HS2 given go-ahead to start construction in 2016

Cool Mo D

That Der Spiegel article is dead wrong about the new station in Birmingham. The HS2 station will overlap with the existing Birmingham Moor Street Station, and is 5 minutes walk from New Street Station in the middle of the city.

There is a handy map here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Proposed_Curzon_Street_Station_layout.png

There's also "Birmingham Interchange" station proposed on the outskirts of Birmingham for connecting to the airport and convention centre via the existing people mover. It looks like they think this will be the terminus.

CIE

Wikipedia's not a source. A lot can happen in five years.

and it's a 30 minute saving

No. Average speed is supposed to be 145 mph, not 170 mph. That's indicative of a 186-mph top speed, in fact.

Cool Mo D

CIE wrote: »

Wikipedia's not a source. A lot can happen in five years.No. Average speed is supposed to be 145 mph, not 170 mph. That's indicative of a 186-mph top speed, in fact.

Well seeing as they cite the British Department of Transport's official paper on the route, available here, I think they can be taken as authoritative on that.

Also, HS2 is designed to allow trains to run at up to 400 km/h (or 250 mph), even though trains powerful enough to do that are not ready yet, and probably wouldn't be used for fuel efficiency reasons. But the infrastructure will support it.

CIE

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Well seeing as they cite the British Department of Transport's official paper on the route, available here, I think they can be taken as authoritative on that

Fifteen years is a long time and lots of things can happen in that amount of time; no government document is ever set in stone. This project is not even funded as yet. The second leg of HS2 is supposed to open twenty-six years from now (I'll be in my late 60s, if I live that long)...how can anyone predict out that far, never mind the sixteen-year time frame for building the first leg?

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Also, HS2 is designed to allow trains to run at up to 400 km/h (or 250 mph), even though trains powerful enough to do that are not ready yet, and probably wouldn't be used for fuel efficiency reasons. But the infrastructure will support it

The infrastructure in France is able to support trains going that fast already (and faster; consider the 574-mph test trains), and it cost a fraction of the amount per unit length. The trains are already that powerful.

The discretion in choosing a route in Britain was an utter failure; the simpler, most likely cheaper, and more environmentally-conscious (if you like) option of building next to the motorways appears to have been discounted in spite of the advantages; page 110 of the DoT's HS2 report says the following:

Following close to existing motorway alignments could provide an opportunity to reduce some of the potential impacts of a new high speed rail line. However, because high speed rail requires shallower curves than either conventional rail or motorways, it would not be possible for a new line to follow many existing routes without requiring either frequent speed restrictions which would undermine the core benefit of high speed rail or, alternatively, blighting significant ‘islands’ of countryside by isolating them between the curves of the road alignment and the necessarily straighter railway. This would be true of both the M1 and M40.

That's ridiculous, with all due respect to the British government. How much is the current HS2 set to "blight" the Chilterns by comparison? I'd say all the planned tunneling, deep cuts and viaducts "blight" the land a lot more than the creation of small "islands" in between a high-speed railway and a motorway's curved section. Even the most expensive NBS in Germany (ICE train corridor), the Frankfurt-Cologne NBS, which is built alongside the A3 autobahn, had a maximum cost of €6 billion (about €55 million per mile; 2002 value), a bit over a quarter of the cost per mile of the planned first leg of HS2 and a comparatively equal length to London-Birmingham, and including ballastless track.

Watch for more revisions and for the inability to stop costs rising higher than the already-colossal current amount of £17 billion (€20.5 billion ATTOW) just for 100 or so miles of high speed corridor, which in reality should be enough money by itself to build two complete HS2s all the way to Scotland, plus a tunnel to Belfast; in France, that's enough money to build 1,000 miles of LGVs.

(And don't forget, we also live in an era where shiny new high-speed railways get closed due to under-use. Remember Spain's AVE connecting Toledo with Cuenca and Albacete? Closed, because of trains carrying an average of nine passengers per train.)

corktina

your slant on things is decided odd. You'd support the WRC no doubt with 14 passengers per train and yet you are all doom and gloom about HS2 which is extra capacity on a maxed-out line between the UKs two biggest cities.

Is there ANY chance AT ALL that it will only have 9 passengers per train and be shut down?

HS2 is a huge challenge to get built but essential infrastructure for the UK. It is a completely different kettle of fish to building a TGV across largely empty tracts of France.

CIE

corktina wrote: »

your slant on things is decided odd. You'd support the WRC no doubt with 14 passengers per train and yet you are all doom and gloom about HS2 which is extra capacity on a maxed-out line between the UKs two biggest cities.

Is there ANY chance AT ALL that it will only have 9 passengers per train and be shut down?

HS2 is a huge challenge to get built but essential infrastructure for the UK. It is a completely different kettle of fish to building a TGV across largely empty tracts of France.

You're missing a few points.

Take the aforementioned Frankfurt-Cologne NBS. The fares on that are far higher than on the traditional railways, and that to help pay for the (at that time) highest costs for a HSR line. Serving such a clientele should nominally be the domain of a private company rather than a state-run one, but such is the status quo in Germany as in Ireland. HS2 fares will indeed be significantly higher than that merely due to the inflated costs; so while that can attract business people off the planes, it will not succeed in attracting lower-class passengers off the traditional lines, as with the Frankfurt-Cologne example; meanwhile the building costs will have to be borne by the lower-class folk perhaps to a greater degree than the business/upper class for many years to come. So you'll end up with a "maxed-out line" that will remain maxed out because that's what the majority will be able to afford to use.

The "extra capacity" pro-HS2 argument is a canard, because train service will indeed be reduced on the traditional alignments; now while this may seem to diminish the case for a high-speed railway, in reality it doesn't due to the matter of reducing maintenance costs on the traditional alignments...but as noted above, the currently "maxed-out" line will not diminish in demand, so you'll have fewer trains serving the same number of passengers. I do not oppose HS2 in principle; I oppose the absurd costs and choice of alignment, both of which can be rectified, and which then will permit a broader passenger base for the high speed rail that can truly relieve the "maxed-out" traditional railway lines (which themselves host triple-digit average speeds, take note).

Dragging the WRC into the argument is a canard. We've been over that ad nauseam, from the fact that a parallel motorway is planned (and partly built already) for a corridor that supposedly can't support the rail traffic to the minuscule costs the railway presents to the public to the fact that the government through manipulation and control will insure that said railway will not be used to its full potential, and so on and so forth. Cost-wise, the HS2 project parallels something like "DART Underground" or "Metro North".

corktina

so its OK to drag in the AVE at 9 passengers per train but not the WRC at 14 per train?

:rolleyes:

ps dictionery definition of CANARD

" false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor".

Or a Duck
or an Aeronaughtical term.

I can't imagine you are calling me a liar as that isn't allowed on here....so I assume it's one of the others you refer to.

Rational Plan

CIE wrote: »

You're missing a few points.

Take the aforementioned Frankfurt-Cologne NBS. The fares on that are far higher than on the traditional railways, and that to help pay for the (at that time) highest costs for a HSR line. Serving such a clientele should nominally be the domain of a private company rather than a state-run one, but such is the status quo in Germany as in Ireland. HS2 fares will indeed be significantly higher than that merely due to the inflated costs; so while that can attract business people off the planes, it will not succeed in attracting lower-class passengers off the traditional lines, as with the Frankfurt-Cologne example; meanwhile the building costs will have to be borne by the lower-class folk perhaps to a greater degree than the business/upper class for many years to come. So you'll end up with a "maxed-out line" that will remain maxed out because that's what the majority will be able to afford to use.

The "extra capacity" pro-HS2 argument is a canard, because train service will indeed be reduced on the traditional alignments; now while this may seem to diminish the case for a high-speed railway, in reality it doesn't due to the matter of reducing maintenance costs on the traditional alignments...but as noted above, the currently "maxed-out" line will not diminish in demand, so you'll have fewer trains serving the same number of passengers. I do not oppose HS2 in principle; I oppose the absurd costs and choice of alignment, both of which can be rectified, and which then will permit a broader passenger base for the high speed rail that can truly relieve the "maxed-out" traditional railway lines (which themselves host triple-digit average speeds, take note).

Dragging the WRC into the argument is a canard. We've been over that ad nauseam, from the fact that a parallel motorway is planned (and partly built already) for a corridor that supposedly can't support the rail traffic to the minuscule costs the railway presents to the public to the fact that the government through manipulation and control will insure that said railway will not be used to its full potential, and so on and so forth. Cost-wise, the HS2 project parallels something like "DART Underground" or "Metro North".

1. The modelling done for the new line assume no premium fares for the new line. As fares in the UK are already high I can't see that as a problem. Lower class folk will not bare the brunt of this. The vast increase in capacity on the new lines, especially on the new 400m double deck stock will see big increase in available seats, this implies a big increase in availability of discounted fares.

2. Routes following the M1 or M40 present there own difficulties. Not only are the longer than the direct route they also have significant built up areas alongside them. This means a motorway route would require either significant demolition and/or tunnels.

3. The current route between London and Birmingham is full. When they modernised they West Coast mainline recently they reduced the number of commuter trains (and increased their length to 12 carriages) so they could fit in more expresses. The main complaint about our main lines these days is that smaller towns have seen their long distance services dwindle in the bid to increase more expresses. Places like Watford and Milton Keynes used to have good connections to the North, now they are much less frequent or require more changes.

When Phase one opens most of the current expresses to the Midlands and North West will transfer to the new line freeing the Southern end of the line. There will still be long distance service on these lines, they will just stop at more cities. The line will also be able to fit in more commuter services.

dowlingm

I've just been doing a bit of HS2 reading around and noted a reference to the Great Central Main Line (Sheffield to Aylesbury). Beeching cuts severed that line into what is now a mix of in-use, preserved and lifted sections but interestingly it was built to European gauge and very attractive grades - the kind of line it would be useful to have around now to shove something like a Coradia Duplex down rather than extending train lengths further and further.

purplepanda

Latest on the British £50billion :eek: HS2 project is that some Labour MP's are calling for the Great Central Line to be reopened & modernised instead :pac: As many called for years back when these HS2 plans were first issued.

Great Central Railway Route map in the first report

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-10-27/rival-plan-to-hs2-would-reopen-great-central-line/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alternative-to-hs2-would-see-britain-suffer-14-years-of-rail-misery-says-coalition-8907703.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-gilligan/10406562/HS2-now-Labour-look-at-an-alternative-scheme.html

corktina

sounds simple, but much of it isn't available any more and the destruction would be greater. HS2 ftw!

purplepanda

Some of the original GCR is built over, Nottingham, Leicester city centres for example but the connection outside the suburbs between both cities is still intact, some of it is still being used for preservation railways.

Whilst the problem & substantial costs of routing a new railway northwards out of London still exists, from Aylesbury northwards most of the GCR could still be reopened with much reduced costs compared to HS2.

Seems to me that the HS2 plan goes too close to the West Midlands when a spur from a more direct northwards route would be cheaper.

Many are suggesting that the HS2 route to Birmingham is nothing more than a very expensive tube line because so much of it will be in tunnels around the Cotswolds Hills, due to local opposition & environmental concerns.

Another (Daily Fail :rolleyes: ) article with a map of both the HS2 & GCR lines, claiming substantial savings over HS2 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478093/Railway-line-shut-Beeching-save-36bn-Critics-forward-alternative-route-using-track-closed-1960s.html

corktina

that would be the Chiltern Hills I assume.

The big problem with the GCR route is the City Centre bits. It's no good having available track beds between cities if you then have to divert around them.

purplepanda

Cotswolds LOL! Not too far away The most expensive parts of this project are the London & Chiltern sections, so using as much of the Grand Central Railway track bed as possible and having a connecting spur to Birmingham / West Midlands from south of Rugby would result in substantial savings.

With the escalating costs of HS2 & substantial opposition it might never get built, very expensive for a 20min travel reduction to Birmingham, 50-60 mins Manchester, Leeds & Sheffield. Some estimates are over £70billion once the HS2 northern sections are built. Completion date sometime in 2030 :eek:

corktina

you're getting a bit muddled. The vacant trackbed is from Quainton Rd northwards and the tunnelled section would be south of there. Thus the most expensive bit would still need to be built even if the GCR trackbed was used.

The GCR originally joined the Metropolitan at QuaintonRd to run to London but after disagreements later built a joint line with the GWR which ran via High Wycombe . Both these lines are still in use , only the sections North of Quainton are disused.

Jamie2k9

With the escalating costs of HS2 & substantial opposition it might never get built, very expensive for a 20min travel reduction to Birmingham, 50-60 mins Manchester, Leeds & Sheffield. Some estimates are over £70billion once the HS2 northern sections are built. Completion date sometime in 2030

Isn't the real point of the new line to cater for capacity. Numbers are bursting on the East and West Cost lines and they are close to capacity and more will be needed.

Banjoxed

The political cover for HS2 is looking a bit thin, many Tories are instinctively anti rail as well as being opposed to Cameron's Liberal Conservatism, the Lib Dems will be in serious trouble next time and never underestimate Labour's ability to play "Vingince, be Jasus" with the project as a means of undermining Cameron.

I do believe that HS2 is necessary and that if the GCR was a goer it would have been used. However expect some serious trip ups for the project when it looks closer to realisation.

end of the road

corktina wrote: »

sounds simple, but much of it isn't available any more and the destruction would be greater.

i'm sure some legislation could be written up to say that land where a railway once was can be taken back with no compensation, will teach the moron councils not to be building on land which could be reused as a railway in the future

purplepanda

Corktina, I'm actually only advocating using as much as possible of the GCR northwards of Aylesbury.

Using the existing GCR track bed which is largely in place from Aylesbury to south of Rugby according to google maps, a Birmingham / West Midlands spur could start around Woodfood Halse / Daventry & follow a route between Leamington & Coventry. It would be much cheaper than going straight through the Chilterns to Birmingham. But I'm not a transport planner so it's obviously guesswork on my part. :eek:

There really isn't much alternative southwards without major building disruption hence the HS2 plans for London consisting of several tunnelled sections to minimise this.

GCR historical route maps http://www.railwayarchive.org.uk/map/osIndex.php

Another HS2 & GCR article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-gilligan/10406562/HS2-now-Labour-look-at-an-alternative-scheme.html

corktina

you've already gone through the Chilterns by the time you hit AYlesbury.

GBOA

HS2 is a good idea in theory. Letting the public sector anywhere near it is the big mistake.

purplepanda

corktina wrote: »

you've already gone through the Chilterns by the time you hit AYlesbury.

I was under the impression that most of the objections by the campaigners were for areas north of Aylesbury, southwards towards London would be using existing rail infrastructure or building tunnels?

Easy to see now :eek: why the cost is so high with so many tunnels involved

corktina

That's as you'd expect. Few people object to trains in tunnels and have no grounds to object to the use of existing lines, however North of Aylesbury some of the line will be in virgin territory (no pun intended)and naturally there will be objections. There will also be objections to the use of those parts of the GCR that will be used.
The line is not really intended to serve Birmingham, which will benefit from increased availability of capacity on the existing lines. It's the cities of Northern England and Scotland that really will reap the benefits and also hopefully the Holyhead line (and it's Dublin connection)

Muahahaha

Latest reports coming out saying that HS2 could cost upwards of £50 billion, though the committee responsible are claiming it can be done for £28bn.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-25355233

corktina

Muahahaha wrote: »

Latest reports coming out saying that HS2 could cost upwards of £50 billion, though the committee responsible are claiming it can be done for £28bn.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-25355233

Also the man in charge is asking for the Birmingham to Crewe section to be brought forward to stimulate the economy of that area.

This is proper rail investment. No "build and they will come" there!

Copyerselveson

corktina wrote: »

Also the man in charge is asking for the Birmingham to Crewe section to be brought forward to stimulate the economy of that area.

This is proper rail investment. No "build and they will come" there!

GB does not have an equivalent anti rail lobby as we have here. No one dresses up in lederhosen and promotes the ripping up of railway tracks in England!

corktina

Copyerselveson wrote: »

GB does not have an equivalent anti rail lobby as we have here. No one dresses up in lederhosen and promotes the ripping up of railway tracks in England!

One word for you "sustrans" ...google it!

Copyerselveson

corktina wrote: »

One word for you "sustrans" ...google it!

Oh yes...the same Sustrans who lobbied to stop the BRT in Belfast from running down the old BCDR line to Newtownards because of the Comber Greenway? Sustrans made sure that the old railway line could never be used for public transport again because a greenway was occupying the old permanent way. Now the BRT will run along the already busy Newtownards road instead of the railway line.

Oh don't worry "Corky" I googled Sustrans a long time ago.

corktina

Copyerselveson wrote: »

Oh yes...the same Sustrans who lobbied to stop the BRT in Belfast from running down the old BCDR line to Newtownards because of the Comber Greenway? Sustrans made sure that the old railway line could never be used for public transport again because a greenway was occupying the old permanent way. Now the BRT will run along the already busy Newtownards road instead of the railway line.

Oh don't worry "Corky" I googled Sustrans a long time ago.

SO what was post 87 all about then?

A Dub in Glasgo

There is a lot of hot air anti HS2 lobby in England. Mainly NIMBY's. I met David Higgins once, strikes me as a doer and very capable