HS2 under review

[Guest dilbert]

The problem is that the builder (and probably operator) won't actually make any money, even in the long run - the economic benefit to the UK comes from the users of the line (and users of the capacity freed eleswhere WCML or M1/M40) become more economically active, and consequently the level of unemployment benefits is reduced, and the tax take is increased - the beneficiary will ultimately be the government (and hopefully you and I the British taxpayers), but quantifing the 'return' is going to be tricky.

 

Just to clarify one point, as an ex-pat, my taxes are paid elsewhere. So I'm sitting on the outside looking in, which gives a different perspective of the fishbowl. edcayton summed up some of my thoughts quite well :

 

BUT, surely we should be encouraging people to travel LESS by whatever means? The lemming-like idiocy of commuting is no good for anyone. I know people have to do it, but what a waste of time, energy and resources!

 

I really do think that a fundamental re-think is needed for this (and for new roads too before you shoot me down).

 

Quantifying any return will always be tricky if there isn't any overall strategy that goes beyond that of creating a new railway infrastructure. If this doesn't address how to create new jobs north of the Watford Gap then all that will happen is that more people will have access to existing jobs in London from further away. It only changes commute patterns : it will make the commute more expensive for those that wish to pay the extras but it won't make the commute necessarily less stressful and/or less time consuming).

 

The regeneration of the Midlands and the North is not addressed by the HS2 project. The decline of industry in these regions will not be addressed by people travelling from London northwards.. What is needed is serious investment locally, so that the local population has access to local jobs, that are deemed to be competitive (even niche market driven) for an export market.

 

The pro HS2 business case is full of holes and yet scorn is heaped on the anti HS2 grouping. If there is one or more judicial reviews then expect at least the Welsh and South West regions to add their weight,because they have been stuffed in this decision, maybe they will get additional central funding to offset losses ? - The reality is that both sides in the HS2 debate are equally ludicrous at this point in time with their pro and anti arguments... dilbert

 

 

 

.

[Guest dilbert]

I think the French authorities have a slightly more robust attitude in regards compulsary purchase orders...

 

The population density of the UK is a lot higher than France, so hence the number of landowners per square mile you have to deal with is higher in he UK as well, all of which slows the process down.

 

They are also much better at strategic planning and managing tactical situations... dilbert

[jbqfc]

this bit in today's guardian used HS2 as away to have a go at railway enthusiasts

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/10/high-speed-rail-waste-money-hs2

[The Stationmaster]

I'll just say this - Hurray for HS2 and the continuing Renaissance of our railways. I just spent the morning at the opposite end of the spectrum, helping and encouraging the development of a new, small local user group on my patch, there are loads of good folk out there who want our railways to succeed and grow.

 

After a couple of days looking at some serious freight traffic operations it is interesting to come back to RMWeb more or less starting with this thread and to see those of wide mix of comments which see HS2 in some sort of vacuum as if it will be the only railway line in Britain. So I was glad to see the above comment from the Cap'n which, along with several others, reminds us of the context in which this additional route should be set - it is an addition to the network capable of taking larger gauge trains (including double deckers) and offering very high speed capability. In other words it will provide a massive boost to capacity, initially along one of the busiest corridors in Britain and anyone with an interest in the future of our railways should - I think - at least welcome the principle.

 

We may quibble (at some of?) the detail but we should not ignore the context and that is the rapid consumption of capacity on the WCML with the natural end that there will be none left and that seems a not unreasonable starting point to develop a new route, which will certainly be the cheapest way to add capacity.

[edcayton]

I have just read the Guardian piece and it makes a huge amount of sense to me. I don't think his comments about "rail buffs" and their "nerdy hobby" are as insulting as a lot of the comments on here about NIMBYs etc.

 

FWIW I agree with people here who think it makes more sense to build a new line rather than widen etc what is there now. I also feel the same about roads-I'd have built a separate parallel M25 rather than prat about widening the existing one. The question is-"is it really needed at all?", as I said earlier.

 

Ed

[Jan]

"....and anyone with an interest in the future of our railways should - I think - at least welcome the principle.

 

So you're saying that someone that doesn't sign up to the idea is against the future of railways? What utter nonsense.

 

We may quibble (at some of?) the detail but we should not ignore the context and that is the rapid consumption of capacity on the WCML with the natural end that there will be none left and that seems a not unreasonable starting point to develop a new route, which will certainly be the cheapest way to add capacity.

 

This 'capacity' malarkey is all so much smoke. A buzzword, filled with froth and gibber. What happens when this much-touted capacity is used up? Find some more? Where? And at what cost?

 

We should be travelling and consuming less.

[The Stationmaster]

FWIW I agree with people here who think it makes more sense to build a new line rather than widen etc what is there now. I also feel the same about roads-I'd have built a separate parallel M25 rather than prat about widening the existing one. The question is-"is it really needed at all?", as I said earlier.

Ed

 

I think the simple answer to your final question will be 'yes'. But the important words are 'will be'. Transport infrastructure planning and realisation is a long term process and it has to be based on forecasts as much as it can take it into account historic developments. The history of the WCML, in particular, is that every major improvement it has seen in recent times has gradually been outstripped by growth - growth of passenger numbers, growth of number of trains and growth in the times which are regarded as 'peaks'. All of that has indicated that something has to be done to cater for future growth and the simplest and most effective way of doing that has been decided to be what is planned as part of HS2. And whatever else it might do what has been decided upon will undoubtedly be the cheapest/most cost effective way of increasing capacity and it will offer other advatanges too.

 

My biggest regret about the scheme is that because of gauge issues the line cannot be developed in the same way as most mainland European very high speed routes but in some respects I think that will be the lesser of two evils compared with the restrictions which would be forced on trains if they had to operate over conventional lines as well. And it is also my firm view that real value lies in northward extension of the route beyond the junction for Birmingham and probably in a link to CTRL/HS1 as well (which will be needed in any case to relieve pressure on St Pancras International as its capacity is exceeded by demand).

[The Stationmaster]

So you're saying that someone that doesn't sign up to the idea is against the future of railways? What utter nonsense.

If you don't want to see the capacity of our rail network increased and see us advance beyond the limitations imposed by Stephensonian gauge restrictions and Victorian infrastructure design that is entirely up to you. I remain committed to amode of transport which I think can offer many advantages especially if it develops new ideas such as those that will be possible on HS2. I can understand that others might not share my interest and enthusiasm for a major railway development which offers major technical advances and gets us away from what we have been lumbered with from the past - c'est la vie.

This 'capacity' malarkey is all so much smoke. A buzzword, filled with froth and gibber. What happens when this much-touted capacity is used up? Find some more? Where? And at what cost?

I'm interested to hear of your knowledge regarding the capacity of the WCML - clearly the work you have undertaken has produced rather different results from the WCML asset study I was involved in back in 2002/3. But these things do happen when professionals look at things in slightly different ways (as I know from other capacity studies I have been involved in Britain, and elsewhere, over the last couple of decades). Simple fact is (see my post above) that the WCML will run out of capacity and when it reaches that point it will not be possible to run on that route the number of trains needed. In fact in some respects capacity is already 'rationed' on the WCML and has been for some years, and that situation will only gradually worsen unless there is unprecedented economic change in this country.

 

But adding capacity requires long planning and development lead times let alone the construction and testing phase so decisions have to be made against forecasts as well as past evidence - you can't just go along and conjure capacity out of thin air when things leave you no choice but to add more.

[Glorious NSE]

Let me go a slightly different way to Mike on this...

 

What happens when this much-touted capacity is used up? Find some more? Where? And at what cost?

 

So, what's your alternative method of dealing with the increased demand, which has more-or-less doubled since the early 80s and is projected to increase. How would you handle it?

[S.A.C Martin]

To the people who keep saying "stop the commute" - People who commute to work, do so not necessarily through choice!

 

In this day and age you cannot dictate the terms of your employment and you will take whatever job you can get.

 

Commuting to work across the country is the ONLY option for a large proportion of the population of this country, and increasingly that is so.

 

Once you've exhausted what little capacity and train length is possible on this existing network, what are you left with if the number of commuters and train travellers in general keeps rising?

[Guest dilbert]

Transport infrastructure planning and realisation is a long term process and it has to be based on forecasts as much as it can take it into account historic developments.

 

My biggest regret about the scheme is that because of gauge issues the line cannot be developed in the same way as most mainland European very high speed routes but in some respects I think that will be the lesser of two evils compared with the restrictions which would be forced on trains if they had to operate over conventional lines as well.

 

The thing is Mike that the HS2 project is too much, and in a way too little & too late. How many years after the chunnel opening did it take for the HS1 to be implemented to offer similar services on the continent ? Too long! I agree with you that infrastructure planning is a long term process but it needs to be based more on the future and not the past. This is where the HS2 project starts seriously listing and where private enterprise can play its part and it needs to be in a much broader context.

 

I think that the Internet has a huge part to play in the future of how business will be conducted and it won't be by hopping into a car or getting on a train. It is strange to hear that the lack of high quality videconfere/ncing stifles business development, for the simple reason that 10-18 years will be in the job market in ten years time and the way they communicate today will become a part of the standard and videoconferencing quality will be the least of the issues out there. Of course at the same time the broadband infrastructure will be upgraded in parallel to the HS2 ... I'm glad I'll be retired by then... dilbert

[Jan]

Let me go a slightly different way to Mike on this...

 

 

 

So, what's your alternative method of dealing with the increased demand, which has more-or-less doubled since the early 80s and is projected to increase. How would you handle it?

 

In my opinion - and that's all anything is (including anything like a "'projected' increase") - it's nothing more than an interpretation of facts and figures, and (non-railway) modelling. Statistics can be spun. Models can be wrong. The world was flat. Projections are made on the basis of previous and existing trends, and extrapolated. Weightings of individual factors might have been mistaken, or overstated. Costs might have been hidden or under-estimated. It could cost a lot lot more.

 

My point in this is that HS2 should be viewed in context; not in the light of "any investment is good investment and the Devil take the nay-sayers" which seems to be much of the mood on here, but in the light of the fact that out there, the world is changing. And changing fast. Can any of us predict with confidence what the future holds?

 

As I've said in my previous post last night, just because the line will be built, doesn't mean it will be used: and habits change, finances change, circumstances change. Budgets change.

 

There was an accident on the Tavistock Road tonight. Gridlock. Of course, if the LSWR line to Exeter was still in place, then a lot of us would have probably have been on the train; rather than inching forwards, bumper to bumper, swearing under our breath. We're over capacity for cars around here. We need investment in rail. But the South West isn't worth it. Why not? Because it hasn't been invested in. And it won't be invested in because it hasn't been invested in. FGW are out, I believe. So much for increased demand.

 

If - as I believe S C Martin says - the need to commute across country is increasingly becoming common-place, shouldn't we be asking why? And what we've done (and encouraged) to allow this to happen? And not just continually throwing money - that we don't have, apparently - at the problem?

 

Perhaps I'm mistaken, perhaps I shouldn't be writing at all. Because right now I have no answers. Just a gut feeling that HS2 is not the answer to what ails us. It's not a panacea. It's another "Big Project". Perhaps that's my problem. That it's an empty box, packaged brightly.

[The Stationmaster]

The thing is Mike that the HS2 project is too much, and in a way too little & too late. How many years after the chunnel opening did it take for the HS1 to be implemented to offer similar services on the continent ? Too long! I agree with you that infrastructure planning is a long term process but it needs to be based more on the future and not the past. This is where the HS2 project starts seriously listing and where private enterprise can play its part and it needs to be in a much broader context.

 

I think that the Internet has a huge part to play in the future of how business will be conducted and it won't be by hopping into a car or getting on a train. It is strange to hear that the lack of high quality videconfere/ncing stifles business development, for the simple reason that 10-18 years will be in the job market in ten years time and the way they communicate today will become a part of the standard and videoconferencing quality will be the least of the issues out there. Of course at the same time the broadband infrastructure will be upgraded in parallel to the HS2 ... I'm glad I'll be retired by then... dilbert

 

Interesting thoughts there but strangely what I have seen doesn't bear it out. True younger people (for more than the past decade) come to the workforce with ever more advanced knowledge and developed ability in the use of computer software and technical kit than the previous year's class. That won't change. But equally it will take an enormous rethinking to breakdown the basic human programming of face-to face exchange and the perceived advantages it offers.

 

Equally the end of commuting was widely predicted a decade as we would increasingly, and probably eventually solely, work from home using technology we've had for a long time. But home-working has been found to have its pitfalls and efficiency disadvantages so for many areas of work it has never taken off. I don't know if that means it never will but it is clearly taking a very long time to do so.

 

And will the cross table exchange ever lose its power and capability to video conferencing? I'm not at all sure - and I have seen some absolutely super video-conferencing kit in cross-global use involving folk on 4 continents - but does that replace my chance meeting with someone yesterday afternoon who found that I could give him some information which could critically impact on plans under development which led to my meeting a colleague of his this morning and giving the two of them 'cause for thought'?

[Tom D]

I've been off line for some time, so just getting caught up with some of the topics.

 

In opening Andy's original link, I clicked on the "Route Engineering Report", where it outlines the Euston station modification, and describes the link between HS1 & HS2 as being a single line at Old Oak Common and suggests any International security or immigration will be addressed either at the originating station or on the train during the journey.

 

Reading the number of posts on this topic, both for and against, on a website where people have a genuine interest in railways only serves to highlight what must be happening amongst people who have no interest in railways at all. I believe that only History will be the judge of whether this was the right decision.

[Edwin_m]

Since the original HS2 reports Network Rail has suggested that the slow lines out of Euston should be connected to the Great Western in the Willesden/Old Oak area so that those Crossrail services that reverse at Westbourne Park can continue as WCML suburban trains instead. I think they were thinking of the AC services running beyond Watford rather than the DC lines. This seems very sensible, as it will remove some trains and passengers from Euston and probably therefore reduce the size of the combined WCML and HS2 terminus. It also gives Euston commuters a greater range of through destinations.

[Oakydoke]

Said this before......But I get the strong impresion that this is the Start of an HS network, not the first and only stab at it...

While in the fullness of time, there may be plans to add another line, there isn't going to be a HS network. There is absolutely no need or justification for it, never mind the funds that will be required.

The notion that Britain will be criss-crossed with HS lines is fanciful in the extreme.

 

Even as it stands, the current proposals are not far off what all previous studies have concluded.

The Network Rail study proposed the WCML relief line as in the current plan, but only running to Birmingham and Manchester, with only the outside possibuility of a business case to extend to Glasgow and Edinburgh via the Lake District WCML corridor. Their study concluded that case of a line to Leeds was marginal and to go beyond to Newcastle was not justified in the slightest.

The HS2 study include Manchester and Leeds, but confirmed the case to go further was not sufficiently strong or developed to warrant an extension.

 

I'm of the opinion that the talk about extending the current plan beyond Leeds and Manchester, is just political posturing and an attempt to gain wider support for the proposals. The case to actually do it must be incredibly weak.

[clecklewyke]

I'm not the first here to be reminded of the existence of a further option, which would be the rebuilding of the old Great Central Route from London to Manchester. Of course, in many places it will have been built over and bridges removed but surely it would be cheaper to reinstate it than to build a completely new railway?

 

I suppose it might not offer such a high speed route as the proposed HS2 but I think it is clear that in such a small island as ours the need is to add capacity to relieve congestion, rather than cutting a few minutes off journey times?

 

I would love someone "in the know" to rehearse the arguments for and against such a scheme.

 

Ian

[Edwin_m]

The GC has been mentioned several times already on this thread. Rebuilding the lost section through Nottingham would on its own affect far more properties than the entire HS2 route.

[Guest dilbert]

Interesting thoughts there but strangely what I have seen doesn't bear it out. True younger people (for more than the past decade) come to the workforce with ever more advanced knowledge and developed ability in the use of computer software and technical kit than the previous year's class. That won't change. But equally it will take an enormous rethinking to breakdown the basic human programming of face-to face exchange and the perceived advantages it offers.

 

Equally the end of commuting was widely predicted a decade as we would increasingly, and probably eventually solely, work from home using technology we've had for a long time. But home-working has been found to have its pitfalls and efficiency disadvantages so for many areas of work it has never taken off. I don't know if that means it never will but it is clearly taking a very long time to do so.

 

And will the cross table exchange ever lose its power and capability to video conferencing? I'm not at all sure - and I have seen some absolutely super video-conferencing kit in cross-global use involving folk on 4 continents - but does that replace my chance meeting with someone yesterday afternoon who found that I could give him some information which could critically impact on plans under development which led to my meeting a colleague of his this morning and giving the two of them 'cause for thought'?

 

I have always found coffee breaks productive and informative, the hard headed business guy sees them as money going down the drain. Oh well.

 

One thing I have noticed is that the amount of business travel I do has changed substantially over the last fifteen years. At that time I was doing around twenty-five business trips per year, last year it was four. I don't miss the time preparing expense claims, aviation travel today is a grind, but the most significant change is the localised technical teams involved have been blasted apart and the jobs moved to South America, Eastern Europe, India and China due to 'restructuring' of labour costs. The Internet offers communications media to people you do know and people that you will never meet. Flying to the USA used to be good fun but that has all changed since 9/11. The days where you would be warmly welcomed upon arrival have been replaced by being digitally fingerprinted on arrival - security oblige.

 

It will be interesting to see how HS2 develops and what the true impacts will be - my belief is that they are being overstated and in isolation... dilbert

[jamie92208]

Also the GC through Nottingham would displace part of the tram system, though I remember being told in 1971, when the Victoria centre opened that the underground car park at track level w2as built with passive provision for the railway to come through. I think the second phase of NET is going to follow the GC route south across the Midland Station and at least part way towards the river.

 

Jamie

[Kris]

In opening Andy's original link, I clicked on the "Route Engineering Report", where it outlines the Euston station modification, and describes the link between HS1 & HS2 as being a single line at Old Oak Common and suggests any International security or immigration will be addressed either at the originating station or on the train during the journey.

 

Immigration and security are currently dealt with at the originating station so this isn't a change to the existing process.

[The Stationmaster]

It will be interesting to see how HS2 develops and what the true impacts will be - my belief is that they are being overstated and in isolation... dilbert

I think the impacts of just about anything which has happened in technological terms has been misstated in one way or the other, from computers ('we see a market for 2 or 3' is, I believe attributed to IBM) to the Boeing 747 to SNCF LGVs to the M25. In every case there has been some sort of business case developed to support what is being proposed and it has, of necessity, included 'projections' and 'estimates' - these are sophisticated expressions of what others might refer to as 'guesses' or 'gambles'.

Back in BR days I developed a major scheme to handle coal using the client's projections as the base on which to build the whole thing; the scheme was implemented, the client paid for it, BR benefitted from it (enormously), it works like a dream and I can actually go out and gawp through the fence at things I thought of and planned and feel mighty pleased about some of my original thinking - but (as yet) the client's originally predicted tonnages have never materialised.

 

I was talking to someone recently about some other sort of traffic increasing - again they are dependent entirely on client information, and the client ought to know.

 

In all of these long term developments there has to be an element of crystal ball gazing - the only alternative is a rigidly directed economy and market, and that is wholly unacceptable in a democracy. So you then have to look at what, in the circumstances of your time, appear to be the best options. Notwithstanding your views I think that now they have become used to the fact folk will always want to travel; a large percentage of those folk will want the journey to be over quickly, competition between modes is increasingly leading to the need for improved 'passenger comfort and ambience' and it is awfully difficult to get that plus high capacity within the Stephensonian gauge envelope; folk will always be attracted by the new and the novel; and price will always be a factor in their choice for many (but not all).

 

I think that ultimately the best competitive answer to many of those needs is going to be offered by larger gauged trains running at high speed (but not quite as high as that talked about for HS2) - even in our relatively small country. And if/as that also answers capacity projections then it's a good way of bringing things together and inject something for the future of the railway industry but it will probably never be more than a north- south network with branches (although I do believe that there would be considerable sense in building the wholly new 'core' of Crossrail to a larger, UIC, gauge). But will it meet its projections, or exceed them, will only be know once it's up & running.

[Glorious NSE]

One thing I have noticed is that the amount of business travel I do has changed substantially over the last fifteen years. At that time I was doing around twenty-five business trips per year, last year it was four. I don't miss the time preparing expense claims, aviation travel today is a grind, but the most significant change is the localised technical teams involved have been blasted apart and the jobs moved to South America, Eastern Europe, India and China due to 'restructuring' of labour costs.

 

But yet in the same timeframe demand for UK rail travel has virtually doubled - so the reduction in demand for business meetings has not resulted in a reduction in demand for rail travel.

[Glorious NSE]

_{I'm not the first here to be reminded of the existence of a further option, which would be the rebuilding of the old Great Central Route from London to Manchester. Of course, in many places it will have been built over and bridges removed but surely it would be cheaper to reinstate it than to build a completely new railway?}

 

_{I suppose it might not offer such a high speed route as the proposed HS2 but I think it is clear that in such a small island as ours the need is to add capacity to relieve congestion, rather than cutting a few minutes off journey times?}

 

_{I would love someone "in the know" to rehearse the arguments for and against such a scheme.}

 

_{Okay....I wouldn't count myself as particularly "in the know" - but this is from looking at the line.}

 

_{So - the HS2 project}

 

_{* Rail capacity issues that need dealing with most urgently are Birmingham-Coventry and Rugby-London. There are other busy bits, but those are not the top priority. Coming up behind that fast is the bottom end of the ECML....}

_{* Passenger demand has doubled in the last 20 years - has it peaked? As others have pointed out there's no way to tell for sure, but with governments of all colours pushing for more sustainable transport then having trains bursting at the seams does not allow for any modal shift, let alone growth - and with fuel prices only likely to go one way the train does offer an alternative on city-city travel. "Wait and see" or "Hope there is no more growth" are bad bets IMHO.}

_{* If the growth in demand is anywhere close to the last 20 years then minor tweaks (an extra train an hour here or there, or a couple of coaches on each train) will be swamped before they even get delivered - the only way to deliver enough additional capacity is an additional pair of tracks.}

_{* That's just passenger growth. Under construction right now and scheduled to open late next year is a new container terminal just East of London. They intend that to ramp up to 3.5m TEUs of containers landing per year, and they want at least 30% of their traffic on rail - if that happens it will be 60+ extra freight trains each way per weekday heading for the North and the Midlands from London (some of that capacity is being created by diverting more Felixstowe traffic via Ely, but there are limits to how much of that you can do without creating problems elsewhere!)}

_{* The way to maximise capacity on that new infrastructure (in fact on any railway line!) is to dedicate them to one type of train moving at one consistent speed as much as possible. That **could** be built as freight only, but I think you have zero chance of pulling this project off or finding that kind of level of funding from central government for it if it's freight only, I think you have very little chance of making a business case on pure freight use, and I can see even fewer "men in the street" thinking it's a good idea compared to HS2! It *can't* be dedicated to commuter traffic as the point is to provide more of that at places like Milton Keynes - so removing that traffic from the existing route is pointless. That leaves the new pair of tracks as "intercity".}

_{* Adding the additional pair of tracks alongside an existing route which goes right through all the towns and cities on the way is going to be very expensive, and very disruptive both to rail users whilst it's built and to anyone with property next to the tracks.}

_{* Reusing/retasking some right of ways which aren't well used at the moment (like Old Oak to Northolt for example) plus picking a route avoiding the towns minimises the cost and disruption.}

_{* If you're building it for intercity trains and on a new alignment, then building an alignment for high speed makes perfect sense.}

_{* HS2 should remove Birmingham traffic from the WCML - when the second phase opens you can add Manchester traffic as well, and the first phase allows for other long distance (such as Glasgow) workings to also go that way, that will allow space for the additional commuter workings needed to serve markets like Milton Keynes and between Coventry and Birmingham - and allow more space on the existing route for freight as well.}

_{* The Leeds line will enable trains from there (and like the WCML potentially further North) to be similarly run via the new route doing the same for the ECML, and the 'East Midlands' station will enable some capacity relief to the MML as well.}

_{That's what HS2 should enable you to deal with in operating terms.}

 

_{So....to the GC...Start with the "easy" bit}

 

_{The GC right of way is empty-ish from just north of Aylesbury (leaving aside freight to Calvert and reopening to Bletchley for the mo) to Rugby - but looking at Google I reckon it has been built on at Brackley, Moreton Pinkney and Hinton. Whilst most of the earthworks seem to still be there in many other places the route has been ploughed back into fields, had structures removed or is breached by roads or other landscaping. So 'Easy' is a relative term even on this bit.}

 

_{Even if you allowed for that bit to be 'easily' put back into railway use (and in terms of any NIMBYs that line goes through what they will see as virgin countryside, it also goes through the middle of villages too not just 'somewhere close' - which is what the current arguments are about in most places!) - that "easy bit" is only 25 miles of clear, empty double track. In fact probably less than that - I can't see it likely they can fit a proper flying junction to the WCML in the middle of Rugby in so you might end up needing to build a new line from the West to the South side of Rugby to connect the two routes.}

 

_{This still leaves you with Coventry to Birmingham which needs quadding - and the existing line is a 2 track formation with development up against it (houses, factories...it's even sandwiched neatly between a major airport and the NEC!) - this will be a hugely expensive, time consuming and disruptive (both for communities and rail travellers) job to attempt.}

 

_{GC - the South end....}

 

_{From Aylesbury South there is an existing commuter service to Marylebone, and a little further south it's also used by LT, and by the time you get to Neasden there's precious little capacity there - so if the intention is to create two more tracks for a high capacity 'funnel' all the way to London you'll be quadding it from Aylesbury to West Hampstead - as per earlier in the thread at that point you might as well tunnel to Euston where there's some chance of finding a platform rather than to Marylebone...}

 

_{Leaving aside that the alignment though the Chiltern villages is pretty windy (not having been built as a high speed main line to even 1900s standards!) so not an ideal new Intercity route you're building a new double track railway through the *middle* of Aylesbury, Great Missenden, Amersham (in particular where they have complained vociferously that the village would be "ruined" if the line was even visible from it!) , Little Chalfont, Rickmandsworth and so on...the number of properties you'll need to demolish and the amount of disruption you cause and the costs you incur will only increase as you go further South.}

 

_{Is that going to be easier or cheaper?}

 

_{Importantly - if you don't do all of the above then you do not succeed in diverting any of that existing Intercity traffic from the West Midlands and beyond to the new line and you do not fulfil the objective of meeting WCML capacity that you can do with even just the first phase of HS2.}

 

_{North of Rugby}

 

_{To start helping the MML and ECML though you would need to go past Rugby}

 

_{You've a lot of development and other things going on on the trackbed, this is very quickly a lot more difficult than Aylesbury to Rugby.}

 

_{Rugby - Industrial Estate over the trackbed}

_{Lutterworth - Housing estate, Industrial Estate and maybe also a bit of motorway infringement}

_{(on the plus side, Lutterworth to Narborough follows the M1 so this is the first bit where you're NIMBYs have no case)}

_{Narborough? - Housing estate}

_{Leicester - Industrial Estate, Housing estate, theatre!, in the centre there is so much later development you can only vaguely see where the original route might have been, more industrial estates on the North side as well...}

_{Then the Great Central railway has the trackbed to Loughborough....you'd need to either close and compulsorary purchase that or build a parrallel line.}

_{At Loughborough there's a small impingement by another industrial estate before}

_{The GC North has the trackbed to the outskirts of Nottingham (see GC above)}

_{At Nottingham it's not too bad till you get to the river, and then there's a huge housing estate, and then......well....it's pretty much just not there anymore. There is no line to reinstate.}

 

_{Can you really imagine building what amounts to a brand new railway line on a new alignment through the heart of a major city centre? And again can you imagine the cost per mile...even just the cost of purchasing the existing property.}

 

_{To my mind, the GC is gone, doing something that actually had a similar effect on capacity to HS2 on the route would be mind blowingly expensive - beyond all measure of HS2 (my guess would involve adding another digit...) It would involve the demolision of thousands of homes and businesses, and would, after all that, not cut journey times, would not help the MML or ECML unless you push it a lot further than i've done here, would limit you to victorian (or less) line speeds of existing routes and so on and so forth...}

Edited January 12, 2012 by Glorious NSE

[Allegheny1600]

Phew! Thanks Martyn!

I "know" that a heck of a lot of the dear old GC line has gone but I didn't realise just how much - no wonder the projected freight line couldn't get going.

It's an awful shame that when the Beeching axe fell on these lines, they were allowed to be built on & redeveloped. In my book they should have been mothballed for strategic reasons for a period of at least 50 years.

Had that happened, then 'maybe' the GC line could have been redeveloped but it would probably have become the projected freight corridor of several years ago and, as per the case of the M25 et al, reached saturation level quite quickly - leaving us no better off, now!

Cheers,

John E.