HS2

[Pete the Elaner]

 

13 hours ago, bimble said:

 

We have 'London Oxford Airport', and that time in 2006 when RyanAir was offering flights from Oslo to London Prestwick... compared to them, OOC is certainly London... after all, it's well inside the M25!

 

London is 2 entities:

City of London

County of Greater London, which was expanded significantly in 1963, re-classifying many areas formerly within the home counties.

Since then:

Ilford & Romford are no longer in Essex.

Bromley is no longer in Kent.

Middlesex does not exist at all. London absorbed the entire county.

Although for some bizarre & confusing reason, the post office still recognises the old addresses after well over 50 years.

 

Although not very close the the City of London, Old Oak Common is in the county of Greater London.

 

 

As for airports outside of London being called London (Stansted, Luton etc), this is for the  benefit of those travelling.

For someone with little kowledge of UK geography, how would you know that Luton is closer to London then Newcastle? Calling it London Luton is an easy way to imply that it is a usable airport for someone travelling to London.

[melmerby]

36 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

 

London is 2 entities:

City of London

County of Greater London,

When the vast majority  of people talk of London they mean the County, not the "Square Mile"

Don't forget the London borough of Westminster is also a city in it's own right.

[Zomboid]

I think most people's idea of "London" is the area inside the M25, though it's obviously a little more nuanced than that in reality.

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, Zomboid said:

If they're prepared to claim Worcestershire Parkway is in Worcester, then claiming that OOC is a form of London (given the easy Crossrail connection and Zone 2 or 3 location it wouldn't be a ridiculous claim) wouldn't be out of the question and would actually reduce the headline journey time. Paddington itself is nowhere near anything that you'd want to go to in London anyway...

 

Clapham Junction is quite a good parallel, and both SWR and Southern stop most of their long distance off peak services there because of the interchange opportunities into. With multiple platforms for each track at a new OOC station then even peak time calls wouldn't necessarily wreck line capacity.

However OOC isn't much use for the Circle, District, and H&C lines and Crossrail won't replicate many of the journeys made over them via connections at Paddington although it will obvioulsy takeover a proprtion of Bakerloo Line onward journeys plus some of the few that continue via the Central Line.  Will OOC have provision for taxis - I presume so?

 

As far as multiple platforms for the Main Lines (will they be for the Mains or for the Reliefs?) are concerned I can't really see how that could work.  Various people have already said platform lines on HS2 at Calvert will hit capacity (which they would even if they were pretty long with high speed turnouts) and you're looking at hardly less frequent train service on the Mains at Old Oak especially during the peaks and in a site of limited length and constrained width where it would be difficult to fit in the turnouts that matched deceleration and acceleration curves.  Two extra platforms on the Reliefs would make a lot more sense particularly when you consider the sort of frequency Crossrail keep talking about for the peaks because if you drop an OOC call into that lot it will need considerable change to their timetable (and GWRs for their trains using the Reliefs).

[Zomboid]

I'm not advocating for GWR to stop or not their long distance trains at OOC, but the best parallels I can think of for the combined interchange are Clapham Junction and Stratford, where the majority of off peak long distance trains call, whilst at Clapham in the peaks the SW Main Fasts are too busy for anything to call (in the peak direction only - I don't use Southern or GA so I've no idea what they do).  I wouldn't be in any way surprised if OOC ended up with the same broad pattern.

 

It'll depend to an extent what interchanges will be available - obviously Crossrail for a lot of Central London and Heathrow, and perhaps the Overground will get a station nearby on one line or the other (a WLL station at OOC would open up a lot of local connection possibilities with the Southern service to MK and Clapham, though perhaps not to MK itself since that's a very slow service for that kind of distance at present).

[Pete the Elaner]

In the early 90s, it was not possible to get a train from Colchester to Stratford (possibly apart from late at night). They all non-stopped, making it necessary to change at Shenfield or LST.

It was around the time that the Jubilee Line Extension was built that more services started to stop there.

The recent modernisation of Stratford (including HS1, Westfield & the Olympic park) have made it a much more important location.

 

The same will be true of OOC. An interchange here would be much better for GW passengers to transfer to HS2 rather than get to Euston via Paddington/Crossrail then come back out again. With a rather large, busy airport nearby, this will make it quite a strategic location.

I really can't see Calvert being in the initial plans though. HS2 costs will not be ballooned with any extras such as placing a station in a village. Land may well be reserved here in case there east-west rail creates sufficient demand for an interchange.

[Ron Ron Ron]

11 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

However OOC isn't much use for the Circle, District, and H&C lines and Crossrail won't replicate many of the journeys made over them via connections at Paddington although it will obvioulsy takeover a proprtion of Bakerloo Line onward journeys plus some of the few that continue via the Central Line.  Will OOC have provision for taxis - I presume so? ......

 

Crossrail will be faster to many of the destinations on the Circle, District and H&C, or within one connection (Crossrail + tube).

 

For example (taking the times from Paddington to get a clear idea)...

Paddington to Farringdon - 17 mins by tube v 8 mins by Crossrail

Paddington to Liverpool St. - 23 mins by tube v 10 mins by Crossrail

Paddington to Westminister - 19 mins by tube v 10 to 12 mins by Crossrail, changing at Bond St. (allowing up to 5 mins to change).

 

When you take those time savings and work it back to a connection onto Crossrail at OOC (or even Ealing Bdwy), there will be a further saving in the cross platform connection (same platform on the relief at Ealing Bdwy), compared with the longer connection time onto the LU, or down the deep hole onto Crossrail at Paddington, 

At peak times, eastbound Crossrail trains should be leaving OOC every few minutes.

 

Therefore there will be a spread of alternative onward connection routes from OOC and Paddington, using either, or both Crossrail and the LU, rather than the current situation of piling everything into Paddington and onto what is often a slow and lengthy tube journey.

 

p.s. The design for OOC shows provision for taxis and a Bus interchange.

 

11 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

....As far as multiple platforms for the Main Lines (will they be for the Mains or for the Reliefs?) are concerned I can't really see how that could work.  .....

 

The platforms are clearly in the plan Mike, and shown in the schematic drawings and in the full planning application.

4 platforms for the Reliefs and 4 platforms for the Mains.

A total of 8 platforms on 4 islands for the GWML.

 

11 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

.......you're looking at hardly less frequent train service on the Mains at Old Oak especially during the peaks and in a site of limited length and constrained width where it would be difficult to fit in the turnouts that matched deceleration and acceleration curves. .....

 

The whole GWML formation is being considerably widened to accommodate the new station and its approaches,

I understand this includes some bridge widening on the western approaches.

For example, the relief lines and their platforms are shown on the drawings, to be relocated onto the area now occupied by the approach tracks to the east of the HEX depot.

 

I can't see much point in speculating, or debating about possible alternative arrangements, as the plans have been made and are there for everyone to see.

 

 

.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Ron Ron Ron

[Northmoor]

12 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Crossrail will be faster than to many of the destinations on the Circle, District and H&C, or within one connection (Crossrail + tube).

 

You're clearly writing that as an enthusiast - who presumably enjoys train travel - rather than as a ordinary member of the public, the vast majority of whom HATE changing trains as they worry about being in right place, missing connections, getting on the wrong train etc.  They would like to avoid changing once, let alone twice.

This is one of the main reasons why Heathrow Express exists, to get passengers with luggage to/from near London hotels.  With the most expensive fare/mile anywhere in the world, it wasn't introduced to compete with the Piccadilly Line but with taxis from Heathrow - West End.

[Pete the Elaner]

17 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Crossrail will be faster than to many of the destinations on the Circle, District and H&C, or within one connection (Crossrail + tube).

 

 

Circle, District & H+C have never been much better than a complete waste of time. I would use tube lines over these cut & cover ones any day.

 

I used to work for a company in Ealing who had another branch in Pimlico. Several of us had to get to the other site for some reason.

A group used the District then Victoria.

About 30 minutes later, a few more left, using the Central then Victoria.

My colleague & I still had a few things to tidy up, so we left about 5 minutes after the Central Line crowd. We took the main line to Paddington, then Bakerloo then Victoria.

We arrived first..just. The Central liners arrived about a minute later. Those who took the District line were a further 20 minutes behind.

There were no delays. The District is just rubbish.

 

I do re-try District, H&C or Circle occasionally...& regret it every time.

The section from Aldgate to Baker St which includes the Met seems to be a lot better though.

[Zomboid]

59 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

current situation of piling everything into Paddington and onto what is often a slow and lengthy tube journey

This is pertinent - I'm sure Crossrail will help, but it's quite common for the LU platforms to be closed due to overcrowding. If people are getting onto the LU system at two locations (ie OOC) then that will make it much less likely that such measures will be necessary.

 

And GWR will be able to claim faster journeys to the parts of London that people actually need to get to (the West End, Canary Wharf, Forest Gate ) via the OOC interchange, simply because it will be a quicker station to change at.

[KeithMacdonald]

According to Al Beeb:

 

Quote

 

New roads face Heathrow-style court action threat

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51665682

 

 

Has HS2 escaped this threat?

[jamie92208]

28 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

According to Al Beeb:

 

 

Has HS2 escaped this threat?

 It should do as it will hopefully  take a lot of traffic off the roads and also some short haul airline flights.

 

Jamie

[phil-b259]

48 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

According to Al Beeb:

 

 

Has HS2 escaped this threat?

 

Yes (though I wouldn’t put it beyond some of the ill-informed objectors to try).

 

If you compare a railway scheme (that can use electricity generated by renewables and facilitates people + goods being transferred from oil fuelled road vehicles) and an airport where expanding it means more flights powered by burning fossil fuels (I.e. jet fuel) then its pretty obvious that the railway sheme is not fundamentally incompatible with the Carbon Neutral laws which judges have cited as the reason for their decision in the Heathrow case.

[billbedford]

1 hour ago, KeithMacdonald said:

According to Al Beeb:

 

 

Has HS2 escaped this threat?

 

Yes, because the judgement was specific to the Airports National Policy Statement, part of the Planning Act. 

[Mike Storey]

33 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

Yes, because the judgement was specific to the Airports National Policy Statement, part of the Planning Act. 

 

Well, no Bill. The new, potential court action concerns the New Roads plan. So the implication from Mr MacDonald is that HS2 could also face a similar court action.

 

The fact that it would not stand a prayer, because HS2 clearly has intentions to reduce harmful climatic effects (primarily by modal switch), would mean little to objectors. The equal fact that it would cause some environmental harm during construction, and some, albeit mitigated, harm long term, is not the basis of the successful case presented against the extra runway at Heathrow. That was won on the basis that extra flights mean extra pollution, which would not meet the terms of the govt's legally binding, Climate Change targets, issued after the extra runway was approved.

 

But the long term harm aspect could feasibly be the basis for a successful case against the roads programme, albeit a long shot I would think, for various reasons.

[Ron Ron Ron]

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

You're clearly writing that as an enthusiast - who presumably enjoys train travel - rather than as a ordinary member of the public, the vast majority of whom HATE changing trains as they worry about being in right place, missing connections, getting on the wrong train etc.  They would like to avoid changing once, let alone twice.....

 

 

One - I'm not an enthusiast.

 

Two - I don't necessarily enjoy train travel. I just use the train when I have to or if it's more convenient. I find longer distance rail journeys to be rubbish much of the time.

 

Three - You've got the completely wrong end of the stick, as I'm advocating (from what is supposed to be the end result) ...that using Crossrail to get people further into central London, should reduce the number of changes of train and be easier for some journeys.

I'd say that should be much better for, what you call,  "the vast majority of whom HATE changing trains".

You can't avoid changing trains if connecting from National Rail services onto the LU.

Rather than having to change onto congested and in many cases slower LU services at the mainline terminus stations (e.g. Paddington in this case), depending on final destination, it should be easier to continue on Crossrail, if arriving from further out on this service, or connect from GWML services at OOC (and possibly Ealing Bdwy) onto Crossrail, than make that change at Paddington onto LU with its narrow and congested underground stations.

 

Crossrail is opening up a whole new set of alternative, often easier and more convenient, set of routing opportunities, to add to those currently presented by London's extensive underground system.

 

 

.

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

12 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Well, no Bill. The new, potential court action concerns the New Roads plan. So the implication from Mr MacDonald is that HS2 could also face a similar court action.....

 

Indeed Mike.

There are different factions amongst the "anti brigade".

There are those who believe they can still hamper or stop HS2, particularly the later stages, through legal action.

Not related to the legal case, there are others who are trying to motivate support for a series of mass protests and acts of sabotage against HS2 phase 1.

There is even talk of trying to stop any new railway line being built across the Pennines as part of NPR, using the legal route.

 

Only an hour ago, I was in the kitchen listening to a talk radio station and there was a campaigner being interviewed on there, hailing the Heathrow decision as a great victory and saying they now need to move on to blocking progress on HS2.

 

.

.

[Zomboid]

Don't build new roads, railways or airports - fine. Just don't then complain that there's traffic jams everywhere, overcrowded and unreliable trains and half the world is only accessible via Schiphol.

[phil-b259]

 

41 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Only an hour ago, I was in the kitchen listening to a talk radio station and there was a campaigner being interviewed on there, hailing the Heathrow decision as a great victory and saying they now need to move on to blocking progress on HS2.

 

.

.

 

What an idoit! (the person on the radio that is)

 

The person being interviewed has quite clearly not paid any attention to what the judges ACTUALLY said!

 

They have NOT said Heathrow can never expand - merely that based on the current evidence the expansion of Heathrow is at odds with the Governments own laws designed at reducing pollution and thus it cannot go ahead as currently proposed.

 

Or to put it another way, if someone can invent solar powered planes and thus prevent an increase in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of more planes, the Heathrow is free to come back and propose expansion again.

 

[Clearwater]

7 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

What an idoit! (the person on the radio that is)

 

The person being interviewed has quite clearly not paid any attention to what the judges ACTUALLY said!

 

They have NOT said Heathrow can never expand - merely that based on the current evidence the expansion of Heathrow is at odds with the Governments own laws designed at reducing pollution and thus it cannot go ahead as currently proposed.

 

Or to put it another way, if someone can invent solar powered planes and thus prevent an increase in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of more planes, the Heathrow is free to come back and propose expansion again.

 

Heathrow’s ceo was on the radio the the week talking about green aviation fuels.  There’s a growing supply of synthetic fuels that claim to be carbon neutral. Eg if you make hydrogen from electrolysis powered by solar/wind combine it with carbon dioxide to make methanol, when you burn said methanol you end up where you started.  Process, however, requires copious amounts of cheap energy.  
 

eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49725741

[mdvle]

15 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

They have NOT said Heathrow can never expand - merely that based on the current evidence the expansion of Heathrow is at odds with the Governments own laws designed at reducing pollution and thus it cannot go ahead as currently proposed.

 

Or to put it another way, if someone can invent solar powered planes and thus prevent an increase in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of more planes, the Heathrow is free to come back and propose expansion again.

 

Or alternately the government can change the laws so a third runway / whatever else the government wants to do is possible.

[wasabi]

30 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Don't build new roads, railways or airports - fine. Just don't then complain that there's traffic jams everywhere, overcrowded and unreliable trains and half the world is only accessible via Schiphol.

 

I live in East London, not all far from LCY.  Compared to he time I need to allow to take a cab to Heathrow and then get though that maze, Schiphol is my nearest 'full service' international airport - as long as cost is not a consideration. 

[black and decker boy]

HS2 phase 1 has royal assent to be built and that predates Paris & our climate laws.

 

Heathrow doesn’t have Royal Assent / planning permission merely political backing to move forward towards Its planning application, a Development Consent Order (DCO). Heathrow were expecting to submit their DCO in Q4 2020 but that is clearly now delayed.

[billbedford]

The court said:

“Our decision should be properly understood. We have not decided, and could not decide, that there will be no third runway at Heathrow. We have not found that a national policy statement supporting this project is necessarily incompatible with the United Kingdom’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change under the Paris Agreement, or with any other policy the Government may adopt or international obligation it may undertake. The consequence of our decision is that the Government will now have the opportunity to reconsider the ANPS in accordance with the clear statutory requirements that Parliament has imposed”.

 

In other words, the court didn’t even say the runway decision must conform to climate change policy — merely that the government must explain just how it is taking that policy into account.

 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2020 by billbedford

[APOLLO]

Lay the new runway with green tarmac !!!!

 

https://www.tarmac.com/decorative-aggregates/chippings-and-gravel/green-basalt/

 

The world has gone mad(der) this last week or two.

 

Brit15