There are numerous precedents both for tunnelling options and adding tracks to existing alignments. You are in no position to deem anything impossible on the grounds that you would rather have HS2.
Just because something can be done at one place doesn't mean it can be done everywhere.
I'd suggest that doing London-Birmingham-Manchester/Wigan (ie what HS2 on that side of the country does) - even with leaving some sections without additional tracks, would cost as much as HS2, but without Leeds, Sheffield, East Midlands being served at all.
That would be more expensive than HS2, per mile, and considerably disruptive to the existing users of the line.
It already is. 12tph north of Queens Park to Stonebridge Park, all calling all stations. Can you explain how you propose to:
How? They already operate at maximum speed on the WCML. How would the freights access the Chiltern Line, where would they be routed from Leamington, and how would they fit into the timetable on the Chiltern Main Line, from Banbury to Leamington, and anywhere north of Leamington? What would happen to the electrically hauled freight?
Like where elsewhere? Which stations do you propose to operate these 20 coach trains to, and what works are necessary at those stations to enable that? How much will it cost?
A better service than what? And how do you know it will be less money?
The rest of the network doesn't have a capacity problem. The hubs around Leeds and Manchester are choked with trains little more capacious than a couple of buses.
More tracks on the WCML will not be more expensive per mile than HS2 tunnelling from Ruislip to London.
That's correct. To relieve the southern WCML will cost about £27bn including trains and contingency. That headline will of course go down perfectly with everybody north of Birmingham - "Phase 2 of HS2 dropped whilst new high-speed line is just benefitting Londoners." The poor travellers from Preston (and other Northern towns) would have apoplexy.
Most of the big decisions are actually made by politicians which ought to make you concerned.
HS1 exploited some brownfield land around Ashford that happened to exist to take a route near the station. The land included old railway yards and depots, some low value industrial properties and a vast old MOD depot to the west of the town that had recently been abandoned but had yet to be built upon. The route chosen probably caused less disruption than alternatives although did include some residential property acquisition. It was actually quite a late change, with the original planned alignment tracing a route following the M20 around the north of the town. Few major railway stations and junctions today have so much land available nearby, especially in the south. In the specific case of Ashford, routing the line near the station made creating junctions between HS and classic routes at both ends more straightforward.
Just so we know, what are your qualifications and experience in the area of planning major transport infrastructure projects?
You seem to imply that change through the development process is a bad thing. Trains using the line south of Wigan WILL still go to Scotland and make significant journey time savings that will inevitably cause some mode shift if not 'empty the skies'. Further segments of new alignment will of course be possible in the future to improve this. Heathrow trains were abandoned because they were very poor use of paths, and airport passengers are better served by changing at OOC. This decision also avoided the costs of the dedicated spur and airport station. Opinions still differ about Sheffield, but the decision was driven by an overwhelming desire in the city to have a central station, coupled with very real engineering difficulties encountered by designers attempting to route via Meadowhall. While it would be lovely to be able to serve Nottingham and Derby city centres directly, it is not realistically possible to serve both on the same alignment. Toton has the potential to become a large intermodal interchange like Crewe, while also being at the centre of the local road network. It is also not at all rural, being very close to the centre of Long Eaton, closer in fact than the current local station that serves that town! It is likely have very comprehensive local travel options so will not be purely some French-style beat-field parkway and I think it is undoubtedly the best compromise.
£60-100bn but at least Long Eaton is actually served.
