Silver,
Yes, they are thinking about this, and I'm afraid most of your suggestions have been dismissed - either by the engineers, by the beancounters, or both.
One thing for sure - Crossrail and HSR are NOT compatible - period! You just can't shove high speed trains down tunnels with lots of stoppers in them, any more than you would let a Q400 takeoff 30 secs behind an A380. Now you know full well the reasons for the latter, please try and understand the reasons for the former. Or if you prefer, you wouldn't bring an A380 into LCY either, and nor would LCY mgmt want to deal with one, even if it could make it in and out of their runway.
I was not thinking there. The southern branch of Crossrail ends at Abbey Wood, whichbis only a couple of miles from the Chunnel line. But no thought of linking the two, of course, for that would be far too logical.
It was originally planned. If BI ever takes off, it will need local AND high speed service, so I expect Xrail WOULD be extended out that way - but we're talking four tracks, not two.
And wherenis Oak Common? Since they will not publish the two maps overlaid, it is very difficult to see. I presume you mean somewhere close to Acton/Paddington, as that appears to be the closest approach.
They HAVE published detailed maps of the whole damned route!
Old Oak Common (I'd prefer Acton Interchange, take the Old out, Common doesn't imply much room for development) is here:
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publication...5301issue3.pdf
NB - sometimes I get a file corrupted message - if you get that, try again later, but the maps are there to digest.
But nobody wants a transfer - they want to get off at their destination. Spur lines are a complete nonsense.
Problem is, LHR already has 3 stations. Where would you put a high speed one? Also, the PRIME role of high speed rail is to link city centres to each other, serving airports is a bonus. France has built LGVs which skirt the city centres of Paris & Lyon, and doing so has also meant they could serve the airports - but the planning of CDG predates the TGV by a decade or so.
I don't think transfers from LHR to Europe is the
primary goal of HS2, but it will bring Heathrow within easier reach of Brum, Manchester, Leeds etc.
Boris Island would be quite a bit further east, so it might get some traffic from France, Belgium etc, but you would still need to be filling 20 car long Chunnel trains, or you'd need to stop & split. Quite messy I think - remember the LHR Exp only has 4 cars per train.
As far as I am aware.
a. TGV and Eurostar use the good old Stevenson (of Rocket fame) track gauge, the same as all UK lines.
b. The Eurostar trains uses UK rolling gauge dimensions, so will run on UK lines. European rolling gauge would be better, if Crossrail and the Chunnel will accept it.
c. The Crossrail, as you say, can take pantograph trains.
a) Yes, the lines are spaced apart at the same width - Brunel used broadguage, but eventually this was torn up and replaced.
b) Yes, the Eurostar trains do, but they are, iirc, 17 cars long - not viable north of London for international services. There were a few shorter sets designed to be used for through services, they were leased to GNER - let me look up what they are doing now. But they would have to pay the same for the track path to go through the Chunnel, and if I recall right from our debate pre-xmas, they either would
have to be joined, or there would be issues with fire regs. There are various complications which make Eurostar beyond London (north) a major challenge.
c) As said above. No! Not compatible. Period!
Earlier versions of HS2 did go through Heathrow, but they did a consultation with only one option for everyone living on the line to grumble about, but no room for informed debate. It would add 7 minutes to the journey time of
every train heading north, whereas it would only provide a saving for those who
wanted to go to LHR.
Also, I think somewhere deep in politics land, they realised that Crossrail is already going to make LHR much easier to get to, at the expense of other London airports -except perhaps LCY. This then re-opens the demand for the third runway - which of course Boris Island may well be a big smokescreen for anyway.
Still, you are right - they really haven't thought all of this through. HS2 +7 mins should still save a lot of time, and bringing a spur down from HS2 into Heathrow is going to cost billions. I still think we'll end up with another runway at Gatwick. One easy link to Gatwick would be from Old Oak Common via Olympia. Better would be to continue HS2 past Euston and on to LGW & possible Brighton - the £5bn planned for the utterly pointless Heathwick should be a good deposit for that one!
And of course, BHX think that HS2 will allow them to become London's 8th (or are we upto 9 now?) airport, negating the need for BI or any other runway.
This would negate the need for all that work taking HS2 in through London into Euston (and stopping 2 km short of HS1 at Kings Cross). Why bother, when Crossrail already does this??
I still think nobody is thinking about this, otherwise someone would be publishing the integrated transport map. Where is it?
Again, please take a look at a map! For starters, Eurostar and SE HS use St Pancras - to the WEST of King's Cross. I've done Euston from there in about 5 mins, but with bags allow 10. Or build a travelator - now that would be integrated transport, but the beancounters would argue for years about who should pay.
However, yes, I agree that the billions (I have heard as many as 6) to go from OOC to Euston is poor value, as it still only leaves you on the NORTHERN side of Zone1. This is where Foster needs to go back to his bosses at DB, and look at what they did in Berlin. There is no point in having a swanky airport without a properly connected rail hub to link it in to.
And whether for a domestic link between HS1 & 2, BI, a fast link to STN, or Eurostar running north which is viable because it also stops in a central London location - to accommodate
any of this, Euston needs to make that sharp turn!