HS2

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

I maybe wrong, but I thought that the plan was to stop virtually everything at Old Oak. I don't remember the slew being as much as that, the DML, to remain more or less where it is and everything else move North to accommodate the platforms, the platforms are all going to be islands.

 

I'm not going to go back through 240 pages to check!

 

 

Just because the DM is going to end up in the same place after the works have finished doesn't preclude it having to be moved during the works though!

 

However as the plan is to start work on the northernmost island platforms first I imagine that the line speed on the mains won't be affected for a couple of years yet.

 

And yes, the plan is still to stop everything at Old Oak (though in the case of GWR express services only as a pick up westbound, set down eastbound mode) so it may be that any time added to the schedules to accommodate a lower line speed is merely bringing forward the inevitable.

Edited February 28, 2023 by phil-b259

[Ron Ron Ron]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

That looks like one heck of slew in the GWML at the Friars Jcn (Acton) amounting almost to a reverse curve in the Mains if they go that far over (I can see no need for that so presumably they won'?) tand an awful lot of new bridgeworks to got with it.  I hope it isn't going to hit linespeeds on the GWML and increase journey times (yet again)?

 

The east end is going to be much simpler and have no serious effect I would ythink so unlikely to be a reduction in linespeed there.

 

You'll have to forgive me Mike, as I don't know which is the Friars Jcn.

If I've got it right, running eastbound (Up) the new formation will fan out from where the North London Line crosses the GWML.

 

A new bridge over Old Oak Common lane will extend from what they're calling the "IEP" bridge (it carries Hitachi Depot siding tracks, just to the south of the mainline), northwards right up to where the old bridge that carried the now disused line to Greenford (sorry I've forgotten the name of this line) currently stands.

 

Looking at the video, the prepared, graded area is part of the approach towards the platforms, which will be located further east, opposite the main Hitachi Depot building.

That allows quite a distance, for what appear on diagrams to be fairly gentle curves into the new station platform layout.

 

As Siberian Snooper says, the DML will end up pretty close to its present alignment.

There will of course, be a period of time, when both the reliefs and mains will be slewed over onto the newly constructed platforms on the north side of the station, to allow the remaining 4, new main line platforms to be built.

Proposed timelines are in the link I posted above.

 

It is planned that ALL GWML trains will stop on their way into Paddington, as OOC is being developed as a major interchange, being a main connecting point with the Elizabeth Line, HS2 and services to Heathrow.

If the DfT and TfL get their act together, links with the NLL and WLL may follow.

 

 

 

 

The following document shows a schematic of the position of the new bridge over OOC Lane, with the current lines badly represented by black lines.

There are some also some renderings showing how the new bridge will look from roadside level.

 

https://assets.hs2.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/8410-HS2-Community-Event-Boards-Rev5.pdf

 

 

For example.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

Edited February 28, 2023 by Ron Ron Ron

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks Ron.  Friars Jcn was effectively at, and in part underneath, the bridge carrying the North London Line over the GWML.  The distance from there to the eastern side of Old Oak Lane is c.18-19 chains.  At the moment the GWML running lines curve towards the south immediately they have passed under the bridge so the curve there will be in the opposite direction at a sharper radius than the existing curve towards the north and it will of necessity be followed by a reverse curve in the opposite direction - so bound to be speed limited.

 

What fascinates me about all GWML main line trains calling at Old Oak Common is why?  It will obviously extend journey times thereby going in the opposite direction to the old 'truism' (not always true as it happens) about reduction in journey time increasing passenger traffic levels.  The only thing it might inject is a better interchange with the Liz Line than Paddington but that will always be a relatively limited number of passengers compared with the total travelling through Paddington off the GWML.  

 

As far as providing a connection to HS2 again the market is rather restricted  and in respect of Birmingham basically means people joining trains at stations east of Reading.  For those from Reading and west thereof the alternatives to Birmingham/the West Midlands will be more convenient (except perhaps for Didcot?) and probably still cheaper than travelling via Old Oak with little disadvantage in journey time.  From stations east of Reading it will be something of a toss-up which route to take.

 

For beyind Birmingham the difference will probably be worthwhile, albeit probably at extra cost, for travellers from Reading and Didcot as well as the stations east of Reading.  At present, if things work out well, the journey time from Crewe to Reading varies by only a few minutes comparing travelling via Birmingham compared with travelling via London (it probably varies a bit from timetable to timetable).  Many cross country travellers choose the route in order to abvoid London and having to change trains (and at present stations) in London.   That market will I suspect remain one keener on through trains and offering potential price advantages.  From stations west of Reading/Didcot the cross country travel pattern is totally different and I doubt that will change very much - even past reduced journey times on the WR to London and from London on the WCML didn't particularly force a change.

 

The big advantage for connection to both Liz Line and HS2 (instead of going via Euston) will be for people travelling from east of Reading on Liz Line  and GWR Didcot - Paddington trains (plus those off the outer Thames Valley changing to the LIz Line who might get a better interchange at Old Oak than is potentially the case at Paddington).  In fact we might even get back the step-off/step-on interchange with the Liz Line we are set to lose at Ealing Broadway from the upcoming timetable change although if the semi-fasts remain on the Mains we'll get little advantage over Paddington interchange.

 

The key really is the number of passengers currently using GWR long distance services who use the Liz Line to/from Paddington and similarly those who use the Oxford/Didcot/Newbury - Paddington services who interchange with the Liz Line.

 

 

 

 

[scots region]

I had a twitter argument today (bad idea) with a guy who was seriously proposing over-head electrified motorways as an alternative to HS2. It really is incredible to me how some people are prepared to back any nonsense over a proven method of transport. 

[melmerby]

20 minutes ago, scots region said:

I had a twitter argument today (bad idea) with a guy who was seriously proposing over-head electrified motorways as an alternative to HS2. It really is incredible to me how some people are prepared to back any nonsense over a proven method of transport. 

Has been proven to work well in Germany under test conditions.

Doesn't solve the capacity problem on the WCML however, as the idea was for trucks (possibly buses also?):

 

 

It is for range enhancement & battery charging on heavy vehicles.

Edited March 1, 2023 by melmerby

[jollysmart]

2 hours ago, scots region said:

I had a twitter argument today (bad idea) with a guy who was seriously proposing over-head electrified motorways as an alternative to HS2. It really is incredible to me how some people are prepared to back any nonsense over a proven method of transport. 

 

There was/is a supposed plan to fit OH electrification to a straight/level section of the M180 which did appear to be rather silly when the railway that runs parallel to the motorway isn't electrified and also carries a significant volume of freight. Nobody explained why disrupting miles of a busy motorway would be acceptable, or why just the straight section would be electrified and what happens at each end of the OH?

Edited March 1, 2023 by jollysmart

[Ron Ron Ron]

Chilterns Tunnel TBM's "Florence" and "Cecilia" are on their way from the Amersham vent shaft, to Little Missenden.

 

TBM Florence was launched in May 2021, the first of ten tunnelling machines to be used on HS2, and is currently building the Chiltern tunnel – the longest tunnel on the route.

Distance travelled so far: 9,022m

Approximate distance remaining: 7,038m

Launch location: Chiltern tunnel, South Portal

Destination: Chiltern tunnel, North Portal

Last updated 1 March 2023.

 

TBM Cecilia was launched in June 2021, the second of ten tunnelling machines to be used on HS2, and is currently building the Chiltern tunnel – the longest tunnel on the route.

Distance travelled so far: 8,956m

Approximate distance remaining: 7,104m

Launch location: Chiltern tunnel, South Portal

Destination: Chiltern tunnel, North Portal

Last updated 1 March 2023.

 

 

.

 

[phil-b259]

12 hours ago, jollysmart said:

 

 Nobody explained why disrupting miles of a busy motorway would be acceptable, or why just the straight section would be electrified and what happens at each end of the OH?

 

Because road transport is (in the eyes of the Government / Conservative party) a fully private enterprise and requires no taxpayer subsidy towards vehicles, staffing etc  (which rather ignores the huge sums spent on the roads every year), plus can cater for flows which would never be economic for rail transport. It is also unaffected by trade unions going out on strike....

 

As such proponents of the idea find plenty of receptive individuals in Westminster / Whitehall

 

As to what happens at either end - one presumes the proponents are considering batteries / hydrogen / diesel hybrids, taking advantage of the 'innovative private sector' to come up with the solution...

 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

6 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Because road transport is (in the eyes of the Government / Conservative party) a fully private enterprise and requires no taxpayer subsidy towards vehicles, staffing etc  (which rather ignores the huge sums spent on the roads every year),….,..,,,,

 

 

It had nothing to do with any political party. An overwhelming proportion of the population consider the freedom of mobility to be an inalienable right.

 

As for the huge sums spent on the roads….. various forms of taxation on motor vehicles and the use of them, generates multiple times more income for the government, than the total amount of money spent on the roads.

 

.

[Compound2632]

17 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

An overwhelming proportion of the population consider the freedom of mobility to be an inalienable right.

 

I blame the railways for starting that idea. The Duke of Wellington was right to be concerned.

[Arun Sharma]

58 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I blame the railways for starting that idea. The Duke of Wellington was right to be concerned.

And look at what happened to poor Huskisson when he tried to speak to the Duke of Wellington at Rainhill!

[lmsforever]

You only have to see the amount of vitriol coming out in Oxford by motorists on the traffic systems being set up by the council to try and cut the amount of vehicles in the city.I have a right to drive anywhere in the city and to hell with anyone else .Many people have no idea about public transport and think anyone who uses it is in need of reducation on transport needs this is something that will not go away and needs attention from the top.

[jjb1970]

An inalienable right to mobility is not necessarily the same as an inalienable right to use a car.

 

For a start, there is not, and never has been an inalienable right to use a car. You have to meet the minimum age requirement, then obtain a driving license, insurance, and have access to a car. If you are 15 you can't drive on a public road, if you can't afford a car and don't have access to one then you can't drive. If you can't get insurance you can't drive. And of course, the government can withdraw your driving license as a punishment for driving violations.

 

So while I support a right to mobility, that is not necessarily synonymous with a right to use a car.

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

For a start, there is not, and never has been an inalienable right to use a car. You have to meet the minimum age requirement, then obtain a driving license, insurance, and have access to a car. If you are 15 you can't drive on a public road, if you can't afford a car and don't have access to one then you can't drive. If you can't get insurance you can't drive. And of course, the government can withdraw your driving license as a punishment for driving violations.

 

Yes, all these conditions have to be met in order to drive legally. But they do not necessarily thereby prevent someone from driving; notably those with contempt for authority and lack of money.

[jjb1970]

12 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Yes, all these conditions have to be met in order to drive legally. But they do not necessarily thereby prevent someone from driving; notably those with contempt for authority and lack of money.

 

Very true, but that's like committing any crime, people are not exercising a right but playing the odds that they won't get caught or calculating that the benefits outweigh the liabilities. I know I shouldn't say this as it may sound like I'm condoning unacceptable behaviour, but when the penalties for driving without a license and insurance are trivial it's not that surprising so mance chance it.

[corneliuslundie]

And they do not change the attitudes mentioned above by lmsforever about public transport.

One would think that people would have more sense!

But a report the other day about buses in the Aberystwyth area that passenger levels are still only 50% of precovid, and a graph showing a continuing decline in bus usage in the last 20 years nationally do not make happy reading. Yet certainly in my part of mid Wales a lot has been done to improve bus services in the last ten years. Train services unfortunately are much the same.

But I agree with those who say that we need to think in terms of less mobility generally if we are to reduce CO2 emissions from transport. (And i don't mean just joints seizing up with age!).

Jonathan

[jjb1970]

The Singapore system of requiring a (very expensive) certificate of entitlement to have a car combined with superb public transport is undeniably effective at reducing (preventing) traffic congestion and providing excellent connectivity. Whether it'd be considered acceptable in other countries is another question.

[martin_wynne]

According to the BBC today:

 

"HS2 trains are due to carry their first passengers between Old Oak Common station in West London and Birmingham, between 2029 and 2033."

 

I thought it was only supposed to take 20 minutes?

 

[spamcan61]

2 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

According to the BBC today:

 

"HS2 trains are due to carry their first passengers between Old Oak Common station in West London and Birmingham, between 2029 and 2033."

 

I thought it was only supposed to take 20 minutes?

 

Surely that's 4 minutes ;-)

[62613]

16 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

As for the huge sums spent on the roads….. various forms of taxation on motor vehicles and the use of them, generates multiple times more income for the government, than the total amount of money spent on the roads.

That would be fine if the taxation from road use didn't go into a general taxation pool.

[jollysmart]

10 hours ago, lmsforever said:

You only have to see the amount of vitriol coming out in Oxford by motorists on the traffic systems being set up by the council to try and cut the amount of vehicles in the city.I have a right to drive anywhere in the city and to hell with anyone else .Many people have no idea about public transport and think anyone who uses it is in need of reducation on transport needs this is something that will not go away and needs attention from the top.

 

My reading of this is that it won't reduce the number of  journeys just make them longer by making people drive further to get to where they want to go hence increasing all of the things that the changes are supposedly trying to reduce, hence people legitimately objected.

[jjb1970]

3 minutes ago, jollysmart said:

 

My reading of this is that it won't reduce the number of  journeys just make them longer by making people drive further to get to where they want to go hence increasing all of the things that the changes are supposedly trying to reduce, hence people legitimately objected.

 

That's where a lot of green initiatives fall over, and undermine confidence in environmental policy. I completely get why people are negative about a lot of green initiatives, despite being a bit of a tree hugger myself.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

The Singapore system of requiring a (very expensive) certificate of entitlement to have a car combined with superb public transport is undeniably effective at reducing (preventing) traffic congestion and providing excellent connectivity. Whether it'd be considered acceptable in other countries is another question.

 

That's all very well in a densely-populated urban area but much more difficult to apply in more rural areas, up to and including small to medium-sized towns, or for any travel from an urban area to a more rural area. 

 

I look at my own use of public transport, living in the suburbs of Reading, the largest town in England (there are numerous smaller cities). Reading has an award-winning bus operator and is a major railway junction. I use the bus to get into the centre of Reading (either the hourly service along our road or the very frequent service along the main road 15 minutes walk away) and the train (from my local station rather than Reading General) to travel into London but otherwise car for pretty well all other directions. Lexi (Mrs Compound) takes the train into Oxford on the two days a week she has to go into work (much less satisfactory post-covid owing to timetable changes for her connection at Reading in the morning, frequent cancellations, and general deterioration in punctuality). For pleasure trips to Oxford (frequent at the moment as No. 2 Son is a music student involved in lots of concerts) we have found it cheaper and easier to drive to the Redbridge Park & Ride and take the bus into the city centre.

Edited March 3, 2023 by Compound2632

[Edwin_m]

31 minutes ago, 62613 said:

That would be fine if the taxation from road use didn't go into a general taxation pool.

The use of the road network actually creates a lot more costs than appear in the account for central government road spending:

• Large slice of the police force
• Large slice of the NHS
• Local authority roads - needed for essential access to properties, but almost nobody would be able to drive any journey without them
• All the measures we should be (but probably aren't) taking to address CO2 and particulate emissions from vehicles
• Bus and possibly train subsidies (if nobody had the option of driving, a lot more of them would cover their costs)
• Walking and cycling infrastructure (if there was no traffic then the existing roads would be safe for those users)

So it's entirely reasonable to expect taxation on road use to cover many of these costs.  Whether it does or not, I have no idea.  

[jjb1970]

I always think the tax argument is problematic however it is deployed.

 

Taxes aren't a choice or there to fund the things we want, they're an obligation to fund what the government wants (or needs) to do. 

 

Car use is associated with all sorts of consequential and indirect costs which probably should be paid for by car users, but the same is true of many other things in life. And we don't get a choice to opt out from spending we don't agree with.

 

Taxes are what they are, it'd be nice to have a meaningful choice at election time but in reality the choices we are offered at elections would vary tax liabilities and spending by degrees without fundamentally changing that much.