building to operation.The sound maps are well layed out and you can see exactly how you will be affected.But when I asked why there will be no station in Bucks for us to acces this line they did not have an answer.Also they admited that the fares will be very high and as to trains going onto the existing network they were vague.I think that many peoples fears about this line are unjustified and many areas will gain from the landscaping and enviromental projects that are to be carried out.I still think that the money should be spent on the existing lines and some of the construction money given to Bucks CC so they can repair our awful roads!The reps at the meeting also said that HS2 will free up space on the WCML and the EC but could not explain how and wether existing inter city services will stay.All in all an interesting afternoon and I would reccomend a visit a similar exhibition if you can.

[The Stationmaster]

Today I went to the local presentation on HS2 at Waddesdon as it covers the part past my house towards Waddesdon,it was a very informative and profesional event.The map books and enviromental statements are extremely useful with detailed maps and lots of information about all stages from building to operation.The sound maps are well layed out and you can see exactly how you will be affected.But when I asked why there will be no station in Bucks for us to acces this line they did not have an answer.Also they admited that the fares will be very high and as to trains going onto the existing network they were vague.I think that many peoples fears about this line are unjustified and many areas will gain from the landscaping and enviromental projects that are to be carried out.I still think that the money should be spent on the existing lines and some of the construction money given to Bucks CC so they can repair our awful roads!The reps at the meeting also said that HS2 will free up space on the WCML and the EC but could not explain how and wether existing inter city services will stay.All in all an interesting afternoon and I would reccomend a visit a similar exhibition if you can.

It's a great pity that the people fronting presentations like this are usually PR types who have limited practical knowledge and can't answer even very obvious questions such as the points you raised - HS2 clearly needs a station in, probably, north Bucks/the Vale of Aylesbury and it should not be at all difficult to explain how it will release capacity on other routes (in fact it's downright simple!).  Really disappointing that a professional presentation was not properly supported with intelligent answers to such questions.

[Pacific231G]

I've just looked at the revised maps and it's Interesting that as it passes at least 200 metres south of the very few nearest houses in Wendover it will be buried in a green tunnel (essentially a cut and cover as I undersand it)  but as it passes less than 50 metres from several streets of houses in the closest points of the rather more populous estates in Perivale and Greenford it will be in the open on the existing GW embankment.

 

Am I being unduly cyncal in wondering how much more is being spent on reducing the impact for each of the good people of Buckinghamshire and other leafy shires than on the far more numerous citizens of London? For the record, my own house is about 300m from HS2 and I do want to see it built but it would be interesting to overlay the places where HS2 will be buried in tunnels or generally hidden at great expense with a constituency map. It does strike me that it'll be a rather boring journey with all those tunnels and cuttings and won't they increase the maintenance costs considerably? 

Edited May 31, 2013 by Pacific231G

[phil-b259]

I've just looked at the revised maps and it's Interesting that as it passes at least 200 metres south of the very few nearest houses in Wendover it will be buried in a green tunnel (essentially a cut and cover as I undersand it)  but as it passes less than 50 metres from several streets of houses in the closest points of the rather more populous estates in Perivale and Greenford it will be in the open on the existing GW embankment.

 

Am I being unduly cyncal in wondering how much more is being spent on reducing the impact for each of the good people of Buckinghamshire and other leafy shires than on the far more numerous citizens of London? For the record, my own house is about 300m from HS2 and I do want to see it built but it would be interesting to overlay the places where HS2 will be buried in tunnels or generally hidden at great expense with a constituency map. It does strike me that it'll be a rather boring journey with all those tunnels and cuttings and won't they increase the maintenance costs considerably? 

 

You are a bit behind things. The most recent plans have changed the route so it does not run on the surface in the Perivale area and will be a bored tunnel instead. Apparently once they looked at the surface route in more detail, the need to rebuild 20 plus bridges (including those at the incredibly busy hangar lane giratory system) meant that the tunnel option wasn't much more expensive overall with the added advantage of eliminating local residents concerns.

 

 

But when I asked why there will be no station in Bucks for us to acces this line they did not have an answer.Also they admited that the fares will be very high and as to trains going onto the existing network they were vague.

 

This has been covered before many times. Basically stations reduce capacity as trains slow down stop then accelerate again. While you can mitigate this with long entry and exits to platform loops (as at the propped Birmingham Parkway station) with trains travelling at 200+mph you would need an extensive four track section. Also as the stations have to be able to handle 400m long trains (running shorter trains just to serve one station is a waste of capacity) finding a suitable site is difficult without causing significantly more environmental damage.

 

 

 

It does strike me that it'll be a rather boring journey with all those tunnels and cuttings and won't they increase the maintenance costs considerably?

 

Tunnels and earthworks are not maintenance headaches if they are constructed well with suitable staff and plant access. Part of the problem with the current network is that it was built before modern staff safety and material handling requirements came along so all clearances are not optimal, cutting and embankment slopes are steeper than todays engineering standard allows, etc. constraining what can be done. Furthermore unlike the current WCML, HS2 will not have any freight traffic so overnight inspections etc. will be easier and like the French LGV lines, having only a few specific types of train using it wear and tear should be less than a conventional line

Edited May 31, 2013 by phil-b259

[jjb1970]

By far the best high speed network I've ever experienced is Japan and their Shinkansen lines do have some reasonably short station spacings and also very high intensity service. Some of the stations are basically outer suburban commuter halts for the big cities. Whilst I do support HS2 (although not unquestioningly) I tend to believe sacrificing some speed for extra stations would retain most of the speed improvement, improve access to HS2 and may help sell the route to those who are currently to be by-passed by it.

[The Stationmaster]

I've just looked at the revised maps and it's Interesting that as it passes at least 200 metres south of the very few nearest houses in Wendover it will be buried in a green tunnel (essentially a cut and cover as I undersand it)  but as it passes less than 50 metres from several streets of houses in the closest points of the rather more populous estates in Perivale and Greenford it will be in the open on the existing GW embankment.

 

Am I being unduly cyncal in wondering how much more is being spent on reducing the impact for each of the good people of Buckinghamshire and other leafy shires than on the far more numerous citizens of London? For the record, my own house is about 300m from HS2 and I do want to see it built but it would be interesting to overlay the places where HS2 will be buried in tunnels or generally hidden at great expense with a constituency map. It does strike me that it'll be a rather boring journey with all those tunnels and cuttings and won't they increase the maintenance costs considerably? 

Some of it sounds very boring - and far too expensive to be honest.

 

I seriously wonder what the real maximum speed will be when it finally gets into operation - the only reason the latest TGVs run at sub 200mph speeds is one of power consumption, it was found to increase exponentially if they increased speed much above present running maximum and while the stock for HS2 can cearly be of a more advanced design it is not easy to alter the basic laws of physics.

 

Another point about SNCF LGVs is that maintenance is not confined to the night time closed period - daytime ballast drops are a common practice and this is facilitated byt the white period in the timetable - which plays hell with set utilisation.  It will be interesting to see if HS2 can survive purely on night time maintence and how it will be arranged in view of the very long potential distances between rail access points form the rest of the network.

 

The question of intermediate stations is an interesting one and the time cost of stops need not be excessive with properly designed infrastructure and a timetable to match.  The simple situation is that it is difficult in any event to reliably run a railway which relies on trains running at maximum speed all the time - that is not the practice on the LGVs in France and while timings are far from slack timekeeping in normal circumstances is fairly good.  Running all the time at or near the margin is not - unless you throw very large amounts of money at the job continuously (and even then it doesn't always work).

[lmsforever]

If they can put stations on the high speed lines in Japan why not here? Listening to the replies this afternoon I got the impression that the DFT are not interested in talking to anyone about this subject and yet they want to put a station north of Birmingham.Surely this station will slow trains down so that argument is not valued, with regard to a station in Bucks.Many people I talk to are annoyed that they will not be able to to use these trains without going into London otherwise I think they could be prospective passengers.In Wendover the line will pass the top of the high street alongside the Chiltern line very close to many houses and demolishing quite a few.Feelings in the village are running high as HS2 do not seem to want to mitigate the problems caused by the closeness of the route ,a tunnel under the length of the village would  solve a lot of problems.Its not about wealthy Bucks its about the damage to the Chilterns and a lovely vibrant village plus the way we are told not to ask questions by our leaders .Rant over now calm will now descend!

[phil-b259]

Listening to the replies this afternoon I got the impression that the DFT are not interested in talking to anyone about this subject and yet they want to put a station north of Birmingham.

What station would this be then? As far as I'm awere the only stations proposed on HS2 are Old Oak common, Birmingham Parkway (carn't recall its propper name), Manchester Airport, East Midlands Parkway (Totton) & Sheffield Parkway (Medowhall) all these stations are designed to act as masive hubs with good motorway / rail connections into signifficant urban areas or to provide connections to key airports. Respectfully there is nowhere within the Chilterns that forfills this criteria - (Aylesbury,the most signifficant generator only having good road connections with London). Yes places like Stafford, Crewe and Stoke might get HS2 services but this will be via the connections to classic lines (though I believe Crewe are lobbying for a station where the route runs alongside Basford Hall yard)

[jjb1970]

There is quite a good piece in the current Private Eye which basically say's the government should just abandon all this stuff about business cases and actually show a bit of leadership and say it'll be built because it'll be good for the country. One of the reasons that HS2 is taking a lot of flak is because you don't have to be any sort of financial whizzo to start scratching your head at some of the figures and assumptions supporting the business case, by nailing their pants to this business case the government have laid themselves open to a lot of the negativity I think. Just come out and sell it as a strategic infrastructure project that the country needs and business case be damned. I may be wrong but most people I know would respect and support such a position and it'd pull the rug from under a lot of the opposition I think.

On access and stations, I am not an expert and do not know much about the operations of railways at all, but from a passenger perspective I think there are two critical things that determine rail use, it has to get you where you need to go and at a time that is suitable. If the train gets you there at the right time I actually think a few minutes more or less is almost irrelevant. Parkway stations are good and I regularly use Bristol Parkway but there is also a line between what works as a Parkway and when it becomes easier to just drive all the way. Another point about Parkway stations is that I find they work much better in one direction, people drive to their local parkway and take a train into the metropolis or wherever but it doesn't work anything like as well in the other direction where people end up in the middle of nowhere looking for a taxi, bus or hire car. Bristol works well in both directions as it is on the doorstep of the Filton area which has some major employers such as the MoD and Rolls Royce. Which is a very long winded and rambling way of saying that personally I think they should follow the Japanese example of shorter station spacings and bring the service nearer to people.

I agree with the station master on speed too and with France, aerodynamics means that there is a massive ramping up of power demand as you increase speeds ever higher, in a country the size of the UK I think that cost/benefit would favour a more conservative high speed level (300kph?) which would still slash journey times and be as near as makes no real difference to customers perceptions as a 400kph line and looking to improve station provision rather than going for a vanity my train is faster than yours very high speed line which would produce some reductions in journey time at a huge cost in power demand. Obviously, any high speed train uses more power, it is just about balancing cost and benefit.

[Edwin_m]

in practice a station in the Chilterns would have a signficant effect on route capacity. 

 

If all trains were proposed to stop then there could be two or even more parallel platforms in each direction so that as a train was leaving a platform another was arriving in a different platform.  This would have no capacity impact but all trains would have to stop, which would be excessive for the demand on offer and increase the journey time for everyone else. 

 

The Japanese option is to have long loops serving the platforms and to have one or more non-stop trains overtaking a stopping train.  However a stopping train would require at least two paths, one ahead the non-stopping train(s) and another behind them.  This may be less of a problem in Japan because there are several such stations so each stopping path is probably used by a different train on a different part of the line, but with only one new station this wouldn't be possible on HS2 except perhaps between OOC and London or between the two Birmingham stations.  The line between OOC and the Birmingham branch junction is likely to be the busiest part of the eventual HS2 network so the result of a station in the Chilterns would be the loss of one train to/from further north for every train that stops. 

 

In order to have more stations, HS2 would really need to run through areas of greater population, multiplying the disruption and objections and also abstracting passengers from existing rail routes that serve these areas rather than the intended result bringing in more passengers onto rail from car and (when extended further north) also from air. 

[jjb1970]

I used to travel on the Javelin HS1 domestic trains quite a bit and to be honest the thing that impressed me was not speed but the silky smooth ride on HS1 compared to the shake rattle and roll of London Midland 350's on the WCML which are my normal commuting ride. Ditto when I use Eurostar, true the speed is important but the reason I use it in preference to air is not about speed but journey quality and just enjoying the experience of travel rather than the nightmare that is air travel. I expect it'll be similar on HS2, in that yes the speed will be important but that the thing that will blow people away is just how nice it is to travel on trains running on new railways offering a quiet, smooth and fast ride. The other thing is that building new rather than constantly fighting to keep Victorian infrastructure in good order should produce a railway which is orders of magnitude more reliable than existing routes such as the WCML. Hopefully they will get a virtuous circle where the option of a quick, enjoyable and reliable train service attracts passengers, feeds into further investment which generates further passengers etc etc.

Edited June 1, 2013 by jjb1970

[Christopher125]

in practice a station in the Chilterns would have a signficant effect on route capacity. 

 

If all trains were proposed to stop then there could be two or even more parallel platforms in each direction so that as a train was leaving a platform another was arriving in a different platform.  This would have no capacity impact but all trains would have to stop, which would be excessive for the demand on offer and increase the journey time for everyone else. 

 

Absolutely correct, HS2 can serve so many destinations that every available path will be needed south of Birmingham, not only ruling out intermediate stops but even calling into question the usefulness of the proposed Heathrow branch.

 

While I can understand why those campaigning against the line want to give people the impression that the DfT are against intermediate stations, they are being built to serve Nottingham and Sheffield where the demand and sufficient capacity is available. 

 

Chris

[The Stationmaster]

Absolutely correct, HS2 can serve so many destinations that every available path will be needed south of Birmingham, not only ruling out intermediate stops but even calling into question the usefulness of the proposed Heathrow branch.

 

While I can understand why those campaigning against the line want to give people the impression that the DfT are against intermediate stations, they are being built to serve Nottingham and Sheffield where the demand and sufficient capacity is available. 

 

Chris

As it happens HS2 presents an ideal opportunity for a 'Vale of Aylesbury' intermediate station which could serve a very large catchment area by siting it at the point where the new route crosses the Oxford- Bletchley line which is also within easy driving distance of Aylesbury and possibly parts of the Milton Keynes development.  So it would achieve both rail interchange and offer a 'parkway' opportunity as well and be attractive to commuters.

 

As far as line capacity on HS2 is concerned in reality - by the time it arrives just about anything is possible with what will amount to moving block full cab signalling with no lineside signals.  Two platform faces in each direction as described by Edwin and you're away.  Alright so not every train will pick up or deposit huge numbers of passengers but that is often the case with new stations for example 'Picardy Parkway' as I'm wont to call it on LGV was a conspicuously underused place in its early years and it took time for traffic to grow.

[Edwin_m]

That's only so if you stop every train. 

[phil-b259]

The Stationmaster, on 01 Jun 2013 - 18:55, said:

 

As it happens HS2 presents an ideal opportunity for a 'Vale of Aylesbury' intermediate station which could serve a very large catchment area by siting it at the point where the new route crosses the Oxford- Bletchley line which is also within easy driving distance of Aylesbury and possibly parts of the Milton Keynes development. So it would achieve both rail interchange and offer a 'parkway' opportunity as well and be attractive to commuters.

 

As far as line capacity on HS2 is concerned in reality - by the time it arrives just about anything is possible with what will amount to moving block full cab signalling with no lineside signals. Two platform faces in each direction as described by Edwin and you're away. Alright so not every train will pick up or deposit huge numbers of passengers but that is often the case with new stations for example 'Picardy Parkway' as I'm wont to call it on LGV was a conspicuously underused place in its early years and it took time for traffic to grow.

Indeed this though did cross my mind but in the context of the residents of the likes of Wendover, etc it would be too far away to be usefull and thus is unlikely to do anything about their complaints that HS2 will do nothing for them.

 

The only other issue is that while a station in the vacinity of Calvert would be very good from a rail connections point of view, it is some way from the key road network (M40 , A43, A34 axis) and would need quite a lot of new road construction to rectify that. Of course some would say road connections are unecessary but in todays enviroment we cannot ignore the fact that quite a lot of people find it conveient to drive to a railhead.

 

On the other hand purely from a transport planning point of view I happen to think the Calvert area would make a good place for a replacement London airport . Its located in the right direction for the bult of the population (i.e. northwest of London) and with the rebuilt east west rail line, services southwards to Aylesbury and HS2 it would have good rail conectivity. Roads would still be a problem but if you are going to build such a large transport interchange they can be much easier to justify than for a HS2 station.

 

As for the lack of usage at some LGV stations, its worth noting that some (including the Picardy one) were only built as a concession to towns that complained they were being ignored by the LGV and that it should really be route via them instead of somewhere else. In the case of Picardy I believe its inclusion was an atempt to compensate the town of Ameins who were a bit peaved that the LGV nord was routed via Lille. In the overal scheme of things this decision was done because as well as serving the Channel tunnel the LGV also had to handle traffic bound for Belgium and beyond for which the Lille routing was the best option.

 

Having said that I do believe there is a plan knocking around the transport ministery in Paris to actually construct a LGV vi Amiens to the Tunnel at some stage, mainly because the LGV nord is now running at full capacity. if this does ever end up being built then I would imagine there would be a case for closing the Picardy station on the exsisting LGV to increase capacity on the current LGV nord

Edited June 1, 2013 by phil-b259

[The Stationmaster]

 

As for the lack of usage at some LGV stations, its worth noting that some (including the Picardy one) were only built as a concession to towns that complained they were being ignored by the LGV and that it should really be route via them instead of somewhere else. In the case of Picardy I believe its inclusion was an atempt to compensate the town of Ameins who were a bit peaved that the LGV nord was routed via Lille. In the overal scheme of things this decision was done because as well as serving the Channel tunnel the LGV also had to handle traffic bound for Belgium and beyond for which the Lille routing was the best option.

 

Having said that I do believe there is a plan knocking around the transport ministery in Paris to actually construct a LGV vi Amiens to the Tunnel at some stage, mainly because the LGV nord is now running at full capacity. if this does ever end up being built then I would imagine there would be a case for closing the Picardy station on the exsisting LGV to increase capacity on the current LGV nord

A few years since I passed that way but the Picardy station car park was pretty full the last few times I passed by.  It was I believe partly a sop to Amiens but it is fairly well sited from a road network viewpoint as well and SNCF saw it as working in a very different way from being a simple 'Amiens Parkway' and that I understand has been the case.

 

I understand the Lille option for LGV Nord was something very much devised by the then Mayor of Lille (who I think was also in the national govt at the time) and he lobbied very hard for it - with the result we see today.  But it does have the advantage of providing a good route into Belgium as well of course although the originally proposed Amiens route would have eventually become part of the Belgian route.

 

The Amiens additional route was first proposed about 14 years ago and was very much a local push from Amiens who were seeing what had happened in Lille as a result of the way LGV Nord had been routed (there was story around in SNCF at one time that Amiens had been quite happy not to have the mainline of LGV Nord in view of the building work dislocation it would have brought but they gradually changed their tune as they saw what was happening in Lille.  Whether it will ever happen depends on lots of things - LGV Nord is still working well short of its original planned capacity with plenty of the paths that Eurostar have never taken up being there for other services (Eurostar would have been basically 4 trains an hour in each direction, 2 Paris and 2 Lille/Bruxelles) and I doubt that will ever happen.  And capacity could be increased by upgrading the signalling when (if?) the full all singing & dancing version of ERTMS arrives.  So a 'relief' route via Amiens I suspect might still be more of a glnt in someone's eye rather than an early project.

[Edwin_m]

On the other hand purely from a transport planning point of view I happen to think the Calvert area would make a good place for a replacement London airport . Its located in the right direction for the bult of the population (i.e. northwest of London) and with the rebuilt east west rail line, services southwards to Aylesbury and HS2 it would have good rail conectivity. Roads would still be a problem but if you are going to build such a large transport interchange they can be much easier to justify than for a HS2 station.

 

You are in esteemed company in thinking this - the Roskill Commission in 1968 favoured a site about ten miles to the east.  Google for "Cublington Airport" to find out what happened next...

Edited June 2, 2013 by Edwin_m