HS2: For or against?

[whole diary]

[Rhydgaled]

Basically in favour but not at the expense of exisisting lines. I'd far rather have the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) electrified

That's pretty much my opinion. I'd also rather it had a slightly reduced top speed (cutting it to 202mph would save a lot more electricity than it would extend journey time, and it's capacity that's needed more than speed, might be able to avoid any important wildlife habitats slightly more easily too) and some ajustments (the main one being through stations at Birmingham and Manchester, allowing London - Glasgow trains to call at both (joining classic lines around Preston for the run north)).

Also i think the London terminal should be an underground through station.

Agree with reflex that it's capacity we need

Since the issue is capacity, I thought about trying to help GWML capacity as well. To do this, I though about the London station being at the bottom point of a south-facing triangle. HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) would be an extension of HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) across the top of the triangle, with a junction from both heading south into the through station. Southwards, the line would swing round to follow the M4 out to Heathrow, then run south of the GWML until it passes over/under the present line at Newbury (with spurs to Reading to allow slower services to come of the HighSpeed line and call) then heading staight to Bath (where Bristol services would go onto the classic line to Bristol) before turning south for Plymouth (using the existing line, re-routed slightly, in parts). I eventually decided I didn't like the idea of HighSpeed to the south west when I heard Plymouth airport was closing, meaning less poluting air travel to compete with.

[mjones]

...I'd also rather it had a slightly reduced top speed (cutting it to 202mph would save a lot more electricity than it would extend journey time, and it's capacity that's needed more than speed, might be able to avoid any important wildlife habitats slightly more easily too)

Well, it is of course true that energy consumption increases signficantly with speed, however we can't look at the energy used by the trains in isolation from the other modes that people might use instead. Lower speed means longer journey times and that has a large impact on HSR's competitiveness with air and road. So while a reduced speed high speed train will use less energy, it is likely to carry fewer passengers and take fewer from air and road. There is therefore a compromise between the energy used by the train and the ability to attract passengers, however deciding where the optimal speed lies requires complex modelling, taking account of alternative modes, you can't simply assert that an arbitrarily chosen lower speed (precisely 202mph???) will be better.

Similarly, while it is true in principle that a lower speed would give greater flexibility in routing, the extent to which this would in practice can enable sensitive locations to be avoided only be worked out by a detailed review of the route map. I know CPRE^▸ (Campaign to Protect Rural England) are keen on this, but it isn't something that can simply be asserted, we actually need to see what different route options are available on the map. "Conventional" speed HSR still requires a very straight alignment.

and some ajustments (the main one being through stations at Birmingham and Manchester, allowing London - Glasgow trains to call at both (joining classic lines around Preston for the run north)).
...

I fear your "adjustments" would involve vastly more tunnelling and hence increases in cost.

[Btline]

Any line to Birmingham has to cut across virgin countryside unless it follows an existing line of motorway. Whatever speed the line goes, trees will have to be axed. I'm really annoyed about anti HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) protestors though. "HS2 will terminate on the edge of B'ham city centre meaning commuters will have to get a bus to the centre." Rubbish. "HS2 will be 80 yds wide". How about no.

Either they are extremely ignorant, or they are blatantly lying or deliberately distorting the facts. I think the noise is being exaggerated too - better than the din of the M40.

[TerminalJunkie]

(precisely 202mph???)

I believe the phrase you are looking for is 'number plucked out of mid-air', which naturally leads to the expression 'silly plucker'.

[mjones]

Btline: I agree, there are some extremely nonsensical objections being made and I suspect few of those making them have read the detailed proposals properly. If at all. The "Fazely St station site is  outside the city centre" claim is a particularly silly objection, given Chiltern's great success in attracting people to Moor St next door. Furthermore, in the alternative rail packages considered, it is clear that any future expansion of rail capacity in Birmingham, whether HSR or improvements to the conventional network, will all require additional station capacity and the Moor St, Fazely St site is the only practicable location given the lack of space at New St.

And an awful lot of people seem to be under the misapprehension that the first phase only goes to Birmingham, despite it being a key element of the proposals that from day one classic compatible trains will run off HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) onto the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) via the connection to the Trent Valley lines.

[paul7575]

One of the strange things about the recent consultation, is that despite all the vested interests trying to turn it into a debate about whether there should even be a High Speed Line at all,  the actual question asked was specifically about the details of the  proposed route.    Isn't the theory that (despite Ms Eagle's mutterings) the overall project has cross-party support?

Will be interesting to see the reaction to whatever response the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) eventually make to the consultation...

Paul

[paul7575]

Btline: I agree, there are some extremely nonsensical objections being made and I suspect few of those making them have read the detailed proposals properly. If at all. The "Fazely St station site is  outside the city centre" claim is a particularly silly objection, given Chiltern's great success in attracting people to Moor St next door.

In my opinion the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) dug themselves a big hole, by referring in various different publications and announcements to both Fazely St and Curzon St - pretty much at random.  Given that it is to be a terminus station with 400m platforms, but with the only public access at the buffer stops, they should have just announced that the entrance will be on Moor St.  Where the platform's opposite ends are is irrelevant to passengers.

Paul

[Btline]

I think it should be called Curzon Street and the original building should be incorporated in some way. Then restore the Euston Arches, and you'll have the orginal "Roman Road" style design. We should make the new line iconic and something to be proud of - unlike St Pancras; whilst the main shed is very nice, they've ruined most of station. The EMT^» (East Midlands Trains - about), SE and FCC^▸ (First Capital Connect) platforms are cramped, dark, dingy, windy and yards from LU. Not to mention that horrid concrete box they slapped on the station.

If it takes Eurostar, Bham Int should be renamed Bham Airport & NEC^» (National Exhibition Centre - about). Then the new station can be Bham Curzson Street Int.

[JayMac]

Fit for purpose before aesthetics.

[Electric train]

My personal view is the current Governments choice to terminate at Euston and not Old Oak Common is flawed on the cost to build that last 4 miles and I see very little if journey time savings.  If we look at passengers who are likely to use HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) -

• Heathrow passengers - will want to change at OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) and use Crossrail or HEX
  City of London passengers -  will use Crossrail to OOC
  International Passengers - yes could go the short distance to Euston but Thameslink to Faringdon and the Crossrail may be just as popular
  From the South - a link service from Clapham Jcn to OOC would be easy to establish

OOC has the space to give the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) the opportunity to build a World class railway interchange station that could be a hub and not a stub end that Euston is.

[paul7575]

I think it should be called Curzon Street and the original building should be incorporated in some way.

Why?  The original building is no where near being in a usable position.   You should maybe look at one of the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s helpful maps...

Paul

[Btline]

I'm aware of that fact, thank you! I'm sure some use can be found. Even as rear entrance. I don't know. Otherwise it's yet another Grade 1 listed building doing nothing useful.

[anthony215]

My personal view is the current Governments choice to terminate at Euston and not Old Oak Common is flawed on the cost to build that last 4 miles and I see very little if journey time savings.  If we look at passengers who are likely to use HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) -

• Heathrow passengers - will want to change at OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) and use Crossrail or HEX
  City of London passengers -  will use Crossrail to OOC
  International Passengers - yes could go the short distance to Euston but Thameslink to Faringdon and the Crossrail may be just as popular
  From the South - a link service from Clapham Jcn to OOC would be easy to establish

OOC has the space to give the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) the opportunity to build a World class railway interchange station that could be a hub and not a stub end that Euston is.

I think a lot of people agree that old oak common is a much better place to terminate the HS2 line at rather than spend a lot of money to Euston it could also provide an economic boost to that part of london and area's surrounding it.

[grahame]

(precisely 202mph???)

I believe the phrase you are looking for is 'number plucked out of mid-air', which naturally leads to the expression 'silly plucker'.

There are 160944 mm in one mile ... so 202 mph is 325 kph.  I'm suspecting a piece of work done in a metric country that showed that a speed between 320 and 330 kph is optimum for something.  Sources, please, Rhydgaled 

[Chris from Nailsea]

Erm ... 1 Mile = 1609344 Millimeters