HS2 Detailed plans and route

[Mojo]

On the contrary, this isn't just about providing highspeed links (if you're going to build a new railway line you might as well make it highspeed), but enhancing capacity greatly by removing trains from the classic lines and putting them on the highspeed route. As already said above, to upgrade the WCML to 225km/h would have costed the same as building a new highspeed line, not to mention the added disruption faced by service users.

 

[tbtc]

HS8:

EDINBURGH WAVERLEY-Haymarket-Craigiehall-Aberdour-Balfarg-Raithlet-DUNDEE-Brechin-Stonehaven-ABERDEEN

If you're going to build a high sped line from Edinburgh to Aberdeen then you're not going to go near Aberdour - you'd probably be best following the M90 past Kelty up to Perth, or (if you want to go through central Fife) follow the M90 to the A92 and then roughly follow the existing line towards Thornton.

That said, a separate High Speed line to Aberdeen really is taking things a little far. The existing line isn't fast, and going via Brechin would be faster, but you don't need a brand new replacement (maybe a new route from Inverkeithing to Crossgates)

 

[Moog_1984]

Perhaps the suggested chilterns route and a west london route should actually be the medium speed freight route with a railway version of the M25 from bucks to surrey and essex/kent.

This would free up the WCML south of brum to N London, and improve average running speeds for passenger services. The existing freight terminal infrastructure would need to alter, but is less location dependent and any new sites would be cheaper than new terminii in London no doubt!

Also it would be cheaper to construct to 100mph-120mph max through Bucks-Oxfordshire, with some slower sections, where cost and NIMBY would hinder 140mph + developments anyway.

On the 1980s ECML upgrade they did a few parallel developments (near durham for example and the N berwick cliff tops) without enormous disruptions: four track in the farmland on the stafford to north W'wkshire and south of coventry could probably be done with little disruption: but yeah, south of Rugby and especially watford gap, it is very built up and gonna mean working in tight sites, also to HSE rules for such, which would pretty much close the route under any civil engineering.

I mean they have a bit to play with on an improved WCML to get 15 mins faster to Manc':reduction of slow frieghts, other average running speed, average section legnth, braking distances, dual direction operation, lenght of train sets, and then secondly timetabling extra slacks on stopping services and freight to allow for overtaking once you start to get benefits from the first rack.

Also you have the old idea of running some IC trains as far as the top of the bottle neck: watford gap, wembly etc for stopper commuter services , in future connecting to the old oak common/heathrow project, and having shorter walking distance interchange to the london underground. This has been mooted but never popular. How many changes do people make on the underground after they get off todays trains? I reckon it was three for me, especially before the advent of the Padd-Heathrow trains.

 

[Mojo]

...

HS101:

SUGAR LOAF-Ammanford-Llanelli-Burry Port-TENBY-Pembroke Dock-MILFORD HAVEN-Fishguard-CARDIGAN

 

[WatcherZero]

What about Liverpool-Anglesey-Isle of Man-Belfast-Dublin

or Cardiff-Swansea-Dublin-Belfast

Though since im not looking at a map while I write this I probably got them out of order
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Published on 14 Mar 2010

Serious doubts have emerged over the Government’s high-speed rail proposals, with Network Rail among those questioning the

viability of a route that does not extend to Scotland.

The Sunday Herald has learned that a study by the company, which is responsible for the UK’s railways, has poured cold water on some of the fundamental assumptions behind the Y-shaped railtrack proposed this week by the Department for Transport (DfT).

Its plans for a £30billion network of 250mph services were met with outrage north of the border as they only extend as far north as Manchester and Leeds and would see journey times from London to Glasgow and Edinburgh cut by only 10 minutes by 2026.

A White Paper published on Thursday proposes building a high speed line between London and Birmingham, with construction starting in 2017 at a cost of up to £17.4bn.

But the proposals to extend the initial line into a network have proved controversial. A study published last year by Network Rail found that a business case for building a new high-speed rail line could only be made if it were extended between London and Scotland to take advantage of higher fares on cross-border journeys.

It has now emerged that a second study into building a new line between London and Leeds has reached a conclusion at odds with plans now being backed by the DfT.

At a meeting with Scottish stake*holders, Network Rail’s chief executive Iain Coucher said publication of the study had been postponed so as not to clash with the Government’s White Paper on high speed rail.

Richard Eccles, head of route planning at Network Rail, said building a spur connecting Birmingham to the East Midlands and Yorkshire – as proposed by the DfT – did not make business sense. “You would have to build a four-track railway between London and Birmingham to have enough capacity to support the two branch lines. Otherwise you would not have the frequency of service you need to support a business case,” he said.

Mr Coucher also questioned the wisdom of a route from London to Leeds via Birmingham.

“A route from Leeds that swings across to Birmingham would be longer than building one that went straight down to London,” he said.

Industry sources suggested the high-speed proposals had been shaped by the forthcoming General Election in a sop to key voters. “There is no way they are going to tell voters in the East Midlands and Yorkshire that they won’t be getting a high speed rail line a couple of months before an election. But I doubt Labour or the Conservatives will get it off the ground,” said one source.

Note lots of complaint in Scotland about it not running there immediatley, but I agree with Network rail on the 4 tracking. If it was purely HSR services fair enoughm but they want to run conventional services onto it as well, there just wouldnt be any spare capacity in future.

 

[rb311]

Industry sources suggested the high-speed proposals had been shaped by the forthcoming General Election in a sop to key voters. “There is no way they are going to tell voters in the East Midlands and Yorkshire that they won’t be getting a high speed rail line a couple of months before an election. But I doubt Labour or the Conservatives will get it off the ground,” said one source.

Need i say more?

Labour want to win votes in key constituencies in Birmingham and the North, not only by promising them a shiny new high speed rail link (which most of the voters couldn't afford to travel on anyway) but also by ****ing off Tory toffs who live in the Home counties by digging up their back gardens and knocking down their mansions.

Absolutely typical New Labour spin. Please don't be taken in by it.

 

[tbtc]

****ing off Tory toffs who live in the Home counties by digging up their back gardens and knocking down their mansions

Good to see the standard of debate improved

 

[the sniper]

Need i say more?

Labour want to win votes in key constituencies in Birmingham and the North, not only by promising them a shiny new high speed rail link (which most of the voters couldn't afford to travel on anyway) but also by ****ing off Tory toffs who live in the Home counties by digging up their back gardens and knocking down their mansions.

Absolutely typical New Labour spin. Please don't be taken in by it.

Seeing how uninformed you are, I think we'll make up our own minds.

The Conservatives are supposedly bigger supporters of High Speed rail then Labour are, they're proposing to run a line to Manchester via Birmingham too, they also won't be able to avoid running a 'HS2' line through the Chilterns. Do the Conservatives also wish to 'f*** off Tory toffs' on purpose? :roll:

Never let facts get in the way of a good rant though, heh?

 

[gordonthemoron]

Obviously the tories haven't detailed their planned route, but I expect that they would probably tunnel more through the Chilterns than Adonis' cheap and cheerful plan to keep their supporters happy

 

[the sniper]

Obviously the tories haven't detailed their planned route, but I expect that they would probably tunnel more through the Chilterns than Adonis' cheap and cheerful plan to keep their supporters happy

And how will they do this while still sticking to the same budget as Adonis' line...? I'm sure they said on Thursday that their route will cost the same; seeing as they're already looking to start construction before Crossrail is finished, thus raising the building costs, and they're sending their route via an ill thought through Heathrow loop, how are the costs going to work out the same? Me thinks their fag packet planning isn't quite as well thought through as High Speed 2 Ltd's effort...

 

[Christopher125]

Obviously the tories haven't detailed their planned route, but I expect that they would probably tunnel more through the Chilterns than Adonis' cheap and cheerful plan to keep their supporters happy

How do you know this?

If you ignore the media and local residents that were going to decry its impact on the Chilterns regardless of the route, its actually pretty good. Much of it is either in tunnel or cuttings and with appropriate mitigation will have minimal impact upon completion.

You cant avoid impacting on the Chilterns and still have a viable route, the aim is to keep that impact to a practical minimum.

Chris

 

[Moog_1984]

Need i say more?

Labour want to win votes in key constituencies in Birmingham and the North, not only by promising them a shiny new high speed rail link (which most of the voters couldn't afford to travel on anyway) but also by ****ing off Tory toffs who live in the Home counties by digging up their back gardens and knocking down their mansions.

Absolutely typical New Labour spin. Please don't be taken in by it.

In the 1980s just about the only investment in Scottish commuter infrascture was the route to Ayr. Which was a tory stronghold. Quality express trains to..bournemouth...I could go on.

They lost the seat in Ayr anyway, but I'm sure red, blue and polkadott politicians have been up to this, and approving dodgey rail-acts from the days of Robert Stephenson.

 

[peradon]

Green are probably better for railways, in fact they might even do both routes!

 

[Metroland]

I do hope we don't go down the road of listening to chicken-little enthusiasts like Christian Wolmar and Simon Jenkins, who have both written bits on why we shouldn't be doing high speed.

When you strip away the rhetoric about 'huge costs' and 'ripping up the countryside', the project makes a lot of sense.

Forget upgrading 'old lines', whether we like it or not journey times has a direct relationship with elasticity of demand and supply. Mixed traffic lines are an extremely poor use of capacity and are subject to more fragile operating conditions. Little can be done to ease curves of the classic lines, and you need long sections of high speed line to have any journey improvements. This is all dealt with in the command document, though I doubt many commentators bother to read it.

In the end, with a (hopefully) growing economy in a few years the choice is between more roads - keep in mind they already make up 96% of the surface transport network, or more rail or air. With 85% of congestion in and around urban areas, there is a limit what can be done with road anyway by virtue of space. Improving interurban networks may actually make the journey time *longer*, as more traffic is fed into the same bottlenecks and space constrained cities.

You can have more airports, but air transport is really irrelevant (even with classic lines) south of Newcastle from London. Actually HSR does a lot to improve access to airports and thereby improve typical city-city journeys for air too - which is why Birmingham Airport wants the line.

Or you can high speed rail, which would do a lot - probably the most of any of the transport applications - to improve the biggest post World War 2 problem in the UK: The north south economic divide.

The line is not unaffordable, the public sector input for the project is likely to be between £15 and £20bn for the complete network. Built over 15 years, this represents about £1 billion per year, or 1/600th of the public spending budget, yielding benefits of over £50 billion over the typical appraisal period. Like TGV and other high speed lines, it is expected to run at an operating profit.

A typical 200 km line to Birmingham would be about 15-20 meters wide and a good deal of it would be in tunnels. Taking the higher figure of 20 meters (ignoring the tunnels) this would be 200,000 x 20 meters or 4 million square meters, that's 4 square Kms. 1/3 the size of Heathrow or 1/61205th of the area of the UK. So it doesn't rip up the countryside to any great degree, and with decent noise barriers like HS1 would hardly be noticeable.

With virtually every other country building HSR (Even Libya have started their network!), we really don't want to be left in the slow lane, else in a globalised world business will simply locate elsewhere.

Finally don't fall for the BS about trains are for rich people. In general, richer people travel more. They fly more, they own more cars, they travel a lot. Rail figures are somewhat distorted by commuting into the centre of large cities, where many highly paid people work. But trains are used by all parts of society. Even if people don't travel by train, there are a lot of advantages in terms of jobs with agglomeration effects. The job market is opened and access improved. IE into the Midlands and the North, creating lots of opportunity for people in those areas train travellers or not.

 

[Moog_1984]

I mean to say, huge costs..so runway extensions and new motorways are cheaper....

Transport 2000 used to quote that for one mile of six lane plus hard shoulders motorway you could get 25 double track diesel route or 15 electrified!

How does this stack up now?

B¤ you say it, HS (150mph +) routes are of course more expensive per mile.

 

[Metroland]

There's no particular evidence that a conventional railway would be cheaper overall. One of the key principals of HSR is very steep gradients which can be 'rushed', thus reducing cost. Because the journey times attract more travellers, you have more revenue, and the business case tends to be stronger. If you look at the command document a new conventional railway is assessed and has a negative BCR. Modest improvements to lines also score lower.

One of the key benefits of a new line is it frees up paths for freight and commuter services on the WCML. High speed trains mixing with slow speed passenger services and freight are path hungry. Paul mentioned the Southern does better. Yes, because there is a hell of a lot less freight with associated crossing moves, stable stopping patterns, and less speed differential. A freight train crossing a 125mph line needs an approaching train to be around 10 miles away on a flat crossing which our Victorian rail network is full of. There is only so much you can squeeze out of our 150 year old network, which supports mega cities and train speeds undreamed of when they were built, at some stage you need to add new lines.

 

[chris_uk]

I agreed with Metroland that most of the commentators here should read the Command Document produced by HS2 Ltd, it shows you that HS2 Ltd has had considered many factors from cost to the choice of route/station. It also detailed the reasons why each decision was made.

I do hope we don't go down the road of listening to chicken-little enthusiasts like Christian Wolmar and Simon Jenkins, who have both written bits on why we shouldn't be doing high speed.

When you strip away the rhetoric about 'huge costs' and 'ripping up the countryside', the project makes a lot of sense.

Forget upgrading 'old lines', whether we like it or not journey times has a direct relationship with elasticity of demand and supply. Mixed traffic lines are an extremely poor use of capacity and are subject to more fragile operating conditions. Little can be done to ease curves of the classic lines, and you need long sections of high speed line to have any journey improvements. This is all dealt with in the command document, though I doubt many commentators bother to read it.

In the end, with a (hopefully) growing economy in a few years the choice is between more roads - keep in mind they already make up 96% of the surface transport network, or more rail or air. With 85% of congestion in and around urban areas, there is a limit what can be done with road anyway by virtue of space. Improving interurban networks may actually make the journey time *longer*, as more traffic is fed into the same bottlenecks and space constrained cities.

You can have more airports, but air transport is really irrelevant (even with classic lines) south of Newcastle from London. Actually HSR does a lot to improve access to airports and thereby improve typical city-city journeys for air too - which is why Birmingham Airport wants the line.

Or you can high speed rail, which would do a lot - probably the most of any of the transport applications - to improve the biggest post World War 2 problem in the UK: The north south economic divide.

The line is not unaffordable, the public sector input for the project is likely to be between £15 and £20bn for the complete network. Built over 15 years, this represents about £1 billion per year, or 1/600th of the public spending budget, yielding benefits of over £50 billion over the typical appraisal period. Like TGV and other high speed lines, it is expected to run at an operating profit.

A typical 200 km line to Birmingham would be about 15-20 meters wide and a good deal of it would be in tunnels. Taking the higher figure of 20 meters (ignoring the tunnels) this would be 200,000 x 20 meters or 4 million square meters, that's 4 square Kms. 1/3 the size of Heathrow or 1/61205th of the area of the UK. So it doesn't rip up the countryside to any great degree, and with decent noise barriers like HS1 would hardly be noticeable.

With virtually every other country building HSR (Even Libya have started their network!), we really don't want to be left in the slow lane, else in a globalised world business will simply locate elsewhere.

Finally don't fall for the BS about trains are for rich people. In general, richer people travel more. They fly more, they own more cars, they travel a lot. Rail figures are somewhat distorted by commuting into the centre of large cities, where many highly paid people work. But trains are used by all parts of society. Even if people don't travel by train, there are a lot of advantages in terms of jobs with agglomeration effects. The job market is opened and access improved. IE into the Midlands and the North, creating lots of opportunity for people in those areas train travellers or not.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

The question I ask myself is, how does this affect the 'conventional' railways? Is it going to start stealing their Passenger traffic and making franchises eventually untenable? Or is it going to free up these older lines for more freight, and perhaps create an impetus to put back older stations that were removed under BR in the push to create high speed intercity routes?

How has HS1 effected passenger traffic in the Southeast?

 

[LE Greys]

Quote:Firstly, while there should be junctions with conventional rail to allow services to run on via the 'classic' lines, as is the case in France, i think it's key that most of the network is kept separate. I also disagree entirely with the HS4 idea. Cambridge & Peterborough are far too close to London and each other to justify sending the route that way in view of the extra cost and time lost.

The reason for suggesting Cambridge and Peterborough was that it was in the Greengauge 21 document as much as anything. I think the idea would be that they would serve the same purpose as Ebbsfleet or Ashford, collectors for passengers who live near the line but not in London (AFAIK no Eurostar covers both stations and most don't stop at all). After all, we are linking the south to the north, not London to the north. Anyone living in Norwich or Ipswich should not have to go all the way into London to get to Scotland or Newcastle quickly. Norwich Airport has quite an extensive business because of this. A junction at Stratford would also allow international services to save up to half an hour by avoiding London, although they need to sort out customs and passport issues before this can happen.

With regards to the junctions, I was partly thinking of infrastructure traffic as well as passenger use. This would remove the need for ballast trains to use the new line for very long distances at night. Apart from the inconvenience, there is an issue with slow, heavy freight vehicles 'hanging' on the inside of super-elevated curves, which the inside gauge corner does not like. High-speed lines will undoubtedly take a heavy beating, and require realigning, reballasting and relaying at a much higher rate than many other lines. If we can use the links for passenger traffic, even if only on diversions at weekends, so much the better. If not, it's just there for the convenience.

HS4a: EAST COAST SOUTH HSR STATIONS, Other stations, Non-station locations
STRATFORD INTERNATIONAL (Intl W Jcn) - Leytonstone Tunnel (parallel with Central Line - Woodford - Epping (M11) - Sawbridgeworth - STANSTED AIRPORT (new station - associated work to connect the current branch to Braintree via Great Dunmow, thus a feeder from Colchester or Chelmesford) - Newport (exact location undecided yet) - Whittlesford - Great Shelford Avoiding Line - CAMBRIDGE (collector station for traffic from Cambs and Suffolk, northbound pick-up only - possible associated work, electrification to Stowmarket) - Horningsea - Yaxley PETERBOROUGH (collector station for traffic from Herts, Beds, Hunts and Norfolk, northbound pick-up only, links with new Norwich/Colchester-Manchester-Glasgow XC route, some services from King's Cross may join here) - Helpston - Great Ponton - Grantham/Newark Avoiding Line (connection to Grantham Station - new station at Claypole on classic line) Balderton (another connection where crosses ECML) Winthorpe - Muskham (definite connection from Newark) - Markam Moor - Retford Avoiding Line (potential for connections to Retford, but unlikely) Barnby Moor - new Ranskill station on classic line - Bawtry (definite connection to Doncaster for Paris-Leeds trains) - Doncaster Avoiding Line - Shaftholme (possible connection from Doncaster) Temple Hirst (Selby route upgraded to take more traffic) Hambledon - Colton End of HS4a - YORK
Selby would gain a lot more domestic passenger traffic, which would probably have to reverse there and go to Hambledon. Most of this is what I call 'super quadrupling' rather than an entirely new route.

Frankly, I'm beginning to feel that East Anglia is a bit left out. OK, maybe I'm biased (LE Greys is an anagram of 'Gresley' after all) but I think that the east is rather losing out here. The terrain is much more conducive to railway building than the Chilterns, and many places in East Anglia are already badly connected. Norwich was promised 125 mph services 'once APT was in service'. Still waiting. The M12 never materialised and the M11 becomes an A road at Girton, so there are virtually no motorway links. Even the A1, the Great North Road, is not a contiguous motorway to Newcastle. If Kent can have two feeder stations on HS1, then surely East Anglia can justify one or two as well.

EDIT:
I should have mentioned that trains to and from the continent would be exempt from the pick up/set down rules at Cambridge and Peterborough. Passport control would occur at Stratford (if it cannot happen on the move) and then they would run non-stop to Paris.

 

[gordonthemoron]

and ofcourse the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon is the road to hell

 

[Mojo]

Birmingham City University plan approved even though High Speed Rail means it will never be built
"PLANS for a new £123 million university campus have been given green light – even though the new Birmingham to London High Speed rail link would run through the site.

Birmingham City University was granted planning permission for the new state-of-the-art campus next to the former Curzon Street Station at Eastside in the very definition of an academic procedure."

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/...99/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

So what now then..? Given HS2 hasn't been given the go ahead does that mean the University starts work... and then has to knock the building down when it gets approval, thus increasing the cost?

 

[Geezertronic]

So what now then..? Given HS2 hasn't been given the go ahead does that mean the University starts work... and then has to knock the building down when it gets approval, thus increasing the cost?

I guess we just need the arse to catch up with the elbow I would assume there will be other items like this that were in the twighlight stages of planning before the HS2 announcement was made.

 

[WatcherZero]

Birmingham City University plan approved even though High Speed Rail means it will never be built
"PLANS for a new £123 million university campus have been given green light – even though the new Birmingham to London High Speed rail link would run through the site.

Birmingham City University was granted planning permission for the new state-of-the-art campus next to the former Curzon Street Station at Eastside in the very definition of an academic procedure."

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/...99/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

So what now then..? Given HS2 hasn't been given the go ahead does that mean the University starts work... and then has to knock the building down when it gets approval, thus increasing the cost?

There was a nother story couple fo days ago that the University was suing the government/council for £30m they had already spent on planning and preliminary works.

 

[tbtc]

The question I ask myself is, how does this affect the 'conventional' railways? Is it going to start stealing their Passenger traffic and making franchises eventually untenable? Or is it going to free up these older lines for more freight, and perhaps create an impetus to put back older stations that were removed under BR in the push to create high speed intercity routes?

Its probably a topic for a whole new thread (which anyone is welcome to start) - this could be the end of "Cross Country" as we know it.

If Birmingham - Manchester and Birmingham - Sheffield - Leeds - Newcastle - Edinburgh are going to be mainly provided by HS2 services, then I could see most/ all Cornwall - Plymouth - Bristol - Birmingham and Bournemouth - Reading - Oxford - Birmingham services truncated at New Street.

Could also free up space on the existing "main lines" for new/ more services to places an hour or two out of London like Grimsby (as the ECML departures for Edinburgh/ Newcastle/ Leeds will be on the HS2 line)

If this happens, it will change everything long distance. If.

 

[Waverley125]

The reason for suggesting Cambridge and Peterborough was that it was in the Greengauge 21 document as much as anything. I think the idea would be that they would serve the same purpose as Ebbsfleet or Ashford, collectors for passengers who live near the line but not in London (AFAIK no Eurostar covers both stations and most don't stop at all). After all, we are linking the south to the north, not London to the north. Anyone living in Norwich or Ipswich should not have to go all the way into London to get to Scotland or Newcastle quickly. Norwich Airport has quite an extensive business because of this. A junction at Stratford would also allow international services to save up to half an hour by avoiding London, although they need to sort out customs and passport issues before this can happen.

With regards to the junctions, I was partly thinking of infrastructure traffic as well as passenger use. This would remove the need for ballast trains to use the new line for very long distances at night. Apart from the inconvenience, there is an issue with slow, heavy freight vehicles 'hanging' on the inside of super-elevated curves, which the inside gauge corner does not like. High-speed lines will undoubtedly take a heavy beating, and require realigning, reballasting and relaying at a much higher rate than many other lines. If we can use the links for passenger traffic, even if only on diversions at weekends, so much the better. If not, it's just there for the convenience.

HS4a: EAST COAST SOUTH HSR STATIONS, Other stations, Non-station locations
STRATFORD INTERNATIONAL (Intl W Jcn) - Leytonstone Tunnel (parallel with Central Line - Woodford - Epping (M11) - Sawbridgeworth - STANSTED AIRPORT (new station - associated work to connect the current branch to Braintree via Great Dunmow, thus a feeder from Colchester or Chelmesford) - Newport (exact location undecided yet) - Whittlesford - Great Shelford Avoiding Line - CAMBRIDGE (collector station for traffic from Cambs and Suffolk, northbound pick-up only - possible associated work, electrification to Stowmarket) - Horningsea - Yaxley PETERBOROUGH (collector station for traffic from Herts, Beds, Hunts and Norfolk, northbound pick-up only, links with new Norwich/Colchester-Manchester-Glasgow XC route, some services from King's Cross may join here) - Helpston - Great Ponton - Grantham/Newark Avoiding Line (connection to Grantham Station - new station at Claypole on classic line) Balderton (another connection where crosses ECML) Winthorpe - Muskham (definite connection from Newark) - Markam Moor - Retford Avoiding Line (potential for connections to Retford, but unlikely) Barnby Moor - new Ranskill station on classic line - Bawtry (definite connection to Doncaster for Paris-Leeds trains) - Doncaster Avoiding Line - Shaftholme (possible connection from Doncaster) Temple Hirst (Selby route upgraded to take more traffic) Hambledon - Colton End of HS4a - YORK
Selby would gain a lot more domestic passenger traffic, which would probably have to reverse there and go to Hambledon. Most of this is what I call 'super quadrupling' rather than an entirely new route.

Frankly, I'm beginning to feel that East Anglia is a bit left out. OK, maybe I'm biased (LE Greys is an anagram of 'Gresley' after all) but I think that the east is rather losing out here. The terrain is much more conducive to railway building than the Chilterns, and many places in East Anglia are already badly connected. Norwich was promised 125 mph services 'once APT was in service'. Still waiting. The M12 never materialised and the M11 becomes an A road at Girton, so there are virtually no motorway links. Even the A1, the Great North Road, is not a contiguous motorway to Newcastle. If Kent can have two feeder stations on HS1, then surely East Anglia can justify one or two as well.

EDIT:
I should have mentioned that trains to and from the continent would be exempt from the pick up/set down rules at Cambridge and Peterborough. Passport control would occur at Stratford (if it cannot happen on the move) and then they would run non-stop to Paris.

I agree, the east is left out. The problem is going via Stansted, Cambridge & Peterborough is massivley costly and won't save much time, as they're presently only 1 hr from London anyways, particularly for the time penalties it will incur.

However, this isn't to say the East shouldn't be served. I'd like to see:

HS9: STRATFORD INTERNATIONAL-Ilford-Theydon Bois-EPPING-STANSTED AIRPORT-CAMBRIDGE-Newmarket-Thetford-NORWICH

HS10: Ilford-Doddinghurst-Great Waltham-Feering-Dedham-IPSWICH-Bawdsey-DEN HAAG-(1)-Leiden-AMSTERDAM (2)-ROTTERDAM (3)-Zoetermeer-UTRECHT