Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'd rather it was canned entirely than built only to OOC. Building it only to OOC would be a waste of money.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Government announces independent review into HS2 programme
- Thread starter CeeJ
- Start date
- Status
I'd rather it was canned entirely than built only to OOC. Building it only to OOC would be a waste of money.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,710
I suppose providing a travellator/walkway system connecting all the nearby stations to the OOC station complex is out of the question?
Although 800m might be a bit far to expect people to walk, even on a travellator.
Although 800m might be a bit far to expect people to walk, even on a travellator.
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,264
Well, London already has a proven gondola system...
matacaster
On Moderation
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,602
On the European dimension, the difficulty is that for people in the Midlands (possibly), North, Scotland, the existing 125 mph service to Kings X / St Pancras might tend to put a lot of people off travelling on Eurostar to the continent (I have done Wakefield to Cologne via Eurostar), when they can get a plane which is likely to be significantly cheaper and faster. Truth is HS1 really only benefits London and South East and home counties. As an aside, its as quick to get to Paris as it is to get to the vastly inferior Manchester or Leeds for a weekend break, this might explain why many Londoners feel more 'European' than those in other parts of the country!
Several options have been considered: https://webarchive.nationalarchives...i/highspeedrail/proposedroute/apm/pdf/apm.pdf
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,710
Thats St Pancras to Euston, I was referring to connecting places like North Acton or Willesden Junction to OOC.
If it’s happening, it will not start /terminate at OOC. There is no logic. A link to the Continent although desirable, I’d rather see the Y built first. If you’re going to sell it to the British People, you have to be inclusive as possible, hence the Y. I would like all parties to be upfront with the cost.
You don’t start off with a figure, double it and then meet halfway. That maybe alright for a house extension, but we do have the experts available to give us all a really good idea of what the total cost will be, subject to world prices of any raw materials, inflation etc. Let us not forget, in Western Europe, they all-experienced cost overruns for major projects. You don’t have control of Labour, Inflation or geological challenges that perhaps were not unreasonably recognised initially.
You don’t start off with a figure, double it and then meet halfway. That maybe alright for a house extension, but we do have the experts available to give us all a really good idea of what the total cost will be, subject to world prices of any raw materials, inflation etc. Let us not forget, in Western Europe, they all-experienced cost overruns for major projects. You don’t have control of Labour, Inflation or geological challenges that perhaps were not unreasonably recognised initially.
That report is into options for connecting Euston and St Pancras, not OOC.
Walkways / travelators etc have been suggested for OOC before, at least on here. The distances aren't short though, and there's the added complexity of the areas being a mixture of both a clean slate and already developed.
Outside airports I'm unconvinced people are comfortable with people mover style systems.
Sorry - I misread your post. Yes, I agree that similar links would have to be provided at OOC to make the nearby stations more accessible.
Shrop
On Moderation
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2019
- Messages
- 649
Have you never flown with budget airlines and seen ths distances that they consider reasonable to walk at airports?
As opposed to the non-budget airlines who carry you through the airport in a sedan chair?
More seriously, what airports are like should be largely irrelevant when designing a railway station. There are long walks at airports because planes are big and need to be parked outside, so you end up with the usual planes parked around central buildings / piers layout. Railways don't need that.
(The possible folly of massively long trains aside, but that can be mitigated by things you can't do with an airport, like board from above / below, all along the train, multiple platform entrances etc)
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,264
I disagree. It's massively improved the rail connection from the North to Kent. It's also made travel to mainland Europe viable by rail. We've done a couple of family trips from Leeds to Belgium which I doubt we would have considered if HS1 hadn't been built.
Given the increasing need to cut out flying, I would certainly consider the train from Leeds to Paris or Brussels as a viable option for business travel.
Cosmicismsx
Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 22
Amazing, although they've built the Crick Institute on that land now.
Or travelled in First Class on the Highland Chieftain....
As far as an Old Oak Common-Stratford link goes - the journey times would probably make Leeds and Manchester to Paris viable. But with HS2 planned to be operating at maximum capacity as soon as Phase 2 is complete, at least on current plans, there aren't any paths for such services. I'd sooner have that than a Heathrow branch - changing at Old Oak Common for the airport is likely to be less of an imposition than having to change stations mid-journey in London.
Travelators down the middle of long platforms would seem like a good idea to me. Totally proven technology from airports, too.
Realistically, £56 billion seems about right, perhaps a high-end figure but reasonable, after allowing for inflation. Higher figures, where not scaremongering, are most likely the result of risk management. The government expects HS2 Limited to shoulder all the costs of 'what if it goes wrong', and HS2 Limited are pushing those costs on to their subcontractors. The risk budget can add up to a lot of the project's up-front costs, since the contractors will always pad their estimates in a way that ensures they make a profit.
If the government is willing to take the risk burden, they can cut out all that padding and the associated management fees. They'll have more uncertainty, but wind up paying less unless the project turns out to be a colossal disaster. And if that happens, the contractors will turn around and ask for more money anyway.
This is one of my (admittedly numerous) issues with HS2 as sold to us. We're going to build a new railway, and from the moment it's complete, it's operating at full capacity?
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,264
Given the rate at which rail travel is growing I think that's quite likely, although the London-Birmingham section would only reach full capacity once Phase 2b is complete. Still, doesn't this make it even more necessary? It's a bit like saying we shouldn't have built the M25 because it's so busy.
The point is there's little benefit building it 4-track - this was the conclusion of a study conducted early on by HS2. When capacity is saturated it's better to build a different route, for example extending the eastern branch south from Toton to a new London terminus. This is backed up by the fact that there is no 4-track HS rail route anywhere in the world.
HS2 Limited is the government.
Manchester Piccadilly has travelators from the 13&14 landing to the concourse.
I’d expect similar to be a given for new stations with long trains.
Last edited:
That's not the organisation of it - HS2 is a non-profit company.
MidlandMainlie
Member
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2011
- Messages
- 779
I watched a representative of the Green Party being interviewed alongside Nigel Harris from Rail magazine on BBC News channel last night at 8pm. Suffice to say the lack of knowledge from the Green Party representative on how HS2 could help build a sustainable transport system by freeing up capacity on exiting railways so more people could travel by rail instead of cars was completely lost on her. Instead all she could say was that the money should be used to upgrade existing lines without giving any specific examples. Pathetic.
thenorthern
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 May 2013
- Messages
- 4,114
Khan seems to want to terminate the services at Old Oak Common, given that HS2 will supposedly carry a large amount of passengers who currently get trains to Euston, St Pancras, Kings Cross, Marylebone as well as the new traffic passenger that they talk about I think it a bad idea on 2 counts first of all the CrossRail serving Old Oak Common would most likely struggle with the additional capacity secondly who is going to catch a train to a station several miles outside Central London then get on an overcrowded crossrail when there is a direct service from where they are to Central London already.
That sounds like the Green Party, the way they present their policies always seems to be done in a way to suggest that everyone would benefit from them and we would all get rich but there is some sort of a conspiracy that is stopping it all from happening.
With their green energy policy for example if it was a case of cheaper electricity and a large amount of jobs being created if we all went green but the Conservative Party is stopping it from happening. Somehow if it was the case I think the Conservative Party would implement it tomorrow.
That sounds like the Green Party, the way they present their policies always seems to be done in a way to suggest that everyone would benefit from them and we would all get rich but there is some sort of a conspiracy that is stopping it all from happening.
With their green energy policy for example if it was a case of cheaper electricity and a large amount of jobs being created if we all went green but the Conservative Party is stopping it from happening. Somehow if it was the case I think the Conservative Party would implement it tomorrow.
That's actually quite a common perception. People regularly say the M25 is a car park. In that case why do so many people turn on to it and find it the best routing for them. It even turns up regularly here.
The £56bn already included a substantial risk element (sometimes called "Optimism bias"). The thing that gets me, as one used to seeing such figures (alas not in my pay) is that there is never any breakdown, it's always a one-line figure. Where are the analyses for land purchase, excavation, track, signalling, etc. And when the figures rise substantially (I expect to see £100bn before long), which of these elements has risen so much, and why.
It's not as if they are just working on a "same as that project, plus inflation" basis. The government has spent many millions, in fact many tens of millions, with Construction Cost Consultants, who are meant to be the professional experts as determining future build costs. And yet the next time the figures are discussed, another £10bn is glibly added. To me, this looks like they have no basis behind the figures at all.
Regarding the contractors, one would hope the government departments know how to handle them now. Trouble with such a vast project is, even breaking it down into packages, no one contractor can take it on, the risk to the company is too great of things going wrong, and they don't have the resources at hand anyway. So they team together as three or four in a joint venture. Have several big packages and you have used up all the major contractors. This happened on Crossrail.
I know, absurd isn't it. One of the major realistic ways that other countries have succeeded in reducing and even eliminating domestic and other shorter haul air routes on certain corridors is apparently out of the question in the UK according to this joke of a party. I'm very ecologically minded in general so should in theory be a strong potential supporter of the Greens, but their position on HS2 makes this impossible. I hope Nigel Harris put them right on the issues, but I've attempted to argue the points on green party FB pages before and you simply can't get anywhere with them.
MidlandMainlie
Member
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2011
- Messages
- 779
Agreed plus terminating at OOC means that if anything does go wrong on Crossraill then thousands of passengers. Look what happened on the ECML a few years ago when overrunning engineering works at Kings Cross left thousands stranded at Finsbury Park.
So the Greens are against HS2 because it goes through open countryside but are in favour (as far as I can tell) of East West Rail despite it going through open countryside. So what's the difference?
More likely the concourse designed to be above or below the *middle* of the platforms, with escalators feeding the platforms in both directions centrally, so nobody has to walk an entire train length to board.
Assuming the Purple Line is open by the time HS2 arrives at OOC!
Seriously though, not going to Euston would be very short sighted especially with the demolition around the station already started. What's going to be done with all of that land if it's not used for HS2? If the plan is to go to Euston eventually then no developer will want to invest in anything long-term there so it would just get more run down than it is at present.
I disagree. By carrying out Euston works to completion, they're showing that it's open for business. Using OOC isn't defeatist, it's connected to Crossrail, the whole point of which is to connect West London with East.
I'm in favour of scrapping HS2 in its entirety but even I see the potential logic of completing Euston/Camden so there are benefits in that area.
- Status