High Speed 2 Update - likely route revealed

[Glorious NSE]

Interesting news. Euston is a sensible choice, but I'm not sure about the Birmingham station - presumably the site of the old Curzon Street parcels depot. A lot of people will want easy connections to ther destinations. How easy will it be to get connections at New Street and Snow Hill? It's quite a long way to walk!

 

The platform ends are on the Curzon St parcels depot site, but if you look at the detailed plans the concourse is right next to Moor St (in fact they might as well tie the two together properly, call it all Moor St and be done with it!) - so if your connecting to the old GW axis you'd be a wally to walk all the way to Snow Hill!

 

Moor St to New St is about 4 mins walk from memory?

 

Detailed route maps are here: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/route/

The one showing the Birmingham terminus is the last one on the page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

I've already downloaded the documents from the DafT website.

The major docs. give a lengthy and detailed case, discussing the various options that have been looked at.

 

Some interesting details on the long planned major redevelopment of Euston.

The 24 new platforms will be below ground level, with the new station concourse on top. These platforms will extend under what is the current concourse and station forecourt.

 

HS train fleet is proposed to be a mix of dedicated UIC international gauge trains, which will be limited to the new line; and UK loading gauge HS trains that will be able to continue onto the present day classic main lines.

Double deck stock is under consideration.

 

ECML express trains from Leeds and points north will eventually be replaced by HS trains on the proposed route via the Birmingham Airport/NEC interchange.

Does this mean no more long distance services from KX to the north and Scotland?

 

All WCML inter-city trains will transfer to HS2 between Birmingham and London; but not the existing Pendolino or other classic trains - only HS trains will be allowed on the new line.

 

Old Oak Common to become a major hub between HS2, GWML, Crossrail, London Overground, London Underground, Heathrow Express.

The plan is for a significant proportion of HS2 passengers to join/leave the HS trains here, rather than at Euston.

 

There's loads more...

 

 

 

.

[alcazar]

Lots of French TGV stations aren't in city centres, Avignon springs to mind, and Lille Europe is a decent walk from Lille Flandres. It hasn't stopped the French from using THEIR network.

 

I just WISH that Thatcher's government hadn't been so anti-railway, and that the present Labour government hadn't told lies about electrification. Then we MIGHT be on a level playing field with the rest of Europe as regards High Speed lines.

[D6975]

I can't honestly see the case for HS2 if it only takes 4 min 59 secs from Euston to Glasgow at the moment.

 

OK, I'm going...

 

and that's not a particularly fast time, the 16:30 ex Euston gets to Glasgow at 20:40, that's just 4hrs 10mins

[298]

Downloadable .pdf maps of the route are here:

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/route/

 

So much for hogging the M40/M42, the use of the GC and the Berkswell-Kenilworth trackbeds are interesting as they could be considered for other schemes, and parts of the route between are quite sensitive such as near Stoneleigh in Warwickshire.

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

I think it's a great thing!

 

I can't wait until it comes as I live only a couple of miles from the proposed route! I may not live in the area when it's started, but I'll try and come back and photograph it's progess!

 

Simon

[David Rickard]

I'm looking through the PDFs right now, and it looks a hell of a lot like a 'best case' scenario. In that it's what they would like if there were no issues. It cuts through no end of farms and private houses. Oddly, it does run along the GC for a small slice, just north of Quainton, then it veers away again (map 7). What that means for the Binliners however, I don't know. Then again, maybe Calvert will be full by 2017!

 

The big tunnels under the Chalfonts are intrigueing (probably the only way to get through there), and it sits on a small viaduct past Aylesbury. What interests me is that up near Wendover pylons will need moving, and those are the big, big ######! Not only that, but the Aylesbury - Risboro branch will be moved, and run over a bridge. Bearing in mind HS2 is sitting on a viaduct above the ground level, that's going to be one hell of a climb for that little bubble car.

 

All very intriguing, but I can see those plans changing a fair bit.

[Dudley Dodger]

Did anyone watch midlands today? From what i could understand, it's going into a new station, birmingham eastside, which is near to but not at curzon street. And why are they wasting time on these high speed lines anyway? there's still a lot of beeching's work which could viably be undone.

[Ron Ron Ron]

I can't honestly see the case for HS2 if it only takes 4 min 59 secs from Euston to Glasgow at the moment.

OK, I'm going...

and that's not a particularly fast time, the 16:30 ex Euston gets to Glasgow at 20:40, that's just 4hrs 10mins

D6975 ...read it again. :icon_thumbsup2:

 

.

[David Rickard]

Did anyone watch midlands today? From what i could understand, it's going into a new station, birmingham eastside, which is near to but not at curzon street. And why are they wasting time on these high speed lines anyway? there's still a lot of beeching's work which could viably be undone.

 

That was my first thought - there's always been rumblings about opening the Great Central back up. However, if you look at the track alignments proposed, versus the remnants of GC on the plans, you can see how radically different they are. HS2 is constantly up on stilts, or down in a big ditch, and seems to spend not a lot of time just on the ground. Some of the new cuttings are massive compared to the old ones. Plus it's all a lot straighter. That's why we have Pendolinos banging up and down the WCML, and they're (as far as I know) pretty much at the limit of what's currently possible. Compared with the TGV and it's ilk, our lines zig-zag all over the place. From what I've seen, the GC is fairly straight, but not enough to satisfy the requirements of this project. It's about an hour by train into London from here (Aylesbury), slightly less on the Chiltern main line. I think something like HS2 will do it in nearer 20 minutes. If it had to follow the line through Aylesbury, then into Amersham and beyond (contended with LU in places), then it'd be an hour just to escape into Bucks!

 

I just think it'll be a massive uphill struggle to get all the land rights and ownership sorted, even with acts of parliament and compulsory purchase orders.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Strikes me as very tired thinking. Who needs a terminal in overcrowded central London? What we need is a gigantic roundy-roundy dedicated to high speed trains, calling at: Heathrow, Gatwick, HS1 interchange, Stanstead, East Midlands Airport, Leeds/Bradford Airport, Newcastle, Carlisle, Crewe, Birmingham, Oxford; trains going in both directions, with an interval service that allows the passenger to turn up and get on, like the Tube on a grand scale; and properly integrated interchanges to airports and the current rail network. That means altering the current passenger rail network routes to make them integrate properly as secondary to the high speed circle line.

[Glorious NSE]

Did anyone watch midlands today? From what i could understand, it's going into a new station, birmingham eastside, which is near to but not at curzon street.

 

See post above & download the plan - station building is right next to Moor St station.

[bmthtrains - David]

Currently reading all the detail on the dft website, its broadly what I was expecting, though the approach into Brum is different, Curzon st not having occured to me!

 

At last I can now start planning some options for the model version - that interchange at OOC will be interesting B)

 

David

[APOLLO]

SO, Having just spent many millions upgrading the WCML, Pendolino's, 4 tracking etc etc, they want now to build a duplicate route virtually alongside. Waste of money, hang on, they (we) have no money !!!. Political gesturing before an election.

 

What we really need is a central high speed freight spine, was planned a while ago (Central Railway ?) - Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield (both via Woodhead & Diggle), & old GC to London, Heathrow & Chunnel, with connections to Birmingham etc. 4 Track it to allow HS passenger also. Extend up to Newcastle / Edinburgh Glasgow or high speed upgrade existing ECML north of York - easily done. South Wales & West Country need links / upgrades also.

 

According to BP (statistical review of World Energy 2009), oil runs out in 42 years, or so.

 

http://www.bp.com/se...ntentId=7044915

 

We had therfore better get building railways, and not just high speed links either, or we all will be going NO-WHERE, fast, soon.

 

Brit15

[Glorious NSE]

Waste of money

 

<snip>

 

We had therfore better get building railways

 

Logical argument there!

 

The Trent Valley was out of capacity, was mostly a 4 track alignment anyhow - easy answer? Upgrade it and put the old capacity back! Job Done!

 

Birmingham-Rugby is out of capacity, a 2 track alignment and not so easy to upgrade. Rugby-London is a 4 track alignment, out of capacity and not so easy to upgrade...so a solution is needed. Reopening the GC really doesn't help the situation much.

 

With that being the background you can look at this scheme as a way of 4-tracking Birmingham to the WCML and 6 tracking from that point to London. And getting a better railway into the bargain.

 

None of this means the WCML upgrade was pointless (although i'm not the only person who was saying this would have been a good plan back in 1995 when Railtrack first looked at upgrading it!) - the TV North will be used by trains to destinations further North just as it is nowadays - the WCML south will still have frequent Pendolino trains running as major conurbations such as Milton Keynes rely on their rail service. The plan isn't to close the rest of the network to compensate!

 

If you look at some of the inferred future developments as well i'd suggest Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield will be linked in as well, note the expensive (and at first glance useless as the route onwards isn't wired!) flying junction to connect into the Derby line at Kingsbury.

 

Derby/Nottingham/Sheffield via HS2 might also be a reason why MML electrification suddenly dropped off the radar after being one of the front running schemes - and if Kingsbury-Sheffield were wired to allow through running from HS2 then it gives a serious head start to Cross Country electrification!

[Hammer]

I do think that this could be the start of something great, but I'm dubious about some aspects: it's aiming to break ground too far in the future (2017 is two elections away), it's not going far enough (we should be planning the whole line, London to Scotland already - use the momentum rather then taking two decades to get that far) and it's not going fast enough (we should be looking at London-Birmingham by the end of the decade).

 

I am very concerned that it's just going to be scrapped at some point in the future.

 

Although, I am a very cynical soul and I'm aware that I'm sounding far too much like a naysayer.

[Glorious NSE]

Hammer, I agree with you on most of that, if it's been decided then why wait - the only bit i'd disagree is the next stages, they can be being designed whilst this one is being built - you can't build everything at once so phasing that makes a lot of sense. Financially as well i'd suggest!

[Mod6]

Two similar topics merged

[Ron Ron Ron]

SO, Having just spent many millions upgrading the WCML, Pendolino's, 4 tracking etc etc, they want now to build a duplicate route virtually alongside......

A number of points:

 

The proposed HS network is not on the agenda primarily there to give us faster trains.

The prime mover for this project is capacity, or lack of it.

If the solution is to build new inter-city lines then that opens up the possibility of HS. It also makes a more compelling case and is easier to sell to parliament and the public too if there are a larger perceived benefit.

HS is also seen as leverage to encourage a greater degree of modal shift from long distance road travel and domestic air travel (where applicable).

Building new HS lines to European TSI's also opens up possibilities for wider more comfortable trains and makes double-deck stock with greater passenger capacity a real possibility.

 

WCML - The upgrade will be 20+ years old by the time this first section of HS2 is opened. Probably 30+ years old by the time the lines reach Scotland. In that extra time from the mid 20's until the line is extended, the UK gauged versions of the new HS trains will be putting the WCML north of Brum to good use.

 

Pendolino's will be getting on a bit by the mid 20's. In any event they will have plenty to do serving the WCML north of Brum and may even be re-distributed to other inter-city routes, possibly newly electrified ones or with infill electrification e.g. Manchester - Glasgow.

 

All in all, it's not a case of needless duplication, but adding much needed capacity whether it's on high speed lines or not .

Personally I'm not sure that a HS network is really needed when the are so many more important things to be done. Think what £30 billion would do for the existing network.

 

 

.

[298]

Personally I'm not sure that a HS network is really needed when the are so many more important things to be done. Think what £30 billion would do for the existing network.

 

 

.

 

Look how the initial budget for the WCML upgrade was smashed, and all it has delivered is a 125mph route with existing signalling. When will the 140mph capabilities of the Pendolino's be exploited, using in-cab moving block signalling...? A cynical person could say the billions spent there were only to catch up on a backlog of maintenance.

 

Sometimes it is better to start from scratch, and deliver a new railway without compromise and disruption to passengers. The new scheme opens a few doors too, apart from replicating the original London & Birmingham (incorporating Curzon St. and rebuilding the Doric Arch, it could also serve the quietly forgotten about until a rainy day "Rugby super airport", using the Rugby-Southam trackbed.

[Rhydgaled]

I do think that this could be the start of something great, but I'm dubious about some aspects: it's aiming to break ground too far in the future (2017 is two elections away), it's not going far enough (we should be planning the whole line, London to Scotland already - use the momentum rather then taking two decades to get that far) and it's not going fast enough (we should be looking at London-Birmingham by the end of the decade).

I agree, and think that Network Rail's proposal which does go all the way to Scotland is therefore prefrable, although having branches to termini at Birmingham and Manchester rather than having through stations at these places may be a mistake as it would put a greater strain on capacity on HS2 south of these places. Extending to Scotland (as in Network Rail's plan) would, in my opinion, be a better option than extending to Leeds (as in the recent anouncment) as pepole are more likely to take domestic flights over longer distances, therefore the High Speed rail link needs to travel a longer distance to cut into the air travel market. I would have proposed having the line run through Manchester and Birmingham to Glasgow, with a possible diversion via, or branch to, Liverpool. Leeds and Edinbourgh would be served by the ECML, upgraded to 150-160 mph (some of the line is already 150mph capable) with diversions round the most restrictive line-speeds where the limit is due to sharp curves that cannot easily be straightened without diversion (excepting line-speeds near major stations like York). I also agree that work on the High Speed line should begin earlier than currently planned, or if it is to wait till 2017 electrical generation facilities should be constructed in the meantime to power it, and the GWML when it is electrified, using renewable energy. The generation facilites should be provided by tidal power in the river Severn, NOT with a wildlife habitat destroying bararge but with one of the alternative solutions, that would likely be out of site beneath the water for much of the day and therefore not be controvertial like wind farms are. By the way, I personally think some designs of wind turbine are quite attractive in the right places, but certain areas should be proteted from turbines.

 

I hope too that this country will regain a propper rail industry and be able to construct the new trains for HS2 and, later, other lines. This is partly because most of the new forgien designs of train look plain boring (eg. class 175s) or downright ugly (AGVs, whatever those SWT units are called (Junipers?)), Javelins being the only really smart new train I can think of right now, but mostly because of carbon emmissions from importing trains from across the globe (wouldn't be so bad if we got TGVs from France, delivered via the channel tunnel (though they would likely not meet tunnel saftey standards)).

 

I suppose it'll be supported by people because it's eco friendly. ish.

I'm going to be getting dangerously political here, but, I don't think any of the major parties are taking enough notice of the very real threat of climate change. While at least 1 of the 3 would stop a 3rd runway at Heathrow, all 3 would allow air travel expantion to continue and continue to add new lanes to motorways and other roads. Only the Green Party has spoken out against these, and for rail nationalisation, despite many citizens beliving the privitized system we have at the moment is a mess. I would say more, but it's too political.

 

On a different track so to speak, as some of you have mentioned, there is alot of potential for other, slower, lines, both frieght only and demolished, to be returned to passenger use. This should be given equal prority to the new High Speed line and a plan should be developed for an on-going programe of electrification, line speed upgrades, re-built lines and new stations, with 1 or more teams of workers for each who move on to the next job on the list as each is completed. These would also offer new jobs to help tackle unemployment, and given the amount of work to be done across the country these jobs would last for very many years (depending on the number of teams set up).

[The Stationmaster]

Something which interests me is the proposed maximum speed - which seems rather extravagant to say the least - and is, I suspect something of a 'headline grabber' which will quietly be put aside once detailed costings are looked into.

 

The French LGVs run at a maximum of =186mph for a very good reason, power consumption. The most recent routes could easily operate at =200mph, as could the trains, and even taking the speed around 10% higher than that would, so I was told by SNCF people some years back, pose very few problems.

 

But power consumption for even the extra =14mph increases massively and even on French railway operating economics is simply not worth the extra cost for electricity (plus the slightly increased maintenance costs).

 

So are we really talking about a 250 mph railway or is it jst 250 mph capable if you have enough coins of the realm to keep feeding the meter?

[Ron Ron Ron]

There's no doubting the massively over budget and late WCML upgrade was a complete fiasco, but that's a factor of how it was carried out, rather than a question of it being needed. Indeed it was desperately needed.

But that's all history now and hopefully some harsh lessons have been learned.

 

The consensus appears to favour a new line rather than massive disruption to existing services, but the massive cost does beg the question of whether we can really afford it and to what detriment to other rail provision when budgets are inevitably cut.

One comment I've read from someone who's done the figures (I don't know if they're realistic or not), suggests at £30 billion (for the whole Y shaped proposal) it would cost the equivalent of £500 for every man, woman and child in this country, but in terms of those who would use it, it would cost the equivalent of £6000 for every passenger who uses the line !!!!! That's without any cost over-run.

 

???????

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

......Extending to Scotland (as in Network Rail's plan) would, in my opinion, be a better option than extending to Leeds (as in the recent anouncment) as pepole are more likely to take domestic flights over longer distances...

Leeds would give almost zero benefit in moving passengers from air, because the services to Heathrow were stopped years ago. The only London bound flights are by 3 small 60-seat turboprops each day to Gatwick. Most of the passengers are connecting to other flights at Gatwick, or destined for places south of London. Of course there are no domestic flights at all to London from Birmingham, East Midlands or Sheffield.

 

 

..... but mostly because of carbon emmissions from importing trains from across the globe (wouldn't be so bad if we got TGVs from France, delivered via the channel tunnel (though they would likely not meet tunnel saftey standards)....

Delivering trains through the Channel Tunnel is commonplace. How do you think the hundreds of new trains and new wagons got here?

The particular tunnel safety restrictions you are probably referring to cover passenger services.

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Something which interests me is the proposed maximum speed - which seems rather extravagant to say the least - and is, I suspect something of a 'headline grabber' which will quietly be put aside once detailed costings are looked into.

 

The French LGVs run at a maximum of =186mph for a very good reason, power consumption. The most recent routes could easily operate at =200mph, as could the trains, and even taking the speed around 10% higher than that would, so I was told by SNCF people some years back, pose very few problems.

 

But power consumption for even the extra =14mph increases massively and even on French railway operating economics is simply not worth the extra cost for electricity (plus the slightly increased maintenance costs).

 

So are we really talking about a 250 mph railway or is it jst 250 mph capable if you have enough coins of the realm to keep feeding the meter?

Mike, as you know the first French TGV services are almost 30 years old now.

With several generations of HS train under their belt and a lot of experience with LGV operation, the plan is now to move on to the new AGV trains and increase train speeds up to 360kph (225 mph ? ).

My understanding is that the AGV programme is dealing with the power/energy and dynamic issues based on all that experience and employing a new approach in some areas.

Still it's a fair way off the specially prepared record run of a TGV at a max speed of 574.8 kph (357 mph). :icon_wow:

 

I believe the UK plan is for similar 225 mph maximum running, therefore the 250 mph headline figure presumably builds in headroom and also potential for later upgrades over the life of the line.

 

.