phil-b259

Precisely In fact, as a generalisation I have far more respect for an anti HS2 person who is honest and says "I don't want it because it will spoil the view from my house" or "my house price / land value will go down" or even somebody who says "It won't benefit me so why should my taxes be spent on it" than someone who tries to hide behind half truths, myths and uses emotional language. At the end of the day all humans are pretty selfish really (me included) - just in different ways and there is no shame in admitting it.

Firstly if the Chiltern route were to be upgraded instead you STILL wouldn't get any benefits. If we go back to basics here the primary reason for any form of new line is a serious increase in capacity and by that I mean the equivalent of two additional and continuous tracks - passing loops are not enough, between London and the west Midlands area). So lets assume fast London - West Midlands trains are taken off the WCML and put on a completely 4 tracked 140mph Chiltern line so as to free up capacity for more London - North West trains and freight. Those trains will not stop anywhere in the Chilterns - if you did the whole point of upgrading the route to provide serious relief to the WCML would nullify the whole reason for doing it in the first place. Moreover the frequency required combined with a high linespeed would preclude local services from using the fast lines at most times of the day including the peaks where presumably overcrowding on current Chiltern services is at its worst. The upshot of all this is that actually even in the case of an upgrade the towns through which the existing line would still not get any benefit yet still face serious disruption during construction. Secondly you seem to assume the new service will be a premium fare - another myth being perpetuated by those opposed. If you examine all statements on the mater by both ministers and the promoters they are on record as saying the fare structure will broadly be similar to that in place on the conventional rail network now. I.e. peak services may well be fairly expensive off peak less so and if you book in advance very low. The exact levels will of course depend on how inflation etc goes - you don't seriously expect a utility company to tell you what your energy bill will be in 15 years time do you, so why is it any different for HS2 I also take issue with you choice of the word destroy - Yes HS2 will alter / change / impact the Chilterns but we are actually talking about a relatively narrow feature here not a six lane motorway here or a 'new town' being plonked there. Finally yes I have been to the area around Great Missenden and while it is attractive, to be frank it is hardly unique. Yes its nice countryside, but so for that matter in the North Downs or the Wield of Kent so I have a suggestion for the anti people. I suggest you go to Kent, in particular the area around the villages of Charing, Lenham & Harrietsham to see just how much HS1 has 'destroyed' the area. I think you might be pleasantly surprised on how the world hasn't ended even though HS1 provides 'no benefit to the communities in Kent it passes through until it gets to Ashford.

Why? If you object to the whole principle of the scheme as the "Stop HS2" lot do no amount of compensation / mitigation will be acceptable only complete and utter cancellation will do. Ironically I bet if the proposal was to rebuild the Chiltern line to a 4 track 140mph operation we would still end up with howls of protest from the inhabitants of the Chilterns (admitadly a different lot than the current HS2 group) Having looked through the detailed plans it is obvious that much work has gone into mitigating the downsides that HS2 construction and operation but that is still not enough for the opposition. Even the evidence of HS1 and the pretty non exsistant adverse effects on the places it passes through have been ignored because they go against everything the "Stop HS2" group want. You have to understand that in spite of the evidence presented by Network Rail and the industry the "Stop HS2" alliance are absolutely convinced it can all be handled by further upgrades of the WCML / MML / ECML (all of which are a piece of cake to do and won't cause much disruption to anyone apparently).

Its a shame Bachmann have gone for this variant rather than the more attractive lined LMS black passenger locos got pre WW2 (assuming the tank was rated as a passenger loco and thus entitled to it of course). Hopefully in time this will be addressed, with the more colourful pre grouping liveries being popular a L&Y liveried or even an early LMS lined maroon liveried variant would surely go down well.

Orange wombles, I like it - though I'm not sure what my colleagues at Barnham might make of the term.

From other posts on this forum I believe a few of the postwar 'porthole' design got Blue and Grey - though I don't believe they lasted long

Upon completion of the Kent coast electrification scheme (1959 - LCDR lines / 1963 SER lines) large quantities of Maunsell and Builled stock became redundant overnight, As this was still in the BR green era none carried blue and grey. A similar situation occurred 5 years later when the Bournemouth scheme went live because although blue and grey was being introduced, the remaining loco hauled Maunsell / Builled stock was all scheduled for scrapping upon completion of the scheme. Meanwhile the introduction of DEMUs and later Beaching mandated branch line cuts for those lines not being 'juiced' quickly removed the rest.

Its gradually slipping away as the old hands retire. The term 'signalman' will eventually go the same way. All the rules and regs now use the term 'signaller', all staff be they the latest batch of NR apprentices or a new train driver are taught to refer to the person at the signal box / ASC / IECC / ROC as a signaller. Furthermore as all phone calls re recorded its an easy thing to pick somebody up on if somebody wants to be picky (admittedly more likely to happen to a fresh recruit than a seasoned member of staff). Then there is the issue that what with the plans to do away with all these signal boxes, the amount of rail staff who actually meet a signalman face to face (and can therefore use traditional terms more freely) is only going to decline

One think that surprises me is that they presumably are just going to reinstate the ballast without putting down any membrane style material or dig down then lay a bed of course stone first (unless that is what the pile of larger stone in the pic is for)

Problem is an underground station or even sidings at Euston would be massively expensive and the nearest place you could build them on the surface would be the Wembley area (involving a resdesign of the tunnels to provide a spur). In some respects the situation is even worse than HS1 which at the moment (thanks to the recession) could build additional stabling at Dagenham, HS2 heading out into the Chiltern's simply doesn't pass through any large brownfield sites. Also why not just say 9 platforms - As far as I am aware none of our major terminals have this distinction anymore, especially since unit operation has become the norm. Trains simply leave from whichever platform they arrive at.

They may not empty bins however if you employ enough people there is no reason why basic cleaning even of a 400m train cannot be performed quickly. Whether the UK is prepared to pay for this - and perhaps more importantly actually pay the staff doing the cleaning a liveable wage remains to be seen - current experience suggests not).

How exactly was it un-workable? Demolished villages: If Heathrow is expanded What remains of the villages of Sipson and Handsworth (north of the A4 would go) Lots of road building: If Heathrow expands any more road capacity enhancements would be required to the M4 & M25 to support it (plus the diversion of the A4) OK they may not be new but in terms of pollutants noise plus building costs they are just as expensive. Connectivity : If Heathrow gets a link to HS2 it will be a spur where as being on the mainline enables a more frequent service to be provided. Note Un-workable is not the same thing as 'politically un-acceptable'. Now Boris island, that I would suggest is un-workable

At present all 3 main political parties support HS2 so whoever wins the next election, it still has a good chance of proceeding. If anything its the conservatives stance on this that is the most surprising given the routes passage through true blue electoral areas but the cynic in me sees their support more as a way of getting airport expansion, particularly Heathrow under way again (on the basis that they can say "look even though we have built HS2 - demand for air travel is still going up and we promise to plug the expanded Heathrow into phase 2)

Under the plan a rebuilt Euston will have 11 high speed platforms. If you assume a 3 minute headway though then that still is two more than the 9 required for such a pattern. Of course if you assume that when the full network is constructed Heathrow (currently envisioned to be 2 out of the 18 - 1x Manchester and 1x Leeds), and possibly Europe gets a frequent train then that cuts down the number of Euston arrivals slightly. On the other hand if signalling technologies continue to advance and the trains travel faster then the headway could be reduced further giving more than 18 TPH. The following documents may be of interest when considering these factors Headway:- http://www.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/hs2%20minimum%20headway%20august2011%20v3%201%20final.pdf#overlay-context=news-resources/engineering-documents Proposed service patterns:- https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69743/updated-economic-case-for-hs2-_august-2012_-explanation-of-the-service-patterns.pdf

IIRC there was only a single high sided tender (which got swapped between locos in late BR days due to a painting mix up). I don't know when it was extended but I believe it was after Maunsell had left the SR. Repton's high sided tender is a preservation era creation - it never ran like that under SR or BR ownership. In late BR days there are reports of some locos receiving boogie tenders off withdrawn Nelson's / Arthur's but this was not common practice

Indeed this though did cross my mind but in the context of the residents of the likes of Wendover, etc it would be too far away to be usefull and thus is unlikely to do anything about their complaints that HS2 will do nothing for them. The only other issue is that while a station in the vacinity of Calvert would be very good from a rail connections point of view, it is some way from the key road network (M40 , A43, A34 axis) and would need quite a lot of new road construction to rectify that. Of course some would say road connections are unecessary but in todays enviroment we cannot ignore the fact that quite a lot of people find it conveient to drive to a railhead. On the other hand purely from a transport planning point of view I happen to think the Calvert area would make a good place for a replacement London airport . Its located in the right direction for the bult of the population (i.e. northwest of London) and with the rebuilt east west rail line, services southwards to Aylesbury and HS2 it would have good rail conectivity. Roads would still be a problem but if you are going to build such a large transport interchange they can be much easier to justify than for a HS2 station. As for the lack of usage at some LGV stations, its worth noting that some (including the Picardy one) were only built as a concession to towns that complained they were being ignored by the LGV and that it should really be route via them instead of somewhere else. In the case of Picardy I believe its inclusion was an atempt to compensate the town of Ameins who were a bit peaved that the LGV nord was routed via Lille. In the overal scheme of things this decision was done because as well as serving the Channel tunnel the LGV also had to handle traffic bound for Belgium and beyond for which the Lille routing was the best option. Having said that I do believe there is a plan knocking around the transport ministery in Paris to actually construct a LGV vi Amiens to the Tunnel at some stage, mainly because the LGV nord is now running at full capacity. if this does ever end up being built then I would imagine there would be a case for closing the Picardy station on the exsisting LGV to increase capacity on the current LGV nord

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

Could that be because fitting headights to the large EMU fleet was considered more of a priority?

You are a bit behind things. The most recent plans have changed the route so it does not run on the surface in the Perivale area and will be a bored tunnel instead. Apparently once they looked at the surface route in more detail, the need to rebuild 20 plus bridges (including those at the incredibly busy hangar lane giratory system) meant that the tunnel option wasn't much more expensive overall with the added advantage of eliminating local residents concerns. This has been covered before many times. Basically stations reduce capacity as trains slow down stop then accelerate again. While you can mitigate this with long entry and exits to platform loops (as at the propped Birmingham Parkway station) with trains travelling at 200+mph you would need an extensive four track section. Also as the stations have to be able to handle 400m long trains (running shorter trains just to serve one station is a waste of capacity) finding a suitable site is difficult without causing significantly more environmental damage. Tunnels and earthworks are not maintenance headaches if they are constructed well with suitable staff and plant access. Part of the problem with the current network is that it was built before modern staff safety and material handling requirements came along so all clearances are not optimal, cutting and embankment slopes are steeper than todays engineering standard allows, etc. constraining what can be done. Furthermore unlike the current WCML, HS2 will not have any freight traffic so overnight inspections etc. will be easier and like the French LGV lines, having only a few specific types of train using it wear and tear should be less than a conventional line

Ahh but in these days of budget centres and a railway run by accountants, there is no direct relationship between that bit which governs the employment and training of signalmen and the bit that pays out compensation. Thus the accountants do not deem it worthwhile to have extra staff available in cases of operational difficulties apparently because the times when they would be needed are few and far between it is cheaper in the long run to take a hit occasionally.

The plans that I have seen don't mention the stock to be used and seeing as Southern and Gatwick Express are the same franchise these days I expect any Charing Cross to East Grinstead would use surplass 377s Platform 0 has been designed in such a way that it can still function as a freight holding point at quiet times (i.e. overnight and weekends) during the day (weekdays) it will be needed for the ordinary service pattern though

Work seams to be progressing well although most of it has been behind the scenes (ish) stuff up to now, relocating existing cables and trackside loaction cases, renewing cabling to point machines etc. as well as the obvious site clearance for the new platform and track. IIRC the plan is for the new track layout and interlocking to be installed over Christmas, which will involve some very strange goings on in general, because NR are also planning to completely renew Stoats Nest north junction (south of Purley) and replace Victoria (station area) interlockings as well. Draft plans include trains being diverted via Dorking and Horsham, the slow lines from Three Bridges to Gatwick being worked as two independent single lines (all pointwork clipped up) with 'one train working' applied to each one and a plan to run Gatwick Express services from Charing Cross to East Grinstead with onward connection to the airport by bus, the work at Stoats preventing access from the north.

do modern day staff receive such things after their half century? I don't know about retirement but NR still do 10 year and 25 year long service awards. Before anyone gets excied they are only a certificate and an allocation of 'points' to allow you to chose something from the 'cooperate rewards catalogue', but in this day and age it's a nice touch.

Stratford International (Eurostar platforms) were only built so that it could act as the 'London' stop for international trains coming from the north (Pick up only Europe only, drop off only Birmingham / Manchester bound) which would by-pass St Pancras. It also potentially provides a place Eurostar could terminate at in an emergency with the added bonus that onward travel is a damn sight easier than Ebsfleet. As you say Eurostar have said its not worth serving for St Pancras bound services, especially as people can use South Eastern services to Stratford from both Ebsfleet & St Pancras but they have also said that they wouldn't rule out using it if services were every extended beyond London. I accept I may have become confused with who does what but what I would say is, from a travellers perspective it really makes no difference what Government department does what. Customs / security / passport checks all form part of a single 'process' that must be gone through before boarding the train. What I would say - again as a traveller - is that the procedures in place for Eurostar do seem a tad excessive compared to those employed at other points of entry (e.g. Dover) although they are better than those experienced at airports but I'm not sure that in the light of almost 20 years experience some aspects of the process cannot be improved. Equally I have also been made aware that thanks to the way channel tunnel act is drafted changes to some aspects would require legislative changes and if I have got muddled up between departments there is a good chance the same would happen in the media. Hence my comment about politicians and immigration i.e. while any changes to the channel tunnel act would not affect anything other than perhaps some minor modification to the security setup it could be played by sections of the media as opening up our borders to mass migration. Besides the main thing, which I'm sure we can agree on, is that unless the current arrangements change the dream of some travellers to be able to simply jump on a Eurostar wherever they please and travel direct to Paris in the same way people in Germany, Belgium, Italy can will remain just that, a dream.

Billingshurst box is a listed structure being the last survivor of a design geared around having the signals mounted on the four corner post which extended upwards above the box structure (there is some debate as to whether Billingshurst actually had signals mounted in this fashion or whether the practice had been abandoned by the time it was built. Pulborough as far as I am aware is not listed and partly of brick construction is less easy to salvage By the way the reason the old 30s box at Horsham survives is because that got listed a month or so before it was decommissioned. Indeed NR were forced to put the lettering back on the outside afterwards due to it being specifically mentioned in the listing document