Birmingham Grand Central station & High Speed 2

[Nacho]

A meeting next week .

http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Sate...pper%2FWrapper

[woodhousen]

yay, good to see!!!

[rob_right]

Guardian reporting that HS2 white paper will be published next Thursday - if correct there will be no direct service to Heathrow with a change of trains required to Crossrail at Old Oak Common - if true could really boost BHX's prospects for major expansion.

No Heathrow direct link in high speed rail plans

Instead, airport passengers on the 200mph trains would get a connecting service from Old Oak Common in west London

Dan Milmo, transport correspondent guardian.co.uk,
Thursday 4 March 2010 19.01 GMT



A 140mph Hitachi 395 train at London's St Pancras International for a preview of the UK's new high speed train service. Photograph: Johnny Green/PA

The government is preparing to publish its vision for a high-speed rail network, and is considering a London-to-Birmingham route with no direct link to Heathrow airport.

The launch of a high-speed rail white paper has been pencilled in for next Thursday and will include a detailed London-to-Birmingham proposal as well as the broad outline of a UK network. But rail industry sources said High Speed Two, the government-backed company charged with drawing up the routes, does not see a business case for basing a major rail hub at Heathrow Airport.

Instead, passengers on the 200mph trains would get a connecting service to Britain's largest airport from an intermediate stop on the high-speed line at Old Oak Common in west London. From there passengers will join a Heathrow-bound service on the Crossrail route, a £16bn railway line linking the airport to Canary Wharf via central London that has not yet been built.

London's Euston station has been earmarked as the main terminal, according to rail industry sources. But the transport secretary, Lord Adonis, believes Old Oak Common will be just as popular with passengers because of the Crossrail connection that will ferry passengers to Heathrow in about five minutes, or Liverpool Street in the centre of the capital's financial district in around 30 minutes.

Heathrow's owner, BAA, has indicated that it would prefer a direct link to the airport – an argument that also has the backing of the Conservative party. A BAA spokesman said a high-speed network would boost the case for a third runway because passengers outside London would find the airport more accessible. "We expect high-speed rail to strengthen the case for additional capacity at the UK's only hub airport, and would favour a station at the airport," said a BAA spokesman.

A site near Birmingham international airport is also being considered for a parkway station on a route that will link both cities by a 50-minute train ride, with a further terminal at a new site in the heart of Birmingham. The main body of the line would then carry on from Birmingham international through the Trent valley, and join the west coast mainline north of the city to travel to Manchester and Scotland at conventional speeds until the next phase of the network is built.

The route from London to Birmingham has been planned minutely, with HS2 placing the tracks within five metres in urban areas and 25 metres in the countryside, with the view to opening in 2025 after an eight-year multimillion-pound building programme. However, the route north of Birmingham will be outlined in less specific terms by Lord Adonis.

The main planning concern for the first phase is how to push trains through the Chiltern hills in Buckinghamshire without causing excessive damage to an area of outstanding natural beauty. The government will put the routes out to a public consultation in the autumn.

The Tories, who have pledged to build a high speed network instead of a third runway at Heathrow, have reserved the right to alter the HS2 route if they win the general election. Theresa Villiers, the shadow transport secretary, is believed to be interested in a proposal by Arup, the engineering firm, to place a high-speed rail hub at the airport. Critics argue that the potential site for the hub is not much closer to the airport than Old Oak Common is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ma...igh-speed-rail

[woodhousen]

really? i thought BHXs argument for expnsion was to become Heathrows Third runway. i dont know how this would be possible if there is no direct access between BHX and Heathrow

[Biosonic]

But people have to travel to Heathrow, so they will just travel to BIA instead (from Central London, Midlands or wherever)

[Engels]

Originally Posted by woodhousen

really? i thought BHXs argument for expnsion was to become Heathrows Third runway. i dont know how this would be possible if there is no direct access between BHX and Heathrow

Becoming 'Heathrow thirdy runway' is an expression used to describe the lack of need for a third runway at Heathrow if BHX takes on a larger role - not some idea that the airports would be linked for transit passengers.

On the whole there are only tiny benefits that transit passengers bring to a local economy and these are significantly less when compared to the socail / environmental costs of a thrid runway at Heathrow. Better to just discourage interlyning UK passenger flights to Heathrow from - by the provision of fast rail services and integrated air/rail ticketing.

With HSR BHX will take on an enhanced role for users from the north and midalnds and begin to attract a larger percentage of traffic from the south midlands and central london - but it wont be a part of Heathrow - the competition / monopolies commisssion (whatever it's called) are already making BAA sell off airports (including Gatwick and Ediburugh) so their would never be permission for that

[rob_right]

Yes I agree Engels and from a purely practical point of view why would someone from London use HSR to BHX if half an hour earlier they have passed by the front door of Heathrow.

Not including Heathrow will ensure it remains reatively isolated and increases the attractiveness of BHX to passengers that will have a direct almost door to door service from both London and the North.

[Engels]

I hadn't thought about it that way - better for BHX it doesn;t go to Heathrow - i agree. Frankly the ease/practicalities of transfering on to Crossrail would make the above a sensible solution rather than having a diversion to Heathrow which adds to everybody else's journey time - or alterntively an expensive spur and a once an hour north - Heathrow train.

[woodhousen]

i dont understand

[Typhoon2000]

Originally Posted by Engels

I hadn't thought about it that way - better for BHX it doesn;t go to Heathrow - i agree. Frankly the ease/practicalities of transfering on to Crossrail would make the above a sensible solution rather than having a diversion to Heathrow which adds to everybody else's journey time - or alterntively an expensive spur and a once an hour north - Heathrow train.

Either way you look at it the HSR route is most likely to go ahead because of the potential change of government so this decision is now essentially done and dusted. HSR(-ish) to BHX and onto Brum.

[rob_right]

Originally Posted by woodhousen

i dont understand

Put simply - HS2 routed via Heathrow, people from London will choose Heathrow as the easiest option and there will be limited scope for BHX to expand.

HS2 routed without a direct link to Heathrow, it becomes almost as convenient for Londoners to use BHX, massive scope for future expansion of BHX!

Originally Posted by Typhoon2000

Either way you look at it the HSR route is most likely to go ahead because of the potential change of government so this decision is now essentially done and dusted. HSR(-ish) to BHX and onto Brum.

I'm quite undecided who I will vote for at the next election, but to be honest I have my concerns about the conservatives actually pushing ahead with HS2 once elected - the conservatives have talked about major public spending cut backs and Theresa Villiers has backed away from supporting the white paper to be published next week - probably as a result of lobbying from the NIMBY's in core conservative constituencies in the Chilterns. It seems all to familiar to Mike Whitby and his broken promises of a Birmingham Underground when the Tories were looking for council seats in Brum.

Personally I have more faith in Labour and Lord Adonis actually delivering this and as I think it will be fundamental to the future success of Birmingham's economy, it may tip the balance for me to vote Labour.

[tg1980]

Originally Posted by rob_right

HS2 routed without a direct link to Heathrow, it becomes almost as convenient for Londoners to use BHX, massive scope for future expansion of BHX!

I'm not sure BHX will take "massive" amounts of flights away from Heathrow. Heathrow is far more convenient for Londoners on more than one mode of transport.
Firstly, Crossrail will make it massively more convenient for the City, Canary Wharf etc.
Secondly a significant number of customers will be more concerned by price than time, especially non-business.
Thirdly, if you live in London and your flight arrives at an inconvenient time, the public transport may not be running that late/early - or there might be engineering works/unplanned elays etc. If you get to Heathrow you can get a cab or maybe a friend/relative to pick you up. Say you're 9pm flight is delayed and you don't land until 2am, if you live in London/SE it would be hotel only!
Also need to factor in the pricing system for the HS tickets, say if its similar to the current system. For example if you're flight is delayed over night so your cheap ticket for a particular seat on a particular train that you booked in advance is wasted and you get stung for buying a new ticket on the day.

These issues above may be more for leisure travellers than business travellers, but I think business in London would take some persuading to head to BHX.

[Typhoon2000]

Originally Posted by rob_right

Personally I have more faith in Labour and Lord Adonis actually delivering this and as I think it will be fundamental to the future success of Birmingham's economy, it may tip the balance for me to vote Labour.

In actual fact, you're right. Lord Adonis is only transport minister I can think of who has had the balls to actually stand up and say what's actually needed and try and push the whole thing through - probably even to Gordon Brown's chagrin. He'd instantly have a job in my dictatorship !

If the white paper isn't put through by the Conservatives, pressure, either economically, or even legally, may only delay it by 5 years not completely put it off. Although I'm unsure of the legality of emissions targets and the likes. What could be interesting is if we see a doubling up of the Chiltern line and a major upgrade on top of what's being done with Evergreen 3 as an alternative.

But I guarantee you, the Camp Hill line, if the Tories do get in, will be held back for another 10 years before another initial discussion. It'll be too low a priority for them and a technical nightmare to deal with in terms of getting freight and passenger services to share the track.

I may be proved wrong but HS2 in it's current sensible form is definiitely at risk.

[Engels]

Quite simply it is unlikely that a vote in the general election will have no real effect on the likelyhood of the Camp Hill cords going ahead. Any funding bid would be handled locally and funding decision for this sort of thing doesn't get much political attention until ministers want to turn up and claim credit - the Dft will wimpy say yes or no on the basis of a strong business case and whether they can fund it or not

I've said it before but I'll say it again - whoever is in government will be forced to slash public spendng or raise taxes - most likely both. The transport budget wonbe immune from this. You are better voting for the party you believe can do this effectively by cutting waste, dubious ministerial pet projects and by enforcing public sector effciemcy / productivity. On the basis of both history and the evidence of the current incumbant government I reckon what some people see as a de-nasty-ified Conservative party will do this a lot better

I figure that the reason the Tories don't want to agree the route before the election is because it runs largely through normally safe conservative seats in the chilterns which they would rather not divert resources to fight a campaign in. They might get forced into making electoral promises about this route etc which would be purely political short termism. Better wait until after the election before breakig the bad news to the people who's houses this will go through

[woodhousen]

Originally Posted by rob_right

Put simply - HS2 routed via Heathrow, people from London will choose Heathrow as the easiest option and there will be limited scope for BHX to expand.

I understand it to be simply the opposite.

is HS2 doesnt connect BHX directly with LHR, then in puts BHX in direct competition with LHR, a battle which BHX could never win. the only way BHX could take traffic away from london and LHR is to act as a london airport and/or be part of a london airport (ie being LHR 3rd runway).

BHX can never compete with LHR and will never offer any threat to LHR. If we are to benefit from the overcrowding of LHR, BHX has to be part of LHR. there is no way BHX could compete as its own airport imho!

[feltip]

High-speed rail link plans to be announced
Details of a 250mph rail network capable of taking passengers from London to Birmingham in three-quarters of an hour are expected to be unveiled this week.

By Stephen Adams
Published: 2:11PM GMT 07 Mar 2010

They will include the exact proposed route between London and Birmingham and options on how to extend it into the north of England and Scotland.

The network could enable trains to reach Birmingham from London in 47 minutes and Glasgow in two hours and 40 minutes.

Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, wants the network to carry trains faster than any currently being used in Europe.

Sir David Rowlands, chairman of High Speed Two, the Government-owned company set up to provide the plans, will announce the details.

The favoured option north of Birmingham is thought to include one branch running north to Manchester and north west England, and the other going through the East Midlands to Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle. One of the lines would extend to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Although the project has all-party backing, the Conservatives have refused to give the Government a blank cheque.

The Chiltern Hills contain many Tory seats.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...announced.html

[feltip]

and from the Post

Birmingham to London high speed rail link needs all-party unity, says Lord Adonis
Mar 5 2010 By Jonathan Walker and Paul Dale

Support from all of the main political parties for high speed rail is essential to turn the vision of 200mph trains between Birmingham and London into a reality, report Paul Dale and Jonathan Walker


A planned high speed rail line to Birmingham may never be built unless politicians can stop bickering over the details, Transport Secretary Lord Adonis has warned.

He urged his Conservative opposite number, Theresa Villiers, to work with him and develop a joint policy on high speed services.

Unless the parties stood united on the proposed scheme, which could cost £30 billion, it may never be built, he said.

Lord Adonis was speaking to the Birmingham Post as he prepared for the publication of a detailed report into the exact route to be used by a new high speed service between London and Birmingham.

Regular services cutting journey times between Birmingham and the capital to 45 minutes could boost the West Midlands economy by £2.2 billion a year, according to one study.

But Lord Adonis has been rebuffed in his attempts to draw up a joint policy with the Tories, who also support high speed rail and have their own plans for a line.

He offered Ms Villiers an advanced copy of the report, before its official publication later this month, but she has refused to accept it.

Lord Adonis said: “It’s important because a high speed rail network is going to be a 20, 30 or 40-year project, to develop a credible network.

“It will inevitably span a number of governments. It has very long term planning and funding challenges, and therefore the broader the consensus behind developing a high speed rail project, the more likely it is to succeed.

“Simply taking the first instalment of high speed rail forward, it will take a number of years of planning before we can start construction at all.”

He said nothing would be built until at least the General Election after next, in four or five years time.

“It will take the best part of a Parliament at least simply to go through the planning process.

...
City council chief executive Stephen Hughes hopes to be able to publish proposals for a Birmingham high speed terminus by the end of June.

The most likely option is to build a station adjoining Moor Street, with improved pedestrian links to New Street Station and the Metro tram system.

The idea is described as “a relatively cost-effective option” by the council, although estimates are not given.

Another idea is to build the high speed terminal at Eastside, next to a new station serving the West Coast Main Line.

A through high speed station in the city centre, doing away with the need for a spur, is described as technically feasible. One option is for an underground station with four tracks, although the cost is likely to rule this out.
...

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/w...5233-25972676/

[rob_right]

Originally Posted by woodhousen

I understand it to be simply the opposite.

is HS2 doesnt connect BHX directly with LHR, then in puts BHX in direct competition with LHR, a battle which BHX could never win. the only way BHX could take traffic away from london and LHR is to act as a london airport and/or be part of a london airport (ie being LHR 3rd runway).

I'm now a little confused myself as to what exactly you expected - BHX becoming LHR's 3rd runway was never anything more than a figure of speech. Even if they were connected, there is no way transit passengers could transfer flights between the two airports - think of all the baggage handling, security and immigration issues - not to mention the massive inconvenience that would make passengers choose Schipol, Frankfurt or CDG every time.

Originally Posted by woodhousen

BHX can never compete with LHR and will never offer any threat to LHR. If we are to benefit from the overcrowding of LHR, BHX has to be part of LHR. there is no way BHX could compete as its own airport imho!

Originally Posted by tg1980

I'm not sure BHX will take "massive" amounts of flights away from Heathrow. Heathrow is far more convenient for Londoners on more than one mode of transport.

BHX is theoretically in a much better location to serve as the UK's main airport than LHR and should look to capitalise on the situation if it becomes the hub of national HSR network.

Yes with HSR it would become a direct threat to LHR not to mention Gatwick Stansted and Luton, as it would effectively become another London airport - research has shown that 50% of Londoners would consider using the airport as it would be pretty much comparable with catching the Heathrow, Gatwick or Stanstead express trains. Obviously HSR ticket prices will need to be factored in but if the flight price, time and destinations are right it becomes a viable choice.

In terms of BHX expanding, even if it were only to capture 5-10% of the London market this could be hugely significant as greater passenger numbers allow more destinations to be served and higher frequency flights particularly on long haul routes. More significantly a better choice would remove the need for people in the Midlands and North to use Heathrow, so would again erode passenger numbers at LHR. There is also significant market share to be gained in the regions from offering direct flights to those passengers currently connecting via Schipol, Frankfurt or CDG. There is a massive opportunity for BHX in the coming years, lets just hope it has the ambition to capitalise on this.

Originally Posted by Engels

The transport budget wonbe immune from this. You are better voting for the party you believe can do this effectively by cutting waste, dubious ministerial pet projects and by enforcing public sector effciemcy / productivity. On the basis of both history and the evidence of the current incumbant government I reckon what some people see as a de-nasty-ified Conservative party will do this a lot better

That is in essence what wories me about the Conservatives - that they see HS2 as a pet project that can be easily axed to reduce the budget defecit, rather than an essential long term investment in the infrastructure of the UK.

[Engels]

Originally Posted by rob_right

That is in essence what wories me about the Conservatives - that they see HS2 as a pet project that can be easily axed to reduce the budget defecit, rather than an essential long term investment in the infrastructure of the UK.

The point has been made that it will take the whole of the next parliament before it even gets through the planning stage and that the real cost of funding it is so far off that it is immune from imminent cuts. It is probably in the interest of the next elected government to trumpet this project as loudly as possible while they cut other more immediate expenditures in the transport budget.

[OperateOnMe]

Originally Posted by Engels

The point has been made that it will take the whole of the next parliament before it even gets through the planning stage and that the real cost of funding it is so far off that it is immune from imminent cuts. It is probably in the interest of the next elected government to trumpet this project as loudly as possible while they cut other more immediate expenditures in the transport budget.

Are you a Politician during the day?