HS2 in the press

[swt_passenger]

That's a fascinating quote, not least because the pair of letters "fi" is missing from it in several places, though there is no problem with "f" and "i" separately. How could that happen?

Edit: I suppose it could happen by scanning in printed text that had "fi" as a single block of print (a "ligature") which the scanner failed to recognise, but that's not the case here - when you follow the link to the original document it has the individual letters!

I didn't notice, as I had already read it before pasting. Should I edit them back in to make it read better...

 

[ivanhoe]

Knock down ugly National Library - it could be easily rebuilt elsewhere. Build HS2 terminus on what was StPancras goods yard. Easy connection to HS1. Great foot access to StPancras international, Kings Cross, Euston not too far away. Would need some tunnelling (or less likely viaduct widening) to connect to WCML.

Not one for books then, are we?

 

[miami]

Not one for books then, are we?

They deserve better than being crammed into London. Why not put them in York? Or Harogate?

 

[Altnabreac]

They deserve better than being crammed into London. Why not put them in York? Or Harogate?

Or half way between the two in Boston Spa...
http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/quickinfo/loc/bsp/

 

[HSTEd]

Or adjacent to Birmingham International station.
Free tickets for people visiting the library!

 

[Bob M]

There was a workshop of transport academics in York a few weeks ago on HS2, and the report has just been published. See

http://www.passengertransportnetworks.co.uk/HS2 - the case for a review.pdf

There was discussion of this on the Radio 4 today programme this morning.

 

[quantinghome]

There was a workshop of transport academics in York a few weeks ago on HS2, and the report has just been published. See

http://www.passengertransportnetworks.co.uk/HS2 - the case for a review.pdf

There was discussion of this on the Radio 4 today programme this morning.

Plenty of old chestnuts in there - yum yum!

What is the purpose of producing a 10 page opinion piece at this point in time? It contains no new observations, and could have as easily been written years ago when the HS2 plans were first published. How could this possibly hope to form the basis of a fundamental review of the project?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Has anyone else seen what Rail Technology Magazine are saying?
They have said HS2 might cut the Crewe to Manchester bit to save money.

 

[MarkRedon]

Has anyone else seen what Rail Technology Magazine are saying?
They have said HS2 might cut the Crewe to Manchester bit to save money.

See http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...-is-ruled-out-in-cost-cutting?dorewrite=false

Manchester arm could be axed as HS2 admits ‘nothing is ruled out’ in cost-cutting

However, the principal justification for HS2 is to provide much-needed capacity. Disgorging major new passenger flows onto the creaking south Manchester suburban network would mortgage the benefits of the whole scheme, at least for the North West. And how politically acceptable would it be to have true high-speed services to the heart of Leeds and not to Manchester city centre? This would risk a rerun of the War of the Roses!

 

[miami]

See http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...-is-ruled-out-in-cost-cutting?dorewrite=false


However, the principal justification for HS2 is to provide much-needed capacity. Disgorging major new passenger flows onto the creaking south Manchester suburban network would mortgage the benefits of the whole scheme, at least for the North West. And how politically acceptable would it be to have true high-speed services to the heart of Leeds and not to Manchester city centre? This would risk a rerun of the War of the Roses!

It would seem rather ridiculous. I think there's plenty of capacity for an extra 3tph from Sandbach to Handforth, but once you get north of there you really could do with new tracks.

Unless they terminate HS2 at the airport, running on classic track from Sandbach to Wilmslow, Styal, and then a new track down to the current airport station, meaning people would have to change at Wilmslow or

All seems rather silly. Far better to cut off the eastern branch of HS2 is money is to be saved, and run the Manchester branch on from Manchester over to Leeds as "HS3".

 

[jon0844]

If any part of the route overall uses classic track, surely that means ruling out much nicer, wide, trains with far more room inside?

I can understand the media not appreciating the other benefits of a new HS line, but surely the railway industry knows? Nobody surely wants us to have smaller trains?

I also don't get the bit in the BBC article about people thinking we don't need to design it for such high speeds, when it's a new line designed for a hundred years and more. And one of hopefully many new lines.

Plus, it's not replacing existing lines so it's frustrating when hearing about how some stations won't get a faster service. No, they'll get a more frequent and more reliable service.

To save money, why not just stop conceding to the NIMBYs and stop putting so much of HS2 underground!

 

[HSTEd]

Well we are already not using nice wide trains. Loading gauge is already width restricted to the point it has no more capacity than existing trains.

 

[James_D]

Interesting article in the Guardian today seemingly suggesting we should re-open Beeching branch lines instead of HS2. Whilst i agree with some of his arguments, its not just about shaving time off for business travellers on HS2, he seems to ignore that capacity will be massively opened up on existing lines. A patchwork of 10-20 mile reopenings in rural and developing areas is not going to give the large-scale capacity we need between our big economic areas.

 

[miami]

Why not simply build another 2 tracks alongside the WCML? You could have the express trains running on those lines (say London to Birmingham, Crewe, and Manchester), and leave the existing tracks for more local services - increasing services to places like Stoke, Stafford, Lichfield and Rugby.

Obviously there would be issues with running the tracks through towns, so perhaps those tracks could run on a different route?

 

[jon0844]

Can you imagine the cost of that? Not just the compulsory purchasing, losing shops, offices, houses and even some roads, and then having to try and work on a live railway to fit in new lines, gantries, power supplies, signals etc.

Take the HS2 cost and then multiply it a couple of times sounds like me vastly underestimating the cost.

 

[miami]

Can you imagine the cost of that? Not just the compulsory purchasing, losing shops, offices, houses and even some roads, and then having to try and work on a live railway to fit in new lines, gantries, power supplies, signals etc.

Take the HS2 cost and then multiply it a couple of times sounds like me vastly underestimating the cost.

That's why I'd suggest building it on a new route, perhaps going northwest from London via the chilterns, rather than trying to thread it through places like Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham, Stafford, Stoke, etc.

 

[notlob.divad]

Why not simply build another 2 tracks alongside the WCML? You could have the express trains running on those lines (say London to Birmingham, Crewe, and Manchester), and leave the existing tracks for more local services - increasing services to places like Stoke, Stafford, Lichfield and Rugby.

Obviously there would be issues with running the tracks through towns, so perhaps those tracks could run on a different route?

In addition to jonmorris0844. You also limit the benefits as the WCML has lots of turns that both add distance and reduce speed and currently require bespoke tilting trains to travel at their top speeds

 

[hwl]

Why not simply build another 2 tracks alongside the WCML? You could have the express trains running on those lines (say London to Birmingham, Crewe, and Manchester), and leave the existing tracks for more local services - increasing services to places like Stoke, Stafford, Lichfield and Rugby.

Obviously there would be issues with running the tracks through towns, so perhaps those tracks could run on a different route?

The cost and disruption of doing that is what lead to HS2 being suggested in the first place!

 

[swt_passenger]

Why not simply build another 2 tracks alongside the WCML? You could have the express trains running on those lines (say London to Birmingham, Crewe, and Manchester), and leave the existing tracks for more local services - increasing services to places like Stoke, Stafford, Lichfield and Rugby.

Already assessed and discounted in the very early HS2 work. Did you really think it hadn't ever been thought of?

Numerous route alternatives were assessed, such as alongside the M1, alongside the M40, and alongside the WCML.

Another iteration of route alternatives was reported on in 2013:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ta/file/253456/hs2-strategic-alternatives.pdf

 

[tbtc]

Why not simply build another 2 tracks alongside the WCML? You could have the express trains running on those lines (say London to Birmingham, Crewe, and Manchester), and leave the existing tracks for more local services - increasing services to places like Stoke, Stafford, Lichfield and Rugby.

Obviously there would be issues with running the tracks through towns, so perhaps those tracks could run on a different route?

I suppose the parallel is with the Motorway network.

We could have added two or three lanes to all the major A-roads, or we could have built brand new roads designed for fast speeds to be maintained (without as many junctions, ensuring that the junctions they did have were grade separated), keeping "local" traffic on existing routes, but freeing up a lot of space on the old A-roads.

e.g. if we built an M1 from London to Yorkshire then that would make the broadly parallel A1 quieter and therefore stop some of the pinch points on the A1 from needing so much money spent on them. Just like the way that taking many of the fast ECML services away from Welwyn will make the viaduct there less of a bottleneck.

There's the other advantage that you can build hundreds of miles of Motorway without disrupting the A-roads that they were constructed to compliment (rather than the years of disruption that we'd have had if we'd tried to build new lanes onto existing roads). Same goes for the railway.

 

[Grinner]

Can you imagine the cost of that? Not just the compulsory purchasing, losing shops, offices, houses and even some roads, and then having to try and work on a live railway to fit in new lines, gantries, power supplies, signals etc.

Take the HS2 cost and then multiply it a couple of times sounds like me vastly underestimating the cost.

I think Paul's tongue was firmly in his cheek with the post you quote...

 

[edwin_m]

Obviously there would be issues with running the tracks through towns, so perhaps those tracks could run on a different route?

How about a new route that avoids towns completely. And rather than slowing things down and adding to the route length (and cost) by doing curves round towns, make it nice and straight. That would be totally different from HS2...

 

[Voglitz]

How about a new route that avoids towns completely. And rather than slowing things down and adding to the route length (and cost) by doing curves round towns, make it nice and straight. That would be totally different from HS2...

So the Tatton kink doesn't add to route length (and cost)?

How much shorter is "nice and straight" HS2 to Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham, compared with the existing lines?

 

[33Hz]

That's why I'd suggest building it on a new route, perhaps going northwest from London via the chilterns, rather than trying to thread it through places like Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham, Stafford, Stoke, etc.

I see what you did there...

 

[Sanatogen]

There's another article in the guardian today http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/hs2-the-zombie-train-that-refuses-to-die which while anti HS2 has some interesting history in it.

Pretty long read.

 

[quantinghome]

There's another article in the guardian today http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/hs2-the-zombie-train-that-refuses-to-die which while anti HS2 has some interesting history in it.

Pretty long read.

A well written piece of spin from Mr. Jenkins, who in no way has form on this sort of thing...

 

[tbtc]

There's another article in the guardian today http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/hs2-the-zombie-train-that-refuses-to-die which while anti HS2 has some interesting history in it.

Pretty long read.

Quite a frustrating read!

Heavily biased, from the start - e.g. the subheader is "It is the most extravagant infrastructure project in British history – but nobody can say why we need it" - nobody? Really, Simon? I mean, I'm pro-HS2, but I can accept that there are those in favour and those against. To pretend that *nobody* is in favour of it, in your headline, really prejudices the thousands of words that follow.

The other major problem is that there seems to be no alternative - other than pointing out that "the Engineering Employers Federation demanded the money be switched to roads" - if you accept that passenger numbers have doubled in recent years then surely we need some kind of a solution? Moan all you want about HS2, but what is the alternative? We *are* spending lots of money on upgrading other lines (electrification etc), so the "why can't we just upgrade existing lines" argument doesn't work so well (unless you have some specific alternatives that we aren't spending money on?).

It's the kind of absorbing long form journalism that I'd like to enjoy, but it's so skewed (trying to find a narrative that this is a political conspiracy?) that it's difficult to read.

A few other points:

"If the other mooted cuts are made, Britain’s first long high-speed route could start at Acton and end at Crewe. This would verge on white elephant status"

The M1 used to run from Brents Cross to Holbeck. Is that a white elephant?

"Euston has poor east-west connectivity, as it is not on the tube’s Circle, District, Metropolitan or Central lines. Nor did anyone think to put it on the new Crossrail link from Paddington to the City"

Euston Square is getting an underground connection to Euston station, by the time HS2 opens, isn't it (thus putting it on the Circle, H&C, Metropolitan)? The walk will probably be comparable to some existing underground interchanges.

As for the idea of diverting Crossrail via Euston... well, I'm sure that someone thought of it, at some blue sky thinking pre-design stage, but decided that it wouldn't be worth the diversion.

No mention of Crossrail2 either?

the money should be spent “on traditional rail enhancements given the short distances between UK cities

...which we are spending a lot of money on. It's not either/or.

Published data appeared to show that Euston was the least-pressured London long-distance station: using only 60% of capacity in the morning peak, while trains at Paddington and Waterloo were over 100%.

Euston's figures may seem distorted, since it has fewer short-distance arrivals into London (the twenty minute Watford service - other than that the "shortest" services are the half hourly Tring ones, which must be thirty miles away).

A lot of the HS2 traffic will come from lines that currently go into Kings Cross and St Pancras too.

Regardless - we are spending lots of money on Paddington (260m IEPs, electrification, remodelling Reading) and Waterloo (Crossrail2, International Platforms). It's not like we are only spending money at Euston.

 

[miami]

The M1 used to run from Brents Cross to Holbeck. Is that a white elephant?

Quite. Old Oak common is a major interchange with access to Crossrail and the NLL and WLL. There's certainly a valid question about if there's any need to send it to Euston.

Euston Square is getting an underground connection to Euston station, by the time HS2 opens, isn't it (thus putting it on the Circle, H&C, Metropolitan)? The walk will probably be comparable to some existing underground interchanges.

I for one will simply change at OOC to get crossrail to central london. When Crossrail2 arrives Euston will be more useful.

As for the idea of diverting Crossrail via Euston... well, I'm sure that someone thought of it, at some blue sky thinking pre-design stage, but decided that it wouldn't be worth the diversion.

Quite, given that OOC has a crossrail interchange.

Euston's figures may seem distorted, since it has fewer short-distance arrivals into London (the twenty minute Watford service - other than that the "shortest" services are the half hourly Tring ones, which must be thirty miles away).

The fact Euston is so empty is probably a good reason to terminate at Euston.

 

[MarkyT]

A well written piece of spin from Mr. Jenkins, who in no way has form on this sort of thing...

The man is obsessed! I distrust his spin on this because he has written extensively against railways generally in the past, so any professed enthusiasm for investing in conventional railways instead of HS2 is very suspect and would no doubt evaporate immediately if his current target of HS2 was to be cancelled. Lets face it, he is a petrolhead and has always supported road investment over railways. He's also very wrong about a number of issues in this article, including his downplaying of the capacity angle, with respect to the existing routes relieved by moving the very fast services to the new line. He also emphasises the unprecedented high design speed thing without acknowledging that maximum speed capability of trains is very likely to increase over a notional 100 year plus lifespan of the infrastructure, even if the full speed is not practically usable immediately. Japan's earliest Shinkansen routes are now proving a constraint on service speed in certain areas and some of the the very latest trains have had to introduce a subtle degree of body tilt to allow speed increases on curves comfortably. The GWR is another example where going for a seemingly very 'over-engineered' (for the time) high speed alignment successfully future proofed the route for well over 150 years.

 

[notlob.divad]

Quite. Old Oak common is a major interchange with access to Crossrail and the NLL and WLL. There's certainly a valid question about if there's any need to send it to Euston.

I for one will simply change at OOC to get crossrail to central london. When Crossrail2 arrives Euston will be more useful.

Quite, given that OOC has a crossrail interchange.

OOC may give nice easy access into whatever is defined as central London, but it isn't particularly great for people who need to get across London to catch an onward train from a different station. (Which happens to be what I do most of the time) Euston has good links to St Pancras, Kings Cross, London Bridge Charing Cross and Waterloo.

OOC on the other hand will give better access to Paddington and Liverpool Street via crossrail but requires extra changes on the underground to get to the major stations that you can get to from Euston direct.

I would say that given the HS1 link has already been axed, removing Euston as well would be a definite step too far, unless you are going to resurrect the link to St. Pancras in its place.