GoingUnderground

Its worth pointing out, that the upgrade (ie the 611) will have a completely new mother board made using more modern components and with much larger capacity memory chips. The software is being completely re-written from scratch in a more modern programming language which will make it much easier to add new enhancements and maintain. So 511 software bugs wont move to the 611.    

So it's not really an upgrade to the 511 then, more a question of removing the innards, binning them and replacing them with brand new. The only parts being retained are the case, the display, and the PSU. For someone with an original spec true 505 it looks like a reasonable deal always assuming that the upgrade price is the same. Upgrading a 511 looks like an awful lot of expense, especially if you bought it in the last 2-3 years, but if you've already had it for 5+ years then I'd be inclined to look on it as the equivalent buying a new more modern DCC controller. 

The Sun Ain't Gonna Shine Any More - The Righteous Brothers

 A lot of people seem to knock ZTC, but Neil has taken on the company and is making improvements to the products and the range. My 511 was bought from Robin Palmer,and is about 15 years old now, provides a great driving experience, and has never let me down! I shall be upgrading to a 611 as soon as I can. Well done Neil !!!

 

Regards Lockey

I'm pleased for you that your experience has been favourable. I'm afraid that was not the case with me and my 505. I cut my losses and ran.

Shame it's been delayed.

Any idea on the length of the delay?

The World Became the World - PFM (a.k.a. Premiata Forneria Marconi)

It's All Over Now - The Rolling Stones

Hey You - Pink Floyd

She's Leaving Home - The Beatles

Crying In The Rain - Everly Brothers

It Might As Well Rain Until September - Carole King

Lay All Your Love On Me - ABBA

Be My Baby - The Ronettes

Don't You Want Me? - Human League

Most certainly airport expansion is still on the cards,a few weeks ago a plan surfaced to develop a four runway airport five miles from Aylesbury at Haddenham .This would have demolished at least two villages and would require a lot of road building and other works but the plan has been withdrawn now as it has been realised just how unworkable it would have been.Evidently at least ten sites have been surveyed for development so as they say "Watch this space"

It would have been ideally placed for direct access to HS2. Coincidence, or softening up the local populace to accept HS2 as the least bad option? 

But do we really think it will be built given the change of governments and the various lobbies for other transport systems?

I really don't know. But I still think it is a very distinct possibility that the politicians will chicken out and cancel it because they cannot think more than 5 years ahead, i.e. how do we win the next election.

For all of them, no matter which party, winning elections is everything, and if that means dropping unpopular policies then so be it, even if it does disadvantage the UK. If you don't win you can't put your remaining policies into action, no matter how scatty they may be.

I was extremely surprised when the Government announced it would go ahead with HS2 because since the 1960s, the Conservatives have always appeared to me to be pro road (personal freedom good) and air (free market competition and new technology good) and anti rail (state monopoly and old technology bad). Cameron's running scared of UKIP, and I suspect will do anything to shore up his position before the next election. If dropping HS2 looks like it might just tip the balance between winning and losing in 2 years time, then I can see him doing just that. If he doesn't win, then he's made so many enemies in his party that he'll be out on his ear, just like Home, Heath, Thatcher, Major, Hague, Howard and Duncan-Smith before him.

It'll be easy to justify. Take your pick from: "public finances need rebuilding more before we can go ahead, so have cancelled to end uncertainty that would have hung over homes and businesses in its route if we had delayed the start"; "passenger projections and revenue revised and now lower than expected due to the recession, so can no longer be justified"; "estimated cost has increased and business case no longer supported"; "recent technological advances have reduced the environmental impact of other forms of transport and as a result the environmental benefits of rail are no longer significant"; "need to re-evaluate newer forms of guided technology, such as magnetic levitation, and computer control of cars on motorways, before proceeding".

Once it has been cancelled it is very unlikely to be revised in the medium term.

While that may be true for track capacity, though only south of Birmingham Interchange, that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of potential to increase the number of seats - if i remember correctly the captive sets are presumed to use single deck rolling stock, while many of the classic compatible services will be of 200m or 260m length. Upgrades to the existing network to allow greater use of 400m trainsets, extending the dedicated network and using double deck rolling stock with the necessary performance characteristics could all increase capacity in the future.

 

Chris

The capacity issue is mitigated to some extent if the services beyond Birmingham also call at Birmingham - extra destinations without any need for additional paths. 

The platforms at Euston would not need to be so long, nor so many. On that basis, you might not need landtake as one could build at low-level on an east-west alignment (joining up at the east end with Kings Cross/St Pancras. To be fair though, landtake under current proposals for Euston is only temporary as building would be allowed above the new platforms.

 

With suburban services removed from Paddington by Crossrail and GW services removed to Euston, it should be possible to build an adequate HS2 terminal at Paddington without landtake.

Alternatively, stick with the expansion of Euston, close Paddington and release the whole site for redevelopment.

I think that it is optimistic to think that HS2 built to 400kph standards is only going to cost 9% more than a railway built for lesser speed, say 300kph. The extra constraints on curvature alone lead to it being so much more difficult to find an alignment that can avoid housing -  so compensation costs for property rise to start with, not included in your figure.

 

Even taking your figure of 9%, 9% of £33bn is £3bn - a worthwhile saving which money could be put to good use elsewhere.

 

But when I talked about extra costs, I was thinking more in terms of energy and polution (including noise).

 

As to lower speed leading to lower revenues, I have already commented that the higher speed only saves 9 minutes on a London-Birmingham journey. 9 minutes is not a significant enough time-saving to affect people's choice of mode never mind pay high supplementary fares.

 

The business/strategic infrastructure case for HS2 is (or should be) all about increased capacity not about speed.

Do you really think that a 400kph service will produce significantly more noise pollution than a 320kph service? I happen to think that the noise pollution issue is vastly overstated. Sure it will make a noise, but so would additional trains on an uprated or enlarged WCML. The noise of a passing train is much less intrusive than the continual roar of traffic noise from a motorway.

Forget the 9 minutes saved on London-Birmingham. HS2 must be far more than just a London-Birmingham route. Look at the potential to save far more than that in timings to destinations in the Midlands, North and Scotland, or perhaps you don't want HS2 to be extended north of Birmingham, or believe those sections will never be built. There is no point in building the sections north of Brum for 400kph if the London-Birmingham section has a lower design top speed.

If all you want is increased capacity, then enlarging the WCML is the answer. But do you really want to keep us from enjoying the benefits of faster rail travel?

In all the debate, I keep thinking about the first motorways, and the money spent here in the UK on modernising our roads in the last 50-60 years. All this came from the public purse, paid for by general taxation, which included taxes on fuel and motor vehicles. Now that we want to do the same for the original victorian privately financed railway infrastructure to permit much higher speeds than those possible at the time of their construction there is a huge outcry. We built new motorways and dual carriageways because it was not economic or practicable to enlarge the existing roads to provide the increased capacity required and to take advantage of the higher speeds possible through technological advances in road transport since the invention of the horse and cart which had until the start of the 1900s dictated the design of our road network.

As regards the financing, railways are permanent infrastructure, and building new ones will generate growth as well as leaving an asset for the benefit of future generations.  Much of the spend will have to be incurred in this country because the physical works have to take place here. Hence I believe it will be better for this country than financing borrowing to increase consumer spending where much of the goods and services are nowadays made or provided from outside the UK, or even the EU. I do sympathise with genuine loss of value that will affect those folks who will end up living close to the line, but I have no sympathy at all for those who say that it will be a "blot on the landscape, blighting the beauty of the Chilterns". Compared to what's already there in terms of the existing canals, railways, motorways, housing and industry, it's immaterial. I used to go to the Chilterns for pic-nics when I was young and lived in NW London, and I don't want it despoiled, but I really cannot accept that HS2 will do that given the pressure to minimise its environmental impact.

HS2 will be money well spent in my view which can only benefit the country for decades to come.

Rant over.

Kites - Simon Dupree & The Big Sound.

Hope there's another song with Kite in its title.

You've lost that loving feeling - Righteous Brothers

Can the Can - Suzi Quatro

I'd forgotten that 395s do not have the capability to run at a top speed of 400kph (250 mph). Thank you for reminding me of that. But I still think that the principle remains valid in that a semi fast service using trains capable of 400kph limit could be run between London and Birmingham with a stop in Bucks to allow Bucks residents access to the core HS2 services in Birmingham for destinations northwards, and giving them faster access to London, so they would also gain from HS2 and see their property prices rise still further. Money talks.

Up in the great terminus in the sky, Sir Edward Watkin must be laughing at all this agonising over building HS2 when he'd already established and built much of the route over 100 years earlier.

Calvert would be an ideal place for an interchange as looking at the maps its going to be a busy place with the maintainence depot, so adding a couple of platforms could be factored in easily.Access by train from Aylesbury ,Oxford,and Milton Keynes and points east will be in place way before HS2 starts running.I dont think car borne passengers will be so important by then as punitive fuel prices force more motorists from the roads.Also local buses would be improved thus offering even more travel opportunities from the areas off of rail routes ,many local villages and towns are growing and would provide a viable passenger base.But talking to the staff at the HS2 event they gave the impression that the design is set in stone and the wishes and hopes of people who live beside this project are not being considered.The government will have to talk to local people in a sensible way and not ignore us ,sensible discussion can take place as long as both sides are reasonable.HS2 is a juggernaut that will have to be slowed down so as all ways of laison and decision can be taken with due attention to the populations involved.PS even people from High Wycombe and south bucks will have easy acces.

You want to slow down progress on HS2? you're condemning yourself and others to an even longer peroid of uncertainty. Personally I thought you woudl have wanted ti to proceed as fast as possible to get it over and done with.

If there are going to be stations in Bucks, then would it not be better to serve them with Class 395 type trains operating a semi-fast service between London and Birmingham so that the good citizens of Bucks can join the core HS2 services at London or Birmingham?

I have always supported a Calvert station on HS2. And I have also advocated a much lower top speed as the higher speeds impose far greater costs (financial and environmental) for very little gain (about 9 minutes on a journey to Birmingham).

 

A Heathrow branch does not look like a good use of route capacity if you think of it as purely serving the Airport. But think of it as serving West London and the Thames Valley and it becomes an entirely viable project. By putting the South Chiltern (High Wycombe) platforms of HS2 on the branch, you remove the capacity issues caused by an additional station on the main HS2 route.

 

Let's keep thinking outside the box. When the GWR was built, the original intention was to terminate at Euston. Perhaps it is the soon-to-be-electrified Bristol and South Wales services which should be diverted in tunnel to the new Euston platforms with HS2 taking over most of Paddington. A much cheaper option.

Lowering the top speeds between London and Birmingham to save construction costs assumes that Birmingham is as far as HS2 will ever go. It totally ignores the fact that the true benefit of building that section of the line is that it enables shorter journey times to destinations north of Birmingham as and when HS2 is extended further northwards and ultimately reaches Glasgow and Edinburgh. It is like wanting to revert back to airships for air travel. HS2 nees to be the core of a high speed network. Hobbling it by artificially reducing the top speed even before it has left the drawing board makes the whole exercise pointless.

Also the idea of terminating HS2 at Paddington isn't thinking "outside the box" it is replicating the same problem in changing trains in London that were made when the railways were first built.

In air travel there has been much talk of building a 3rd and possibly a 4th runway at Heathrow to create a "hub" thereby allowing people to change planes without leaving Heathrow, or even building "Boris Island". Terminating HS2 at Paddington removes the chance of creating an equivalent hub for high speed rail at "Euston Cross" possibly for as long as another 150 years.

Stratford is a waste of space. it is too close to St Pancras, and using it would only reduce the throughput. I have still to catch a Eurostar that stopped there. Nothing useful connects there as far as I know, only commuter services. The same would apply to Old Oak Common. We're talking speed here, and changing trains lengthens the journey time. They would do better to run the Heathrow Express through to a new terminal at "Euston Cross" instead of Paddington, than delay everyone by stopping trains at Old Oak Common. Remember that the Metropolitan Line was built in the 1860s to broad gauge to allow the GWR to run through to the City. Nothing's changed in 150 years.

The only check on immigration is the passport/border control. That is why your passport is ALWAYS checked when you enter the UK. It is NOT part of the Customs check, and is carried out by a completely separate government department, which I think has recently changed to being the Home Office from the discredited Border Agency. They are looking for people, illegal immigrants or persons who have been banned from entering/re-entering the UK, or people who are required to have a visa but do not have a valid visa. In the first instance they are simply not interested in smuggled goods or illegal importation of weapons etc., only people. Have you ever been asked to open your suitcase or hand baggage when passing through Border Control? No, and neither have I. You will have your suitcase with you if travelling by Eurostar, but if by air, you won't have got as far as baggage reclaim. There are no facilities for routinely inspecting luggage at Border Control points as far as planes and Eurostar are concerned.

The Customs check is carried out by the HMRC, which is part of the Treasury, I believe. They are not looking for illegal immigrants, only for dutiable goods or items which are not permitted to be imported into the UK. That is why you are very RARELY stopped and asked to open your luggage if you pass through the Blue or Green channels when entering the UK. How can you say that the Customs check is part of the drive to stop illegal immigrants into the UK when the checks are applied so randomly and infrequently? They may ask for your passport if they do stop you, but that is part of their routine to see how you react to being challenged to help them work out if you are importing items illegally. I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has travelled abroad by air, sea or rail thinks it helps deter illegal immigration, and I don't think that even our current crop of politicians, irrespective of their party, are that stupid.

The baggage security checks couldn't care who you are or what you have on you or in your baggage as long as it doesn't endanger your fellow travellers, the plane or train, or the area through/over which it is passing. It is no deterrent to illegal immigration.

Go back a couple of pages, look for references to 'Euston Cross'

Thanks, I must have overlooked it amonsgst all the debate over the adequacy of the UK's power supplies and the misunderstandings about what National Grid actually does.

I haven't seen any reference to it, but is there anywhere in the HS2 plans an option of building a second set of tunnels from say Stratford towards St Pancras running underneath the present HS1 tunnels via the St Pancras/Euston area to connect with HS2 north of Euston? That would allow HS2 services to run direct on to HS1 and the Tunnel and London could become an intermediate stop if a new station (London International?) was built on these link tunnels below Euston/St Pancras. Might be useful to relieve pressure on platform space in St Pancras as through trains to the North could use free paths on HS1 and the Tunnel without needing platform space at St Pancras, as well as giving those of us north of Watford a decent high speed service to the Continent. 

It might fit neatly with the scenario where some trains from HS2 ran through to Paris Gare Du Nord, via "London International", Whilst trains to destinations beyond Paris or Brussels could still start from St Pancras. This would, to my way of thinking, solve the baggage security as well as border control and customs problems. It would also allow the Javelin services to be extended north of London, a sort of ThamesLink on Steroids.

You never know, we might end up with a high speed rail network build to continental loading gauge after a few decades, but sadly probably not in my lifetime given the current timetables.

Sorry Phil, but I totally disagree.

Border checks, immigration control and customs are different and separate from security issues. They don't check your passport when you put your baggage through the scanner at departure airports or for that matter at St Pancras or any other station served by Eurostar.

Baggage security is either before or after passport control, not simultaneous, and always imposed at the point of departure.

Customs checks and/or immigration control are performed at the point where you are deemed to have entered a country. That can be at the point of departure such as at Gare Du Nord for people catching Eurostar to the UK from Paris, or at the destination station.  France has a border post in the departure hall at St Pancras and always checks passports for people departing on Eurostar because the UK is not a signatory to the Schengen agreement, and it saves them having border controls at Lille as well as Gare Du Nord, or any other station served by Eurostar.

A baggage security check won't stop an illegal immigrant with a valid ticket provided they have nothing suspicious in their case.

A border control won't stop someone with an explosive device in their case if they have a valid passport. Customs checks won't either unless the person arouses suspicions. Both would be too late anyway if imposed on physical arrival in the UK.

For the Eurostar ski trains, there is a security check in France at Bourg St Maurice and at Moutiers stations before you board the train, and I think the same applies to the summer services to Avignon. These are the only pick up points for return journeys to the UK, and the ydo not have UK border control points at them, so the UK imposes passport control on arrival at St Pancras, or sometimes puts UK border officials on trains at Lille to check passports between there and the first stop in the UK.

If the UK was a signatory to Schengen then we could scrap border controls without having any impact on baggage security checks. Equally scrapping baggage security checks would have precisely zero impact on border controls.

France imposed checks on people arriving by train in France from Italy during the "Arab Spring" and deported them back to Italy, I saw it happening myself on a TGV from Gare Du Lyon to Milan when french border police put a number of people of North African appearance on a Milan bound TGV at Modane and escorted them back into Italy.

I've been following this thread with much interest.

What would be of great benefit for an expanded HS2 Euston would be a moving walkway link between Euston and St Pancras/Kings Cross, either below ground or elevated above street level. That would integrate Euston and St Pancras/Kings Cross by compensating for the distance between them and would make changing trains between HS1 and HS2 so much easier than using the Circle, Northern or Victoria lines, and faster than walking.

Even if we did leave the EU, all political parties seem to want to keep the free trade arrangements in place, so the present "blue channel" arrangements for customs clearance might remain. Passport checks are likely to be tightened up even more if we leave the EU, as the whole fuss over EU membership seems to be centred on immigration, and the mistaken belief that the European Court of Human Rights is an EU body.

The security checks on the Eurostar services are probably worth retaining, but they do seem out of place when viewed in the light of the lack of such checks on other rail tunnels where a fire or explosion could be just as catastrophic, being buried alive seems to me to be a worse fate then being drowned. There are no such checks when you pass through the Simplon, Lotschberg Base, Furka Base, and Frejus tunnels, or at least trhere were none when I travelled through them in the last 4 years.  Perhaps the main difference is that the other rail tunnels tend to have alternative rail routes, whereas the Tunnel is the only rail link between England and Continental Europe, and as such might present a more attractive target for a terrorist "spectacular".