High Speed 2

[Vulcan's Finest]

Originally Posted by mr_jrt

Your information is somewhat out of date my friend...try page 7. The final approaches are indeed a trundle at 25mph to Finchley Road then up to 50mph to south of Neasden...but it's then 100mph all the way to north of High Wycombe (where it drops to 55mph), before being 100mph to Banbury. Given all services would be stopping at Marylebone and the acceleration of diesel mainline stock then this is no big issue, and High Wycombe is a good place for interchange, so stops there would negate the restrictions around there. The station would probably need a major rebuild as a pair of islands flanking what would be the fast and slow lines to make the most of it of course, but quite doable.

Not so out of date as you think, having already timed a couple of 'Mainline' 67 hauled trains this year. What is out of date is the Chiltern PR blurb. The train still staggers out to Dollis Hill, then you get a sudden spurt of acceleration as Neasden Jcn is now cleared for 75mph. Acceleration continues through the suburbs up to 100mph on the new curve at Northolt, which certainly can be felt at speed. I admit it was fun clocking up 104mph with 67018 near Beaconsfield. The restriction at High Wycombe and for about a half mile North still seems to be just 50mph, easing to 75/80mph on the very twisty section past West Wycombe - you would need tilt to do 100mph at this point despite what the Chiltern factsheet says! Once through Princes Risborough, restricted by curves to 80/85mph the superb GWR alignment allows mile after mile reeled off at 100mph until the Anyho Flyover. This was showing an '85' restriction board at the North end of the viaduct with the l/h curve heavily canted - however both times the train slowed to under 30mph despite green signals.

The 53 minute timing to Banbury was easily achieved both times, although lets not get too carried away - Banbury is only 68.8 miles from Marylebone. In the late 1970s 100mph Deltics reached Peterborough, some 76.3 miles from Kings Cross in similar times hauling heavier trains. The Chiltern line can justifiably be called a mainline again, but it is still a long, long way behind the GWML, WCML and ECML. It's now quicker than the GEML though!

Interesting you chose the Trent Valley as an example as I was of the understanding that that was one of the more successful parts of the upgrade, and was very successful. You seem to neglect that the more passengers you funnel onto longer trains, the more stops you have to make to serve them, each of which increases the journey times for longer distance passengers. Restoring all the loops would be a good start, but linking them strategically up would mean you would be able to provide the holy grail of commuter rail - a turn up and go stopping service of 4tph, whilst also having the expresses sail through unhindered.

The Trent Valley was achieved as planned, albeit at greater expense and after several years of weekend closures - remember project Rio and the huge cost of Rugby's remodelling, some £428 million? What we have now is (mainly) four tracks following the twisty Victorian alignment rather than a mixture of two, three and four tracks. I suspect a 125+mph new alignment from Rugby to Colwich could have been built in less time for similar money and with much less disruption.

I've given solutions to Marylebone's issues before, namely diverting the metro services from Oxford onto Crossrail via the GWR route, and branching the Jubilee Line at Neasden to maintain stopping service to a quad-tracked Northolt-Neasden (with the ease of diverting off somewhere useful if needed as it's a tube line), leaving the via Amersham services to use platforms 4-6 and the mainline to have exclusive use of 1-3. Link Neasden Junction via a short tunnel to my proposed Crossrail 3 at South Hampstead and you can move the via Amersham services out of Marylebone too, perhaps reverting to 4 long platforms.

Alternatively, you have the expensive option of redeveloping the building sitting on the footprint of Marylebone's platforms 5-10, and replacing it in the air rights.

Sorry, this was probably posted before I lurked on this board. I like the idea of a Jubilee line branch from Northolt Park to Neasden, that would give the suburbs a decent & frequent service which the mainline clearly cannot and for the most part the existing railway land is sufficient for it. Not so sure about hoping for Crossrail 3, the first one seems to be taking half a lifetime to me! Sadly using the GWR route via Perivale seems to be impossible as HS2 will occupy the trackbed - my personal preference is to cut the Central line back to North Acton / Ealing Broadway and use the CL tracks for Network Rail, including Crossrail - perhaps as far as High Wycombe?

Marylebone is a pain - the Rossmore road bridge in particular affects platform length and siting. If that were replaced by a modern concrete deck without many intermediate supports there is scope to then have four tracks and two 240m long island platforms in the approx. 75ft width of the trainshed occupied by the current platforms 1-3. The current platform 4 could be extended to 150m and there is railway land available to extend the current platforms 5 & 6 to 240 metres too. So without requiring expensive demolishing of houses or the bank building, Marylebone could have six full length platforms and one for shorter Aylesbury line trains.

[mr_jrt]

Originally Posted by Vulcan's Finest

Sorry, this was probably posted before I lurked on this board. I like the idea of a Jubilee line branch from Northolt Park to Neasden, that would give the suburbs a decent & frequent service which the mainline clearly cannot and for the most part the existing railway land is sufficient for it. Not so sure about hoping for Crossrail 3, the first one seems to be taking half a lifetime to me! Sadly using the GWR route via Perivale seems to be impossible as HS2 will occupy the trackbed - my personal preference is to cut the Central line back to North Acton / Ealing Broadway and use the CL tracks for Network Rail, including Crossrail - perhaps as far as High Wycombe?

That wasn't so much a "you should've seen this before" as a "not wanting to repeat myself again to the poor regulars" My basic reasoning is that moving the Wembley Park terminators to serve this new branch is a better use of the capacity, and it still serves the stadium. Moving the Met stops from Wembley Park to Neasden also gives a better run from HotH, and enables interchange with the Dudding Hill route, whatever ends up becoming of it. Bringing this back to HS2, I was very pleased they extended the tunnel back to Northolt, but sad they didn't go the whole hog for the final 3 or so miles between OOC and Northolt that would enable Crossrail to use the alignment. All very short-sighted.

Originally Posted by Vulcan's Finest

Marylebone is a pain - the Rossmore road bridge in particular affects platform length and siting. If that were replaced by a modern concrete deck without many intermediate supports there is scope to then have four tracks and two 240m long island platforms in the approx. 75ft width of the trainshed occupied by the current platforms 1-3. The current platform 4 could be extended to 150m and there is railway land available to extend the current platforms 5 & 6 to 240 metres too. So without requiring expensive demolishing of houses or the bank building, Marylebone could have six full length platforms and one for shorter Aylesbury line trains.

Interesting ideas, thanks.

[Vulcan's Finest]

Originally Posted by mr_jrt

The only problems I have with HS2 are:

1. The link to HS1 should be done properly - a dual track tunnel to Stratford.
2. The short overground bit between OOC and Northolt - prevents future NR use of the old GWR route.
3. Birmingham HS station - Should have WCML platforms with New St. losing it's intercity stops to the new station.

...that's it.

Pretty much sums up the shortcomings I've identified with the published HS2 route.

1) It should be done properly, but it shouldn't need to go as far as Stratford to link with HS1.
2) As I suggested a few days ago, run mainline trains on the current Central Line tube tracks from Park Royal to West Ruislip, electrified at 25KV. This gives Crossrail a second Western branch and there is no need for HS2 to be in tunnel between Park Royal and Northolt.
3) My personal preference is for Curzon St to have one 250m island platform (at least) on the Northern / Stetchford pair of tracks - the existing viaduct would need to be widened by some 5-7 metres. Ideally all trains including Cross-City would stop there, but realistically there might not be space for a second island platform without moving the HS2 station. A single track lead between the historic tracks and HS2 would allow 200/260m long HS2 units to serve Curzon St, New St and Wolverhampton - maintaining the hourly London service.

As for Marylebone and the possibility of more platforms, it occurs to me that the distance between the canal bridge and the current end of platform 5/6 is about 1,000ft - sufficient distance to drop a pair of tracks 20ft deep to serve four lower level platforms. Not cheap or easy, but it could be done if London requires more terminating platforms. The only tube line under the station is the Bakerloo and that is situated South of the concourse.

[Irish Blood English Heart]

Reports tonight are that the government is going to cancel High Speed 2 as part of a change of direction after the local election defeats.

[Tyr]

That would be a disaster. Freaking tories. Always come in and mess up the country yet people keep forgetting and letting them back in.

[sotonsi]

Cancelling HS2 is silly - OK the right have seen how these cuts are a charade in the overall picture and aren't happy, and a high budget long term scheme like HS2 would be first to go. However no one was citing HS2 as a reason to vote Labour instead. Actually I don't think I heard anyone give an anecdote that wasn't a purely local issue - it was simply that there were more Tory voters who abstained or moved right to UKIP, whereas Labour voters bothered to show up, and returned from the BNP fold (notice how the racist equivalent of old Labour got destroyed at this election, after having big gains in 2008).

And given that the message has been "we don't like what you are doing", cancelling HS2 would democracy messing up the country - not the Tories, who if supported more would have got it built (but so would Labour on different, worse, route)...

[Aaronj09]

Where are these mystical reports? I cannot find anything.

[LondonerMiles]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...or-Tories.html
It's here, they're not including to hybrid bill in a new round of legislation. However it's not cancelled just "delayed for a year or more". It doesn't look good.
Boris is also still standing against HS2, and has been written to by the Scottish transport minister to push for a line into Scotland.

[Angle42]

Originally Posted by LondonerMiles

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...or-Tories.html
It's here, they're not including to hybrid bill in a new round of legislation. However it's not cancelled just "delayed for a year or more". It doesn't look good.
Boris is also still standing against HS2, and has been written to by the Scottish transport minister to push for a line into Scotland.

This is not ncessarilly bad news. There are still a lot of contentious issues that might be resolved with some more detailled study and discussion. If the Bill was introduced before a greater degree af agreement has been been achieved it would surely fail.

The route is very much as set out under the previous government. Looking at how the new and needed capacity links with exising capacity might result in changes that people find more acceptable.

[LondonerMiles]

Originally Posted by Angle42

This is not ncessarilly bad news. There are still a lot of contentious issues that might be resolved with some more detailled study and discussion. If the Bill was introduced before a greater degree af agreement has been been achieved it would surely fail.

The route is very much as set out under the previous government. Looking at how the new and needed capacity links with exising capacity might result in changes that people find more acceptable.

Sorry, I don't quite understand. New links?

[Christopher125]

Whats the big deal? There was little if any prospect of the Hybrid Bill being that soon, trying to rush it through was never an option and rightly so.

Chris

[Angle42]

Originally Posted by LondonerMiles

Sorry, I don't quite understand. New links?

One of the problems with HS2 is that it is planned as a completely independant network. It will benefit people in Birmingham (later in Manchester and Leeds) but as far as everyone else is concerned it would not benefit them.

If you look at Japan, the distance from Tokyo to Nagoya is perhaps twice the distance from London to Birmigham. In the course of the route between the two cities the Shinkansen has around a dozen stops; at these there are links into the exisitng rail network. The trains have different stopping patterns (with some not stopping) but overall the system benefits far more people that HS2 will (as planned).

[Christopher125]

Originally Posted by Angle42

One of the problems with HS2 is that it is planned as a completely independant network. It will benefit people in Birmingham (later in Manchester and Leeds) but as far as everyone else is concerned it would not benefit them.

It never has been and never will be an independent network - it has always been the plan to run trains beyond the HS2 network to serve other destinations.

The initial Euston-Birmingham-Lichfield and later the lines to Manchester and Leeds dont use the existing network for two simple reasons - one of the core objectives of HS2 is to create more capacity, especially into termini which cant be done if existing services and HS2 use the same congested lines. Secondly, to make the most of the much larger loading gauge, 400m trains and potential for double-deck rolling stock too, they need their own line.

...however further north, where the capacity crisis is less acute, there's more potential for capacity improvements and HS2 services can replace existing long distance services like-for-like, they can use the existing network using 'classic compatible' trains.

Chris

[Angle42]

Originally Posted by Christopher125

It never has been and never will be an independent network - it has always been the plan to run trains beyond the HS2 network to serve other destinations.

Chris

The key word in your comment is beyond!

As HS2 stands, except for stations on the outskirts of the London and Birmingham, it does not connect with existing networks between two cities, - it is independant of them. Its needs to have stops that link into the rail and motorway networks so that it benefits more people.

[Tyr]

The key word in your comment is beyond!

As HS2 stands, except for stations on the outskirts of the London and Birmingham, it does not connect with existing networks between two cities, - it is independant of them. Its needs to have stops that link into the rail and motorway networks so that it benefits more people.

Even with just the link to Birmingham that is a significant chunk of the journey to London for the north west covered.
And of course its never going to be just to Birmingham. That is only the first step.

Originally Posted by LondonerMiles

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...or-Tories.html
It's here, they're not including to hybrid bill in a new round of legislation. However it's not cancelled just "delayed for a year or more". It doesn't look good.
Boris is also still standing against HS2, and has been written to by the Scottish transport minister to push for a line into Scotland.

Wait, what? Boris is against it? I got the impression seeing the article about wanting the Scotland link he is pushing for it.

[Angle42]

Originally Posted by Tyr

Even with just the link to Birmingham that is a significant chunk of the journey to London for the north west covered.
And of course its never going to be just to Birmingham. That is only the first step.

Again, you are missing my point. Between London and Birmingham there should be at least 3 or 4 stops to loink into existing infrastructure.

[Rational Plan]

Originally Posted by LondonerMiles

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...or-Tories.html
It's here, they're not including to hybrid bill in a new round of legislation. However it's not cancelled just "delayed for a year or more". It doesn't look good.
Boris is also still standing against HS2, and has been written to by the Scottish transport minister to push for a line into Scotland.

Last I heard Boris said he was against if it did not include Crossrail 2. Which is a valid bit of positioning to take when trying to pry money out of the Treasury.

[NCT]

Originally Posted by Angle42

Again, you are missing my point. Between London and Birmingham there should be at least 3 or 4 stops to loink into existing infrastructure.

The free-up WCML is more suitable for serving intermediate locations than HS2.

[Christopher125]

Originally Posted by Angle42

The key word in your comment is beyond!

As HS2 stands, except for stations on the outskirts of the London and Birmingham, it does not connect with existing networks between two cities, - it is independant of them. Its needs to have stops that link into the rail and motorway networks so that it benefits more people.

As has been explained many times, building HS2 to replicate the WCML with trains using sections of both also wastes capacity on both, for minimal benefit. There is nothing new or unusual about long distance intercity trains stopping at few (if any) intermediate stops, and keeping trains changing between fast and slow lines to a minimum, despite running alongside them through substantial towns - something HS2 is deliberately avoiding.

Chris

[Tyr]

Originally Posted by Angle42

Again, you are missing my point. Between London and Birmingham there should be at least 3 or 4 stops to loink into existing infrastructure.

That would be madness and totally mitigate the high speed advantages of HS2. The west coast mainline being freed of inter-city routes takes care of these local routes.
I could maybe see an argument for one mid-way station for Milton Keynes perhaps but not 3 or 4. And even that one is being generous to MK.