New Proposed Route for High Speed 2 - Labour Party Announcement Tomorrow

[Chafford1]

An article in today's Sunday Times suggests that Maria Eagle, the Shadow Transport Secretary, will announce a new preferred route for High Speed Two tomorrow, with a station near Heathrow and a route paralleling the M40 and Chiltern Lines with a Chiltern tunnel bypassing High Wycombe.

 

[Chris125]

Oh for crying out loud, will she be supporting an 'S' route next? If anyone should know why the current route option was taken, its the party who actually took it. Its hard to imagine how they could make Justine Greening's life any easier over HS2 if this is their approach.



Chris

 

[Yew]

Maybe next week they will build it 5cm above the ecml?

 

[ChrisCooper]

Typical of changes of government. When in power they come up with plans for things, then when voted out they criticise the new government for following the same plans and come up with new ideas that are suppose to be better.

 

[WatcherZero]

One route actually makes economic sense, one makes popularist political sense.
When in Government you support the economic and oppose the popularist and the opposition support the popularist and oppose the economic. When the Government changes the sides swap.

 

[Snapper]

An article in today's Sunday Times suggests

Before people get too excited, they should remember the original quote above...

 

[tbtc]

I really hope that this is wrong - we need to bite the bullet and get on with HS2, rather than going back to the drawing board to argue about things...

 

[caliwag]

Probably wont happen for those reasons!! The way people in business negotiate and deal with each other will change dramatically over the gestation period of this project...and despite Greengage comments, it will be totally unaffordable by the students/grannies and NE/SW holiday makers. Given that the poor state of the economy is with us for 10 years, the project will languish in planning for a few years (lots of fees for the enginnering boys) and then be quietly shelved.

 

[142094]

I really hope that this is wrong - we need to bite the bullet and get on with HS2, rather than going back to the drawing board to argue about things...

No doubt in ten years time we'll still be talking about which route it should take.

 

[tbtc]

No doubt in ten years time we'll still be talking about which route it should take.

I fear you might be right.

If I were designing HS2, it wouldn't be quite like they are planning it, but I'd rather they get on and build *A* High Speed line, rather than making political points about which way it could go.

Whilst I'm more of a "left" voter than a "right" one, if Labour start to oppose the current HS2 set up (or use the "why do we need to spend billions on HS2 when we need the money for hospitals" argument) then I despair.

 

[Nym]

Considering it was Labour who comissioned an independant body to provide the best route in the first place, and now the're disputing it.

 

[WatcherZero]

Tbh its better than opposing HSR entirely which they flirted with as a policy post election (some leaders were in favour during the policy review with the huge Chilterns PR). But common sense won in the end.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Considering it was Labour who comissioned an independant body to provide the best route in the first place, and now the're disputing it.

Had they been re-elected, with the National debt incurred to be at the top of their agenda, would Maria Eagle be allowed to make such a statement?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

http://www.labour.org.uk/cross-party-consensus-on-aviation-and-high-speed-rail

All nicely vague.
Labour are "helping" the debate by proposing a route via Heathrow, avoiding the Nimby zone, and pulling in the south-west vote.
I shouldn't think they will spend much money on the plans, though.
Keeps them sweet with three lots of campaign groups at very little cost (to them).

 

[mister-sparky]

No doubt in ten years time we'll still be talking about which route it should take.

ten, more like thirty...

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Now is the time to start marketing Britain for tourists as 'Europe's Museum'. Come and ride on period trains - see how things used to be done. Only problem is, as we don't make anything anymore, where will we get the spare parts from ?

 

[142094]

ten, more like thirty...

Probably - nothing ever gets done quickly in this country.

 

[dalmahoyhill]

if thats true then its bloody depressing and pretty much sums up why politicians have the reputation they have got.

Adonis pays Atkins to to do a detailed study including the M40, M6 and WCML corridors and produce a outline route.
Adonis accepts the current proposed HS2 route and promptly labour loose the election.
The Coalition gets in, drops the S curve route and adopts Labours route.

Rejoicing all around that common sense and a cross party consensus has trumped petty points scoring.

Then labour goes and proves why you should never trust a politician not to make the wrong decision.

All this is likely to do is cloud the decision and give ammunition to the NIMBY opposition.

 

[Invincibles]

HS2 should run from near Watford, follow the WCML (roughly) then past West of Milton Keynes, pass south of Coventry, through Birmingham airport, go through Stoke then past Manchester Airport to Warrington (ish) where it can rejoin the WCML.

It should be engineered for 300km/h running with the fastest trains getting from "London" to "Manchester" in around 1 hour.

Even after you add on crawls out of Euston, and Piccadilly to Airport then the journey time from end to end is massively reduced.

People can talk about city centres, and getting them served, but ultimately how many people actually live there. Warrington or Airport stations would be as close to people as Piccadilly is, especially when considering the congestion you get accessing the centre of Manchester.

I am not totally sure what the reduction in cost of removing all of the London tunnels and the like would be, but I imagine it would be pretty substantial.

I also appreciate it does little to free space on the line into Euston, but I think it would actually be surprising how many would see a hub station as an acceptable alternative.

If routing is possible the line could then follow the M25 (roughly) to get into HS1 around the massive developments in the Thames Esturary. A journey time of sub two hours from Manchester Piccadilly to Canary Wharf could then be possible.

I doubt Labour have this sort of radical rethink in mind though

 

[swt_passenger]

I doubt Labour have this sort of radical rethink in mind though

They didn't. There was a map of their proposal with the original article in the Times, it was definitely nothing like your idea...

For instance the bit of the M40 corridor they were talking about was around the Banbury area...

 

[Invincibles]

Having read around elsewhere, particularly about the plans for a new London airport, my thinking makes a lot of sense.

I must confess when I said aiming to get into Dartford I did not realise there were public plans to build a new London airport in the Thames Esturary.

If they do that there is no sense at all in going in to West London with HS, the classic lines into Euston/Paddington would work fine for the traffic that needs that area.

 

[lancastrian]

It is about time our supposed political parties, stop '****ing about' and get on with building HST2 in full, all the way from London, through Birmingham and onto Manchester & Leeds, conecting to the WCML between Wigan & Preston & the ECML south of York.

You here the cuttent crowd of political pillocks telling us that we need to invest in infrastructure, then they need to get on with it, the HST2 is heaven sent for this investment, and the previous political pilliocks should stop trying to mess up what was their own idea and support the current crowd.

I don't have much, if anything to like about any political party, but I must admit that the best Transport Secretary we have ever had was Andrew Adnois, and he proposed the planned route.

 

[technicalslip]

... and we might be going somewhat back to the drawing board, I've had a think about pushing the whole southern end of the project significantly eastward.

I don't know enough about the engineering side of things to know whether there are fundamental (i.e. terminal!) objections to this, but the current route seems to be a strange mixture of not-particularly-useful attributes. Fast London to Birmingham is not particularly important as the problem is capacity, yet that is driving it all west (but here are the problems with NIMBYs). The Heathrow thing seems to me a red herring as it will likely be shut by the time HS2 is built.

So, what I wonder is, wouldn't it be better to go with a combination of an East Coast trunk and branch (with Birmingham, Manchester and Oxenholme branches) with a 'separate' (though integrated) route from Birmingham northward (and then a third phase taking it on from Oxenholme to Scotland).

Granted, it's a much bigger project, but to be really worthwhile I think it will have to be, and the likely long recession will necessitate huge state-backed projects I imagine.

A fuller version of this idea is here - http://technicalslip.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/high-speed-2-alternative-proposal/ - but please bear in mind it's from a complete layman who just enjoys train travel!

 

[HSTEd]

Building the connection to Leeds seems rather ridiculous to me, you will just transfer vast numbers of passengers into a Euston terminus that cant handle them without a massive and complete rebuild and expansion that will never happen while King's Cross is relegated to the status of a commuter station.

A WCML level upgrade of the ECML should be commissioned concurrently with the HS2 route to Manchester which should be built in full.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So, what I wonder is, wouldn't it be better to go with a combination of an East Coast trunk and branch (with Birmingham, Manchester and Oxenholme branches) with a 'separate' (though integrated) route from Birmingham northward (and then a third phase taking it on from Oxenholme to Scotland). Granted, it's a much bigger project, but to be really worthwhile I think it will have to be, and the likely long recession will necessitate huge state-backed projects I imagine - but please bear in mind it's from a complete layman who just enjoys train travel!

I am pleased to see your clarification at the end of the quote above, as the routes you suggest from the ECML will have major civil engineering and infrastructural barriers to be overcome in the crossing of the Pennine Chain in the northern part of your plan, with the associated costs that will be incurred.

 

[technicalslip]

To HSTEd - fair enough, though I don't imagine the HS will take the majority of passengers away from conventional rail, rather that there will be a two tier system in which those who want or need to get there fast will pay through the nose and the rest of us might actually get a price cut (wishful thinking!). Hence (though I do want to see a complete redevelopment of Euston) I don't imagine it would be a massive amount (esp. if only 40-50% of trains are coming from Leeds in my daydream idea). Secondly, Kings Cross is very busy as is and would still have the conventional ECML traffic. But yeah, it would require Euston expansion.

That leads me on to a broader point though - the big imperative (so it seems to me) is serving Birmingham-London and Manchester-London. This seems quite wrong to me. Birmingham London is already reasonably quick, the main problem is capacity (somewhat tangential to HS). Manchester London is also very quick thesedays (as someone who uses it reasonably often I can say its vastly improved since they finished the upgrade - two hours is basically fine, and HS is only going to shave 25-30% off that). I think the real benefits of HS should be places further north where the marginal time difference is greater. Also, Leeds and Newcastle have a much greater claim for an HS link to London than places like Manchester Airport and Stockport (and arguably Liverpool).

To Paul - yeah, I was concerned about that. I wanted to stick close to the south end of the peaks and come around northwards near Leek and meet the flatter ground near Macc. but that still looks tricky. Can't be any harder than making tunnels through the Alps though surely!? (again, wishful thinking).

 

[Chris125]

That leads me on to a broader point though - the big imperative (so it seems to me) is serving Birmingham-London and Manchester-London. This seems quite wrong to me. Birmingham London is already reasonably quick, the main problem is capacity (somewhat tangential to HS).

Capacity is hardly 'somewhat tangential to HS' - relieving the southern WCML is the most important and compelling argument for building HS2, but its a more complex one to explain than higher speed and reduced journey times so there's less emphasis put on it; trying to explain how the law of diminishing returns applies to railway upgrades is not easy, too often people just think you can make trains longer and longer.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

trying to explain how the law of diminishing returns applies to railway upgrades is not easy, too often people just think you can make trains longer and longer.

Chris

Out of interest, ignoring the apparent software/hardware limitations of the Class 390's control equipment, what is the maximum length for a train taht is acceptable on the WCML?

The Caledonian seems to run with up to sixteen vehicles plus the Class 90 on the front and the APT managed with 14 vehicles (not sure on the length).

 

[Lampshade]

The Caledonian seems to run with up to sixteen vehicles plus the Class 90 on the front and the APT managed with 14 vehicles (not sure on the length).

APT cars were ~21m.

 

[Nym]

It depends on platform lengths before train length tbh, you could run 14 car units to Manchester, if they didn't stop anywhere but Crewe...