HS2 comments and alternatives

4623 Views 22 Replies 6 Participants Last post by Jon10, Dec 17, 2017

Jon10

Discussion Starter · Oct 27, 2017

Don't know why 'e bothers.

But it's new this week (at least on 'City Metric').

http://www.thornshapedroute.com/

.

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

Vulcan's Finest

· #2 · Oct 27, 2017

The author of this clearly hasn't grasped what Parliament set in motion by passing the phase 1 HS2 legislation eight months ago. Or possibly he's just having a laugh?

The trains will be "Channel Tunnel Shuttle" size, seating 3+3 on two decks. This allows trains of the normal British length of 200 Metres to be used and they can be fitted into the normal footprint of British stations.

Oh dear.... he knows nothing.

Do we really need to have any more 'what if' type threads about HS2? The sensible commentators on this forum have examined this subject to death over the last five years. All it does is encourage the likes of John Burns to over-indulge themselves spamming the forum with inane postings - which wastes our time. I see the moderators have had to do some serious pruning to deal with his latest 'output'.

I say this: HS2 Ltd have clearly come up with the best compromise route that is possible within the available budget. If they hadn't then something better would have emerged within two years of the 2012 report. It survived the lengthy hybrid bill process including intense scrutiny and passed through both Houses. This happened for a good reason.

Reactions: NCT and Rapidtransitman

Paul7755

· #3 · Nov 1, 2017

The "Ringby" thing was also presented as an "advertorial" in Modern Railways a month or two back.

I guess if the author is stupid enough to pay for his own space in the magazine, he'll continue to keep it on the back burner. I was quite amazed MR bothered to run it though.

This despite his idea being pretty much ridiculed ever since he first described it in the newsgroup uk.railway some years ago, probably around 2010.

Seems stuck in a time warp...

Reactions: Vulcan's Finest and Rapidtransitman

G

· #4 · Nov 1, 2017

Vulcan's Finest said:
The author of this clearly hasn't grasped what Parliament set in motion by passing the phase 1 HS2 legislation eight months ago. Or possibly he's just having a laugh?

Oh dear.... he knows nothing.

Do we really need to have any more 'what if' type threads about HS2? The sensible commentators on this forum have examined this subject to death over the last five years. All it does is encourage the likes of John Burns to over-indulge themselves spamming the forum with inane postings - which wastes our time. I see the moderators have had to do some serious pruning to deal with his latest 'output'.

I say this: HS2 Ltd have clearly come up with the best compromise route that is possible within the available budget. If they hadn't then something better would have emerged within two years of the 2012 report. It survived the lengthy hybrid bill process including intense scrutiny and passed through both Houses. This happened for a good reason.

If we were to ever start constructing a new entirely self-contained railway network, Channel Tunnel Gauge would be rather epic. We'd be able to scoff at the double decker trains the rest of Europe has and sneeringly comment "They're rather small, aren't they?". I'm pretty sure Channel Tunnel Gauge is what GCR were going for years ago for their Liverpool Docks-Northern France line. I remember them mentioning SNCF were on board with their proposal and intended to increase clearances on certain lines in North France.

damo_

· #5 · Nov 2, 2017

Salif said:
If we were to ever start constructing a new entirely self-contained railway network, Channel Tunnel Gauge would be rather epic. We'd be able to scoff at the double decker trains the rest of Europe has and sneeringly comment "They're rather small, aren't they?". I'm pretty sure Channel Tunnel Gauge is what GCR were going for years ago for their Liverpool Docks-Northern France line. I remember them mentioning SNCF were on board with their proposal and intended to increase clearances on certain lines in North France.

GCR really was a great idea. You just need to see the congestion and pollution caused by trucks throughout Kent on the M20, M25, A2/M2 and A282 to realise most of the traffic need not get off the trains until it reaches points far to the north. Even a short extension of the Channel Tunnel gauge line to somewhere like St Albans would have been a good start.

From memory they were talking about a route south on the M25? If so I would have thought the line from Ashford through to Paddock Wood would have been an easy upgrade to start.

Jon10

Discussion Starter · #6 · Nov 2, 2017

damo_ said:
From memory they were talking about a route south on the M25? If so I would have thought the line from Ashford through to Paddock Wood would have been an easy upgrade to start.

IIRC the first plan was to go through Kensington Olympia, and the second one alongside the western side of the M25.

Save

G

· #7 · Nov 2, 2017

The plan they settled on was a line past Heathrow and then connecting with either an upgraded line to Ashford or a new one alongside it. I hope it can be resurrected someday, especially as we now seem to have accepted grand projects built from scratch are worth the high prices. Such a line would compliment HS2 quite well I think in that it can provide some onward routes (albeit at a lower speed) between Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool and a link from the Channel Tunnel to the North. I think their plans also included an extension up to Glasgow, which I'm guessing would be a second phase. Such a line would have potential for passenger services with double decker trains. With some well connected stations I think it would have been quite useful. This line was envisaged as going through the centre of Manchester as well.

damo_

· #8 · Nov 2, 2017

Salif said:
The plan they settled on was a line past Heathrow and then connecting with either an upgraded line to Ashford or a new one alongside it. I hope it can be resurrected someday, especially as we now seem to have accepted grand projects built from scratch are worth the high prices. Such a line would compliment HS2 quite well I think in that it can provide some onward routes (albeit at a lower speed) between Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool and a link from the Channel Tunnel to the North. I think their plans also included an extension up to Glasgow, which I'm guessing would be a second phase. Such a line would have potential for passenger services with double decker trains. With some well connected stations I think it would have been quite useful. This line was envisaged as going through the centre of Manchester as well.

As this thread is clearly a felt tip owners play thing I feel free to let loose with the crayons.......

They could build the line to Redhill or something close to the M23/M25 junction and build their first loading point there. Even that is an hours time by HGV to the channel tunnel even if in the longer term this would not be a main depot. Maybe then a next depot at the M40/M25, then Birmingham then Manchester.

Importantly though it would have to be an entirely separate network just for freight. It might be worth aiming for the ability to double stack containers and aim for hooking into the big ports too.

G

· #9 · Nov 2, 2017

I'd have thought adding branches to Southampton and one around the other side of the M25 to Felixstowe and Tilbury docks would make sense.

damo_

· #10 · Nov 3, 2017

Salif said:
I'd have thought adding branches to Southampton and one around the other side of the M25 to Felixstowe and Tilbury docks would make sense.

I am guessing it would have to go under the Thames. It might be possible to squeeze it in next to the Medway valley line but would need to skirt Maidstone as I doubt the loading gauge and level crossings would work. Maybe heading along the line of the A228 and rejoining the Medway valley somewhere east of Snodland. Stroud has some spare land but the current single bore tunnel would need a second bore.

Other than that you would need to tunnel under the downs. Maybe heading across Sheppey and the under the Thames from there.

If you can take out 2-3 hours driving time then the truck companies will love it. Where a lot of the man ship across Europe and drop in Kent for an onward day trip a single driver and unit can run the whole journey with a decent break on train

Rational Plan

· #11 · Nov 20, 2017

What ever route was chosen the first phase would need to go to at least the North Side of the M25. Ideally a network to link the major distribution hubs. So Daventry would serve most of the West Midlands and miss the the congested South.

damo_

· #12 · Nov 21, 2017

Rational Plan said:
What ever route was chosen the first phase would need to go to at least the North Side of the M25. Ideally a network to link the major distribution hubs. So Daventry would serve most of the West Midlands and miss the the congested South.

A terminal somewhere around the M25/A127 junction (ie far enough away from the Dartford crossing to avoid all but the worst delays) might cut it for a phase one.

DBadger

· #13 · Nov 25, 2017

Rational Plan said:
So Daventry would serve most of the West Midlands and miss the the congested South.

There is a rival to Daventry planned just North of Wolverhampton.

http://www.westmidlandsinterchange.co.uk/

I think most West Midlands freight will be served from there, should it go ahead.

Save

G

· #14 · Nov 25, 2017

Will this terminal have the clearances necessary for continental gauge trains in case these size trains can ever reach there from the channel tunnel? As unlikely a scenario as that is.

damo_

· #15 · Nov 27, 2017

Salif said:
Will this terminal have the clearances necessary for continental gauge trains in case these size trains can ever reach there from the channel tunnel? As unlikely a scenario as that is.

I doubt it, although it depends what you mean by continental gauge trains. Matching the loading gauge of the connected line is all that is really required. Changing the loading gauge of a depot, assuming no over bridges, is nothing compared to the total work necessary to get a gauge increase through exisint infrastructure.

Reactions: Rapidtransitman

Vulcan's Finest

· #16 · Nov 27, 2017

DBadger said:
There is a rival to Daventry planned just North of Wolverhampton.

http://www.westmidlandsinterchange.co.uk/

I think most West Midlands freight will be served from there, should it go ahead.

Mmm - not ideal in certain respects, any electrically hauled freight from the south would have to pass through Coventry, Aston etc. Not such an issue from the north, but being barely 70 miles from Liverpool docks it is unlikely to be suitable for rail flows from there.

Is the existing Freightliner terminal at Landor St (close to Birmingham Eastside) under threat?

DBadger

· #17 · Nov 27, 2017

Not sure about the Birmingham depot, but as for this one, trains could use the WCML to Stafford and then curve around South to Four Ashes, but this will require a spur in Stafford and the loss of probably 12 houses.

Unless this isn't too tight (I suspect it is).

damo_

· #18 · Nov 28, 2017

DBadger said:
Not sure about the Birmingham depot, but as for this one, trains could use the WCML to Stafford and then curve around South to Four Ashes, but this will require a spur in Stafford and the loss of probably 12 houses.

Unless this isn't too tight (I suspect it is).

It might be safer to reverse freights? There looks to be land to the top left. Not sure how busy that junction is but a flat crossing would have freights blocking all lines. And Murphy's law clearly says if one is going to break down.......

Save

Jon10

Discussion Starter · #19 · Dec 15, 2017

HSUK yesterday:

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...re-hoping-to-stop-hs2-in-its-tracks-1-8908701

G

· #20 · Dec 15, 2017

They won't let me see the article because I have adblocker, I'm okay with that.

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.