HS2 rail route and EMA
Thread Starter
HS2 rail route and EMA
It was announced today on the local news that the route of HS2 is proposed to tunnel under EMA. I have no problem with that (apart from the fact there doesn't seemed to be any realistation & joined up thinking that it may disrupt possible site for a multi-modal rail hub on the N side of the airport) but I do hope that the plan includes provision for an EMA rail station?
You'd think there would be joined up thinking, but there are no plans for a HS2 station at East Midlands Airport.
There is a station known as the Bickenhill/Birmingham Interchange, where passengers will connect onto a people mover up to Birmingham Airport. That doesn't make sense to me either why you don't have a station inside the airport itself. There aren't geographical problems are there a la Luton Airport are there?
There is a station known as the Bickenhill/Birmingham Interchange, where passengers will connect onto a people mover up to Birmingham Airport. That doesn't make sense to me either why you don't have a station inside the airport itself. There aren't geographical problems are there a la Luton Airport are there?
Last edited by Dannyboy39; 25th Jan 2013 at 15:45.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stupid railway
The whole HS2 thing is very poorly planned and I would support it if there was any joined up thinking.
The first question is why it is not joined up to HS1 ? They keep telling us that HS2 will reduce short haul air travel but if you want to go to Paris or Brussels and you take the train you have to get yourself across London by Cab or the Tube........ Why bother take a flight!
The other thing is that if you join HS2 to HS1 the route the railway would have to take would be across the relatively flat ground north east of London and not through the Chiltern hills making the cost of construction lower, and not to put in a station if the track is going under EMA is nothing short of stupid.
The first question is why it is not joined up to HS1 ? They keep telling us that HS2 will reduce short haul air travel but if you want to go to Paris or Brussels and you take the train you have to get yourself across London by Cab or the Tube........ Why bother take a flight!
The other thing is that if you join HS2 to HS1 the route the railway would have to take would be across the relatively flat ground north east of London and not through the Chiltern hills making the cost of construction lower, and not to put in a station if the track is going under EMA is nothing short of stupid.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To date only the route of phase 1 (London - Birmingham) has been published. Phase 2 towards Manchester and Leeds are due to be announced imminently.
There are many, many rumours and inaccuracies being put out there about HS2, and all these do is distort the facts. The media especially love to embellish anything into a scare story. Am afraid this is another attempt by someone who is anti HS2 (Leader of Leicestershire County Council Nick Rushton) spreading rumour. Even the airport themselves haven't heard anything:
I fully support HS2, and we must have a debate about it, but, the facts presented on both sides must be accurate and balanced to ensure people can make up their own minds.
I can assure you that finding a route with the optimum alignment, and therefore avoiding expensive tunnels, bridges and curves, leaves very few options. The routes published have taken years of optimisation to ensure they offer the best value, benefit, access to HS2 and minimise environmental impact. This is why the airports aren't served directly as the additional infrastructure needed considerably slows down the services, costs a HUGE amount of money, and in reality the forecast passenger levels cannot justify it.
One key aspect of High Speed Rail is that the number of stations has to be kept to a minimum; otherwise it’s not high speed. A station is planned for the East Midlands, as confirmed by the Transport secretary:
Other countries have built, arguably, more stations than optimum - much of the reasoning for this is political, rather than passenger demand etc.
Other inaccuracies to be corrected:
It will be.
The government 2010 command paper stated:
Further study was undertaken in March 2010 by Arup for a direct rail from Old Oak Common (Interchange to Crossrail services and Heathrow) feeding into High Speed 1, and European High Speed network at St Pancras, via tunnel and the North London Line with a high-level junction north of St Pancras station for non-stopping services. It was originally planned to be a classic speed link, however, in August 2012 the Secretary of State for Transport announced it had asked HS2 Ltd to look for a better link between HS2 and HS1 than provided in this plan.
HS2 is hugely expensive but will benefit the whole of the UK, even areas without stations or direct links, and together with the improvement in classic services that will be made as a result of this new capacity, we will see a step change in the railways of the UK.
There are many, many rumours and inaccuracies being put out there about HS2, and all these do is distort the facts. The media especially love to embellish anything into a scare story. Am afraid this is another attempt by someone who is anti HS2 (Leader of Leicestershire County Council Nick Rushton) spreading rumour. Even the airport themselves haven't heard anything:
A spokeswoman for East Midlands Airport said: "We have not been informed of anything relating to the route of HS2. Like everybody else, we are awaiting the official announcement of the detailed route."
I can assure you that finding a route with the optimum alignment, and therefore avoiding expensive tunnels, bridges and curves, leaves very few options. The routes published have taken years of optimisation to ensure they offer the best value, benefit, access to HS2 and minimise environmental impact. This is why the airports aren't served directly as the additional infrastructure needed considerably slows down the services, costs a HUGE amount of money, and in reality the forecast passenger levels cannot justify it.
One key aspect of High Speed Rail is that the number of stations has to be kept to a minimum; otherwise it’s not high speed. A station is planned for the East Midlands, as confirmed by the Transport secretary:
In an interview with the Derby Telegraph earlier this month, Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said: "I think what is important to say is that HS2 will serve the East Midlands and it is going to be very important for the region."
Other inaccuracies to be corrected:
Code:
The first question is why it is not joined up to HS1 ?
The government 2010 command paper stated:
... the new British high speed rail network should be connected to the wider European high speed rail network via High Speed One and the Channel Tunnel, subject to cost and value for money. This could be achieved through either or both of a dedicated rapid transport system linking Euston and St Pancras and a direct rail link to High Speed One.
HS2 is hugely expensive but will benefit the whole of the UK, even areas without stations or direct links, and together with the improvement in classic services that will be made as a result of this new capacity, we will see a step change in the railways of the UK.
Last edited by arfortune; 26th Jan 2013 at 10:44.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "You'd think there would be joined up thinking, but there are no plans for a HS2 station at East Midlands Airport.
Quite right, the current ideas are barking mad!
Quote: "There is a station known as the Bickenhill/Birmingham Interchange, where passengers will connect onto a people mover up to Birmingham Airport. That doesn't make sense to me either why you don't have a station inside the airport itself. There aren't geographical problems are there a la Luton Airport are there?"
Quote: "Stupid railway
The whole HS2 thing is very poorly planned and I would support it if there was any joined up thinking."
BARKING!
Quote: "The first question is why it is not joined up to HS1 ? They keep telling us that HS2 will reduce short haul air travel but if you want to go to Paris or Brussels and you take the train you have to get yourself across London by Cab or the Tube........ Why bother take a flight!"
There a so few domestic destinations out of LHR anyway and BHX isn't one of them, so it won't make any difference, other domestic routes remain unaffected. As for Paris/Brussels, there are plenty of flights to choose from.
Quote: "The other thing is that if you join HS2 to HS1 the route the railway would have to take would be across the relatively flat ground north east of London and not through the Chiltern hills making the cost of construction lower, and not to put in a station if the track is going under EMA is nothing short of stupid."
What do you expect: it's the fatal combination of a vanity project on a similar scale to Silver Island, of cutting corners, and of being conceived by people who don't use public transport.
Clearly HS1 and HS2 should share the same London station, otherwise how could a train run between Birmingham and Brussels? Under these arrangements, the method for a pax on this route would still be by plane!
Maybe a better route for HS2 could be to leave St Pancras and use the 6 track east Midlands route, with a stop at West Hampstead (it's a good potential interchange).
Around the Hendon area, have the HS2 approximately follow the line of the M1, thus avoiding both the Chilterns and the relatively flat ground north east of London as the direction from London is northwest.
Have the "Y" near Rugby with spurs to Birmingham New Street and Stoke, while the main line continues to Ringway, Manchester, etc. (approximate line of the M6) and the other side of the "Y" headed to Leeds, etc.,
with spurs to Leicester/Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield (approximate line of
the M1).
A tunnel under EMA and no station is madness, it also means no stations at Nottingham/Derby, equally crazy.
A return to the drawing board is the best idea for HS2.
Quite right, the current ideas are barking mad!
Quote: "There is a station known as the Bickenhill/Birmingham Interchange, where passengers will connect onto a people mover up to Birmingham Airport. That doesn't make sense to me either why you don't have a station inside the airport itself. There aren't geographical problems are there a la Luton Airport are there?"
Quote: "Stupid railway
The whole HS2 thing is very poorly planned and I would support it if there was any joined up thinking."
BARKING!
Quote: "The first question is why it is not joined up to HS1 ? They keep telling us that HS2 will reduce short haul air travel but if you want to go to Paris or Brussels and you take the train you have to get yourself across London by Cab or the Tube........ Why bother take a flight!"
There a so few domestic destinations out of LHR anyway and BHX isn't one of them, so it won't make any difference, other domestic routes remain unaffected. As for Paris/Brussels, there are plenty of flights to choose from.
Quote: "The other thing is that if you join HS2 to HS1 the route the railway would have to take would be across the relatively flat ground north east of London and not through the Chiltern hills making the cost of construction lower, and not to put in a station if the track is going under EMA is nothing short of stupid."
What do you expect: it's the fatal combination of a vanity project on a similar scale to Silver Island, of cutting corners, and of being conceived by people who don't use public transport.
Clearly HS1 and HS2 should share the same London station, otherwise how could a train run between Birmingham and Brussels? Under these arrangements, the method for a pax on this route would still be by plane!
Maybe a better route for HS2 could be to leave St Pancras and use the 6 track east Midlands route, with a stop at West Hampstead (it's a good potential interchange).
Around the Hendon area, have the HS2 approximately follow the line of the M1, thus avoiding both the Chilterns and the relatively flat ground north east of London as the direction from London is northwest.
Have the "Y" near Rugby with spurs to Birmingham New Street and Stoke, while the main line continues to Ringway, Manchester, etc. (approximate line of the M6) and the other side of the "Y" headed to Leeds, etc.,
with spurs to Leicester/Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield (approximate line of
the M1).
A tunnel under EMA and no station is madness, it also means no stations at Nottingham/Derby, equally crazy.
A return to the drawing board is the best idea for HS2.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A return to the drawing board is the best idea for HS2.
There will always be the nimby types along the route and certain Clarkson types who hate trains, but the vast majority of people I speak to about it (before I offer my own opinion) just think it is an incredibly mediocre project, which is costing a great deal of money, and which only benefits a relatively small number of people.
not to put in a station if the track is going under EMA is nothing short of stupid.
The routes published have taken years of optimisation to ensure they offer the best value, benefit, minimise environmental impact and access to HS2
the additional infrastructure needed considerably slows down the services
That is why I was able to accept that Coventry, which is south of the M42 station, was never likely to get its own spur. However, once above this station, the line splits into three directions (-Y if you like), so frequency is much less of a problem.
My understanding is that there won't even be a spur into the centres of Sheffield and Nottingham or Derby, but as the comment from EMA says, we may still have to wait and see for this.
feeding into the High Speed 1 network
Sadly, with all the plaudits St Pancras received for being the wonderful building that it is, the critics forgot to point out that it is still aligned north-south, thus it cannot serve through trains. An east-west station somewhere around this site might have done that, but the poor St Pancras shed would then have remained in the sad state it was.
Oh - and before anyone says how wonderful the new stations will be, take a look at the St Pancras domestic box, then look back at the St Pancras International roof and repeat that statement!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HS2
The biggest problem is finding a balance between headline "speed" figures and having enough stops to pick up/drop off adequate numbers of pax. More stations, obviously, increase journey times, although it should not be that difficult to have some trains non-stop and some stopping more often by the use of long passing tracks, for example.
The way it looks, not enough thought has been put into it. If there has been adequate thought, it has all been directed towards cutting corners, and, clearly, common sense and practicality has taken a back seat, or been pushed off the train altogether.
It must be obvious that if the HST terminal is not at an interchange and centrally located, the time accessing the terminal will add to the journey time, thus eliminating the time advantages, so pax may as well save money and use conventional rail. Those away from central locations won't be using HS2 anyway, precisely for this reason.
With few stops will there be adequate numbers prepared to pay the supplement to use the HS2, and, criticly, adequate numbers of premium
pax? How many pay the extra to use the "javelin" service in Kent?
back to the drawing board is the best idea, before public opinion becomes completely hostile, and that's not just the NIMBYs.
The way it looks, not enough thought has been put into it. If there has been adequate thought, it has all been directed towards cutting corners, and, clearly, common sense and practicality has taken a back seat, or been pushed off the train altogether.
It must be obvious that if the HST terminal is not at an interchange and centrally located, the time accessing the terminal will add to the journey time, thus eliminating the time advantages, so pax may as well save money and use conventional rail. Those away from central locations won't be using HS2 anyway, precisely for this reason.
With few stops will there be adequate numbers prepared to pay the supplement to use the HS2, and, criticly, adequate numbers of premium
pax? How many pay the extra to use the "javelin" service in Kent?
back to the drawing board is the best idea, before public opinion becomes completely hostile, and that's not just the NIMBYs.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry folks, a luncheon stop at Normanton is planned.
Seriously though, this is quite a sad thread. A huge amount of thought has gone into the planning of this project. All the points on here and many more have been crawled over in infinite detail. Given the topography can you really imagine a route passing through Nottingham and Sheffield Midland stations without busting the budget? Fact is, it is a compromise and the Hybrid Bill Committee will ultimately decide if it's worth it.
Only benefit the few? Well that depends on what you think of the traffic forecasts and the population forecasts. If you take the view that the WCML will need more capacity in fifteen years time anyway, then there are big benefits to the tens of thousands per day on the classic route as well as on the new route.
Link to HS1--- inherently dodgy, very expensive, not enough traffic. It would be better to put a lot of work into Old Oak Common and make it a true London Junction station for South London, Gatwick, Paris and Brussels as well as for Crossrail and Heathrow. That taps a huge potential market both domestic and international.
The project is not a slam dunk gimme. Nor is it a basket case.
Seriously though, this is quite a sad thread. A huge amount of thought has gone into the planning of this project. All the points on here and many more have been crawled over in infinite detail. Given the topography can you really imagine a route passing through Nottingham and Sheffield Midland stations without busting the budget? Fact is, it is a compromise and the Hybrid Bill Committee will ultimately decide if it's worth it.
Only benefit the few? Well that depends on what you think of the traffic forecasts and the population forecasts. If you take the view that the WCML will need more capacity in fifteen years time anyway, then there are big benefits to the tens of thousands per day on the classic route as well as on the new route.
Link to HS1--- inherently dodgy, very expensive, not enough traffic. It would be better to put a lot of work into Old Oak Common and make it a true London Junction station for South London, Gatwick, Paris and Brussels as well as for Crossrail and Heathrow. That taps a huge potential market both domestic and international.
The project is not a slam dunk gimme. Nor is it a basket case.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Route of HS apparently will be revealed by Cameron in a speech on Monday; think he's in Nottingham
Until then rumours abound, but it would appear that the E Midlands station will probably be at Toton, midway between Derby and Notingham, the Sheffield station will be at Meadowhall and there will be a central Manchester Station and one close to Manchester Airport. And no spur to LHR for the present pending the Davies report on airports capacity in 2015
We will see.
Spot on jabird. And of course the bus between East Midlands Parkway and the Airport was discontinued some while ago as there were very few punters. Now this is the way you are advised to make that journey on the airport website.
Bit exciting then isn't it to go through all this palaver when you can get a regular bus from the Airport to Derby, Nottingham and Long Eaton stations and it is simply because the volume is not there.
Until then rumours abound, but it would appear that the E Midlands station will probably be at Toton, midway between Derby and Notingham, the Sheffield station will be at Meadowhall and there will be a central Manchester Station and one close to Manchester Airport. And no spur to LHR for the present pending the Davies report on airports capacity in 2015
We will see.
Actually, I would argue that a station at EMA would be stupid. Joining up stations and airports makes good sense in theory (see also SZD thread about Meadowhall), but in reality you need a certain volume of passengers to make it work, and EMA is some way short of that. Also, rail is just like air in terms of needing yield to make it work, so BHX has far more business passengers who might pay the fares needed to justify a station (together with the NEC and other reasons for using that site) - EMA does not.
Connect at East Midlands Parkway for journeys to and from destinations outside the East Midlands region. This station is not served by bus. If you are travelling on your own, the most cost effective way to travel between the airport and East Midlands Parkway is to pre-book the shared taxi service operated by Arrow Cars. This service costs £6 per person each way and must be booked online at least 12 hours in advance of the taxi being required. You will receive an e-mail to confirm your booking. Please note that the reduced fare pre-booked service is a shared taxi scheme and therefore there may be a wait of up to 15 minutes for other passengers who have booked in the same time slot.
If you are traveling in groups of two or more you should pre-book a local private hire service. Arrow Cars can be contacted on 01332 814000 for a quote.
If you are traveling in groups of two or more you should pre-book a local private hire service. Arrow Cars can be contacted on 01332 814000 for a quote.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Only benefit the few? Well that depends on what you think of the traffic forecasts and the population forecasts. If you take the view that the WCML will need more capacity in fifteen years time anyway, then there are big benefits to the tens of thousands per day on the classic route as well as on the new route."
It's not a given anyway and that particular problem can be addressed in cheaper ways than what appears to be a vanity project and little more. the "lack of capacity" mainly refers to Rugby-Birmingham, so if that can't be expanded, another spur could perhaps be built off the trent valley section of the mainline. London-Birmingham is really too short for the benefits of high speed rail.
Quote: "Link to HS1--- inherently dodgy, very expensive, not enough traffic. It would be better to put a lot of work into Old Oak Common and make it a true London Junction station for South London, Gatwick, Paris and Brussels as well as for Crossrail and Heathrow. That taps a huge potential market both domestic and international."
That misses the point as explained earlier. Time saving on London-Birmingham on HS2 over the existing WCML with its 3-stop service: about 20 minutes. Journey time London-Old Oak (even on crossrail) over 30 minutes allowing time to make the change at Old Oak, wait for trains, etc..
What exactly would be the point for a non-Shepherd's Bush/White City/Wormwood Scrubs area resident?
Perhaps that explains the need for city centre terminals a little better.
Quote: "The project is not a slam dunk gimme. Nor is it a basket case."
As presently constituted, yes it is. Could or should do better are the words that come to mind, and as for the cost, yes, by its nature, it is an expensive project.
Much cheaper to develop LHR and some complementary domestic air services to co-exist with the motorways and the WCML, provide a bit of choice for people. In 20-30 years time, aircraft will be much quieter and cleaner, and yes, in these circumstances, present levels of APD would have to go.
It's not a given anyway and that particular problem can be addressed in cheaper ways than what appears to be a vanity project and little more. the "lack of capacity" mainly refers to Rugby-Birmingham, so if that can't be expanded, another spur could perhaps be built off the trent valley section of the mainline. London-Birmingham is really too short for the benefits of high speed rail.
Quote: "Link to HS1--- inherently dodgy, very expensive, not enough traffic. It would be better to put a lot of work into Old Oak Common and make it a true London Junction station for South London, Gatwick, Paris and Brussels as well as for Crossrail and Heathrow. That taps a huge potential market both domestic and international."
That misses the point as explained earlier. Time saving on London-Birmingham on HS2 over the existing WCML with its 3-stop service: about 20 minutes. Journey time London-Old Oak (even on crossrail) over 30 minutes allowing time to make the change at Old Oak, wait for trains, etc..
What exactly would be the point for a non-Shepherd's Bush/White City/Wormwood Scrubs area resident?
Perhaps that explains the need for city centre terminals a little better.
Quote: "The project is not a slam dunk gimme. Nor is it a basket case."
As presently constituted, yes it is. Could or should do better are the words that come to mind, and as for the cost, yes, by its nature, it is an expensive project.
Much cheaper to develop LHR and some complementary domestic air services to co-exist with the motorways and the WCML, provide a bit of choice for people. In 20-30 years time, aircraft will be much quieter and cleaner, and yes, in these circumstances, present levels of APD would have to go.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Fairdealfrank
Agree that London-Birmingham on its own is too short. It's the whole Y or nothing. Adonis is right about that.
St Pancras Euston and KX will still be there for most of the traffic but terminal congestion is a serious issue. OOC provides relief via Crossrail and has potential to act as regional distributor to/from South London and beyond, including Paris and Brussels. The current trek from say Croydon to Birmingham via train, underground and train could be radically improved. Get it right and there's a lot of development potential at Old Oak.
Agree that London-Birmingham on its own is too short. It's the whole Y or nothing. Adonis is right about that.
St Pancras Euston and KX will still be there for most of the traffic but terminal congestion is a serious issue. OOC provides relief via Crossrail and has potential to act as regional distributor to/from South London and beyond, including Paris and Brussels. The current trek from say Croydon to Birmingham via train, underground and train could be radically improved. Get it right and there's a lot of development potential at Old Oak.
The biggest problem is finding a balance between headline "speed" figures and having enough stops to pick up/drop off adequate numbers of pax. More stations, obviously, increase journey times, although it should not be that difficult to have some trains non-stop and some stopping more often by the use of long passing tracks, for example.
Which will almost certainly be the case as it is on HS1 and high speed lines all over Europe.
The way it looks, not enough thought has been put into it. If there has been adequate thought, it has all been directed towards cutting corners, and, clearly, common sense and practicality has taken a back seat, or been pushed off the train altogether.
It must be obvious that if the HST terminal is not at an interchange and centrally located, the time accessing the terminal will add to the journey time, thus eliminating the time advantages, so pax may as well save money and use conventional rail. Those away from central locations won't be using HS2 anyway, precisely for this reason.
So how do you get to the centre of Leed/Sheffield/Nottingam by building a new railway nowadays. This isn't the mid nineteenth century where you simply evict the poor out of their slums as the London and Birmingham or Great Northern did to create the route.
With few stops will there be adequate numbers prepared to pay the supplement to use the HS2, and, criticly, adequate numbers of premium
pax? How many pay the extra to use the "javelin" service in Kent?
Go to Pancras in the morning and evening peaks and it's rather a lot which is why they tend to couple two trains to-gether.
back to the drawing board is the best idea, before public opinion becomes completely hostile, and that's not just the NIMBYs.
Which will almost certainly be the case as it is on HS1 and high speed lines all over Europe.
The way it looks, not enough thought has been put into it. If there has been adequate thought, it has all been directed towards cutting corners, and, clearly, common sense and practicality has taken a back seat, or been pushed off the train altogether.
It must be obvious that if the HST terminal is not at an interchange and centrally located, the time accessing the terminal will add to the journey time, thus eliminating the time advantages, so pax may as well save money and use conventional rail. Those away from central locations won't be using HS2 anyway, precisely for this reason.
So how do you get to the centre of Leed/Sheffield/Nottingam by building a new railway nowadays. This isn't the mid nineteenth century where you simply evict the poor out of their slums as the London and Birmingham or Great Northern did to create the route.
With few stops will there be adequate numbers prepared to pay the supplement to use the HS2, and, criticly, adequate numbers of premium
pax? How many pay the extra to use the "javelin" service in Kent?
Go to Pancras in the morning and evening peaks and it's rather a lot which is why they tend to couple two trains to-gether.
back to the drawing board is the best idea, before public opinion becomes completely hostile, and that's not just the NIMBYs.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Agree that London-Birmingham on its own is too short. It's the whole Y or nothing. Adonis is right about that."
Agreed, except the "Y" needs to be near Rugby, not Elmdon/Birmingham. Under the Chilterns and via Old Oak and Birmingham is a hell of a long way round to Leeds, the conventional route takes just 2h.15 and runs twice/hour. Having said that, it's unlikely to ever reach Leeds.
Quote: "St Pancras Euston and KX will still be there for most of the traffic but terminal congestion is a serious issue. OOC provides relief via Crossrail and has potential to act as regional distributor to/from South London and beyond, including Paris and Brussels. The current trek from say Croydon to Birmingham via train, underground and train could be radically improved. Get it right and there's a lot of development potential at Old Oak."
Old Oak is fine as an interchange stop, but not as a terminal as suggested in an earlier thread. With HS1 and HS2 at different London locations, the best way from Birmingham to Paris/Brussels will still be by air.
Croydon (or Brighton) to Birmingham is a one-change service, it's an hourly service with just one change at Watford Junc.. No tubes and faffing around in London involved.
Quote: "So how do you get to the centre of Leed/Sheffield/Nottingam by building a new railway nowadays. This isn't the mid nineteenth century where you simply evict the poor out of their slums as the London and Birmingham or Great Northern did to create the route."
You don't, it just needs spurs onto the existing track for the final few miles to those cities, exactly in the same way that the route north of Birmingham will join the WCML on its Trent Valley section.
Quote: "The public are generally hostile because the proponents of HS2 are doing a lousy job of presenting their case whereas the nimbys - especially the Bucks/Chilterns ones are becoming masters at half truths and mis-information. A good case was the article that was published in the Telegraph (which nowadays seems to be rapidly coming a newsheet for the antis) by local M.P. Cheryll Gillan which contained so many innacuracys that it was laughable, yet there was no reply from the HS2 people refuting her claims."
They do a lousy job of presenting their case, because there isn't one. This is a long term project costing several billions, the government owes it to the public to at least think it through properly and come up with something better. That's why there's public hostility, as is usually the case with vacuous vanity projects.
Agreed, except the "Y" needs to be near Rugby, not Elmdon/Birmingham. Under the Chilterns and via Old Oak and Birmingham is a hell of a long way round to Leeds, the conventional route takes just 2h.15 and runs twice/hour. Having said that, it's unlikely to ever reach Leeds.
Quote: "St Pancras Euston and KX will still be there for most of the traffic but terminal congestion is a serious issue. OOC provides relief via Crossrail and has potential to act as regional distributor to/from South London and beyond, including Paris and Brussels. The current trek from say Croydon to Birmingham via train, underground and train could be radically improved. Get it right and there's a lot of development potential at Old Oak."
Old Oak is fine as an interchange stop, but not as a terminal as suggested in an earlier thread. With HS1 and HS2 at different London locations, the best way from Birmingham to Paris/Brussels will still be by air.
Croydon (or Brighton) to Birmingham is a one-change service, it's an hourly service with just one change at Watford Junc.. No tubes and faffing around in London involved.
Quote: "So how do you get to the centre of Leed/Sheffield/Nottingam by building a new railway nowadays. This isn't the mid nineteenth century where you simply evict the poor out of their slums as the London and Birmingham or Great Northern did to create the route."
You don't, it just needs spurs onto the existing track for the final few miles to those cities, exactly in the same way that the route north of Birmingham will join the WCML on its Trent Valley section.
Quote: "The public are generally hostile because the proponents of HS2 are doing a lousy job of presenting their case whereas the nimbys - especially the Bucks/Chilterns ones are becoming masters at half truths and mis-information. A good case was the article that was published in the Telegraph (which nowadays seems to be rapidly coming a newsheet for the antis) by local M.P. Cheryll Gillan which contained so many innacuracys that it was laughable, yet there was no reply from the HS2 people refuting her claims."
They do a lousy job of presenting their case, because there isn't one. This is a long term project costing several billions, the government owes it to the public to at least think it through properly and come up with something better. That's why there's public hostility, as is usually the case with vacuous vanity projects.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 26th Jan 2013 at 22:41.
Fairdealfrank
Your rubbishing of HS2 at every turn leads me to assume that you are a leading member of one of the myriad of NIMBY groups that have sprung up virtually every metres of the route between London and Birmingham. A number that will increase drmatically when the Govt. onnounces the planned route of the next phase this week!
If high speed rail works (and you absolutely cannot deny that it does) in comparable, though slightly larger countries such as yand France it is unarguable that it won't work here - unless of course, like everything else that works in Europe - Britain needs to negotiate an opt out!!
As for joined up thinking - for heavens sake this is about UK transport infrastructure, which has never, ever done joined up thinking - and for as long as it's in private hands, never will (mind you it never did when it was in public hands either!).
Your rubbishing of HS2 at every turn leads me to assume that you are a leading member of one of the myriad of NIMBY groups that have sprung up virtually every metres of the route between London and Birmingham. A number that will increase drmatically when the Govt. onnounces the planned route of the next phase this week!
If high speed rail works (and you absolutely cannot deny that it does) in comparable, though slightly larger countries such as yand France it is unarguable that it won't work here - unless of course, like everything else that works in Europe - Britain needs to negotiate an opt out!!
As for joined up thinking - for heavens sake this is about UK transport infrastructure, which has never, ever done joined up thinking - and for as long as it's in private hands, never will (mind you it never did when it was in public hands either!).
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's good when something sparks debate and interest, but I want to take the opportunity to answer some points and present some facts. Many, including Anothertyke and Suzeman are absolutely right in what they have said, so forgive me if I repeat, and for the unordered nature of this reply.
I can assure you there is a case for HS2 (I’d hope so otherwise that’s 10 years of my working life wasted!), and the bigger the network the stronger it becomes. Even at its weakest the case is far better than many other major infrastructure schemes.
Yes and the benefits derived from it will be even more billions, hence it is beneficial for the country.
To be far the government, both this one and the previous, have done far more than ‘think it through’. This has been in development for at least 10 years planning and many hours of time by planners, engineers, consultants, environmentalists etc looking at economic data, studying topography and the current classic network.
I can vouch for the fact that almost every possible route where you could lay a track has been looked at (very interesting maps actually) and they considered north, east and western options. Route is a compromise (anothertyke ), as are all major infrastructure schemes, however best compromise to ensure growth, prosperity and transport capacity for whole of UK in the future.
previous posts by jabird and Suzeman answer this well.
As ATNotts has said, there’s never joined up thinking in the UK, which is the biggest issue with UK transport policy.
You may not agree the outcome but is not right to say it’s poorly planned .
Semantics now – any transport route can be described as a network, but this isn’t really important
Very few options for linking the two without affecting huge areas of housing, offices etc in London. Personally can see some benefits of a Mega new station combining Euston, St Pancras and King’s Cross, however this is never going to happen.
In reality the demand for journeys to Europe from Birmingham, Manchester etc isn’t enough to justify a regular rail service with a frequency that would suit most travellers. As an example there are 5 daily flights between Birmingham and Paris, with a total seating capacity of about 625. Each train is planned to seat around 1000 people.
Central termini are preferable, but again compromises must be made.
There are many factors that have influenced this decision, which am sure all are aware of, but some include;
• It’s incredibly difficult to build new stations of the size required in the UK, let alone in our city centres, and hence why it is planned to allow trains to run onto classic lines at times. Together with the fact that the planned loading gauge of the HS trains will be that of continental Europe (which is wider than the UK and the reason we can’t have double deck trains) would require much modification to any existing station to be use – not impossible I grant you, but two types of trains are planned for HS2, which will ensure the above.
The forecasts (I know you can argue about these but they have been done using the accepted National methodology), and evidence from around the world, show yes, there will be. Figures show that there have been around 25% more journeys to and from Kent since the opening of the Javelin services, resulting in increased services, new destinations being served, and reducing travel times.
anothertyke is right and agree – Business case has always been based on whole network, and it gets stronger if extended further north to Newcastle and Scotland.
It is much much more than a basket case - not optimal as nothing ever is but the best it can be.
I whole heartedly agree on expanding LHR, at least to give it some breathing space when things cannot operate properly – last couple of weeks for example.
HS2, however, isn’t primarily designed to reduce domestic flights, and indeed the majority of passengers flying from Manchester, Leeds, Scotland to LHR do so to connect onto long-range flights (hence why Virgin Atlantic are starting these flights).
HS2 is above improving the capacity of the UK’s rail network, which will enable more services to be run to serve more people and places.
OOC never seriously considered as a Terminal location, and again a compromise. One could ask why Crossrail, one of the biggest projects ever undertaken in UK isn't serving Euston, St Pancras or Kings Cross?
This would then avoid the need for OOC altogether!
They do a lousy job of presenting their case, because there isn't one.
This is a long term project costing several billions,
the government owes it to the public to at least think it through properly and come up with something better. That's why there's public hostility, as is usually the case with vacuous vanity projects.
A return to the drawing board is the best idea for HS2.
A return to the drawing board is the best idea for HS2.
I can vouch for the fact that almost every possible route where you could lay a track has been looked at (very interesting maps actually) and they considered north, east and western options. Route is a compromise (anothertyke ), as are all major infrastructure schemes, however best compromise to ensure growth, prosperity and transport capacity for whole of UK in the future.
"You'd think there would be joined up thinking, but there are no plans for a HS2 station at East Midlands Airport.
"Stupid railway
The whole HS2 thing is very poorly planned and I would support it if there was any joined up thinking."
The whole HS2 thing is very poorly planned and I would support it if there was any joined up thinking."
You may not agree the outcome but is not right to say it’s poorly planned .
Well anyone who refers to HS1 as a "network" when it is just a single route, finds themselves losing credibility fast.
Whichever way you look at it, the HS2-HS1 connection is a botched job
In reality the demand for journeys to Europe from Birmingham, Manchester etc isn’t enough to justify a regular rail service with a frequency that would suit most travellers. As an example there are 5 daily flights between Birmingham and Paris, with a total seating capacity of about 625. Each train is planned to seat around 1000 people.
It must be obvious that if the HST terminal is not at an interchange and centrally located, the time accessing the terminal will add to the journey time, thus eliminating the time advantages, so pax may as well save money and use conventional rail. Those away from central locations won't be using HS2 anyway, precisely for this reason.
"There is a station known as the Bickenhill/Birmingham Interchange, where passengers will connect onto a people mover up to Birmingham Airport. That doesn't make sense to me either why you don't have a station inside the airport itself. There aren't geographical problems are there a la Luton Airport are there?"
There are many factors that have influenced this decision, which am sure all are aware of, but some include;
• It’s incredibly difficult to build new stations of the size required in the UK, let alone in our city centres, and hence why it is planned to allow trains to run onto classic lines at times. Together with the fact that the planned loading gauge of the HS trains will be that of continental Europe (which is wider than the UK and the reason we can’t have double deck trains) would require much modification to any existing station to be use – not impossible I grant you, but two types of trains are planned for HS2, which will ensure the above.
- The increased number of spurs on the line make the operations more complicated, with headways longer to allow for deceleration and acceleration etc. This reduces the overall network capacity, and therefore through stations along the main route are an option.
- Access time is a key consideration to the business case, and choice of station locations.
With few stops will there be adequate numbers prepared to pay the supplement to use the HS2, and, critically, adequate numbers of premium pax? How many pay the extra to use the "javelin" service in Kent?
London-Birmingham is really too short for the benefits of high speed rail.
"The project is not a slam dunk gimme. Nor is it a basket case."
Much cheaper to develop LHR and some complementary domestic air services to co-exist
HS2, however, isn’t primarily designed to reduce domestic flights, and indeed the majority of passengers flying from Manchester, Leeds, Scotland to LHR do so to connect onto long-range flights (hence why Virgin Atlantic are starting these flights).
HS2 is above improving the capacity of the UK’s rail network, which will enable more services to be run to serve more people and places.
Old Oak is fine as an interchange stop, but not as a terminal as suggested in an earlier thread
This would then avoid the need for OOC altogether!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The public are generally hostile because the proponents of HS2 are doing a lousy job of presenting their case whereas the nimbys - especially the Bucks/Chilterns ones are becoming masters at half truths and mis-information.
leads me to assume that you are a leading member of one of the myriad of NIMBY groups
If high speed rail works (and you absolutely cannot deny that it does)
Of course HSR has its successful routes and it has its failures, just like any other technology.
it is unarguable that it won't work here
Semantics now – any transport route can be described as a network, but this isn’t really important
It is, I'm afraid, yet another case of proponents of HS2 overselling what is either built or proposed, just like the overstated claims of air modal share as mentioned above.
there are 5 daily flights between Birmingham and Paris, with a total seating capacity of about 625. Each train is planned to seat around 1000 people
Agreed - UKBA make this harder than it should be, but we haven't helped ourselves with the infrastructure either.
wider than the UK and the reason we can’t have double deck trains
unfortunately most of these journeys will be made by other modes, esp. car. Not having to drive into congested centres is a benefit to many people, and they will find the new HS2 station more conveniently located
City centre stations are in perfectly easy walking or cycling distances of major offices, shops and residential areas. The same cannot be said of out-of-town locations.
If centres AND out of town are being served (eg at Brum), then fair enough, but the centres should always come first.
not optimal as nothing ever is but the best it can be.
Meanwhile, if we stick within this forum's remit of "airlines, airports and routes", it competes with no airline, serves no airport directly and takes a route which is far from optimal.
In what way does this constitute best can be?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if we stick within this forum's remit of "airlines, airports and routes"
Quote:
The public are generally hostile because the proponents of HS2 are doing a lousy job of presenting their case whereas the nimbys - especially the Bucks/Chilterns ones are becoming masters at half truths and mis-information.
That in itself is a ridiculous half truth! I have tried numerous times to get some simple figures out of HS2 Ltd re: air to rail modal share, and they hide behind claims they don't have such figures (they are in important part of the case), or they give me figures which imply the only way they could have been concocted is by assuming HS2 will go to EDI & GLA from day 1!
The public are generally hostile because the proponents of HS2 are doing a lousy job of presenting their case whereas the nimbys - especially the Bucks/Chilterns ones are becoming masters at half truths and mis-information.
That in itself is a ridiculous half truth! I have tried numerous times to get some simple figures out of HS2 Ltd re: air to rail modal share, and they hide behind claims they don't have such figures (they are in important part of the case), or they give me figures which imply the only way they could have been concocted is by assuming HS2 will go to EDI & GLA from day 1!
In terms of mode split; Manchester - London Rail has about 2/3 of the market.
Network
The plans to link to HS1, and the wider European High Speed network, have always been an after thought. Through services from the British regions were originally planned, but there's just not the demand for regular services on routes such as Manchester - Amsterdam, Birmingham - Paris by rail
very concept of integrated transport the government is trying to promote.
City centre stations are in perfectly easy walking or cycling distances of major offices, shops and residential areas. The same cannot be said of out-of-town locations.
wider than the UK and the reason we can’t have double deck trains
In what way does this constitute best can be?
For the greater good of Britain, the routes presented so far, and next week, are the best in terms of topography, cost of construction, serving the most people, creating economic benefits for the whole of the UK and providing an opportunity for new services on the exisiting network .
HS1 was the start of specifically designed High Speed Lines in the UK, this will be followed by HS2, and I hope in the future, albeit a long time, we'll have a complete network of HS3,4,5 etc which will mean the entire country served by High Speed rail.
Just to put a question out there to everyone?
If this was a classic railway would the objections still be there? I am genuinely interested as in terms of cost the difference isn't that much.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we shouldn't discuss HS2 at all!
If we're discussing it here, then we have to ask two core questions:
1) Is HS2 a substantial alternative to short haul flights - over and above cases where the train is already winning?
I suggest the main place where this is the case is NCL, and that there will be some movement of leisure pax from EDI + GLA, but not the seismic shift that is being claimed, as c 3h45 is still going to be too long for the higher yield leisure + biz pax.
2) Can HS2 improve feeder links to airports?
Here we have a mixed bag - a station under LHR would be ideal, but that would shoot up the cost, and even if it served the CTA, you still need a shuttle to 4 &5. So OOC isn't a bad fudge - and let's forget about the other spur from T5 to the north.
BHX station will have a people mover, but B Int already does, EMA not viable as above and we just don't know about MAN yet.
So, overally, this is no Frankfurt F or CDG 2, but there are still some improvements.
hich side had done a better job at communicating their views, then it would be the anti HS2 groups.
Having said that, it is simplistic to say oppostion to HS2 just comes from people on the route. I am not on the route, but I cross it quite often, and the message on the banners is "no business case, no economic case" - very different to the usual "not here" banners - although there are a few of those too.
just not the demand for regular services on routes such as Manchester - Amsterdam, Birmingham - Paris by rail
However, if you include other stops on the route, especially if you include a London stop, I think these routes might work, but they don't make or break the case.
most journeys in the UK are made by car, and for them, out of centre locations are attractive.
Needless to say, city centre locations encourage such integration, whereas out of town do not.
Worse still, in the first consult, there was no attempt to consolidate either modes. It was clearly designed by a team with an "either / or" mentality - so no parking or bus access at Old Oak (no tube to Central Line / local NLL either), whereas BHX had an 8,000 space parking garage with no metro, no bridge to nearby edge of NEC complex, no local cycling routes.
If this was a classic railway would the objections still be there? I am genuinely interested as in terms of cost the difference isn't that much.
HS2 Ltd have claimed a classic line would only be 8% cheaper. I find that hard to believe, given how much straighter a 240mph line needs to be.
Other critics have asked about a "slightly slower" - ie 300k line. I'd love to read a genuinely unbiased report on that.
The critics then go on to say that the extra 40mph top speed would only "save" a few seconds to Brum, and that even that "saving" is minimal if people work on the train.
I think it makes far more difference when you get further up the line. However, saving 5 minutes on the new lines to then slow down to 125mph on the conventional lines is not the same thing as going high speed all the way to Scotland.
So on that, we might agree - a complete line would be far better than what is being proposed now. It would also be much less costly per mile, as the cost of land acquisition lowers where population is more dispersed.
However, that is not the HS2 that is being presented, and given it will already take 20 years to get to the Manchester region, another 10-20 years for an as-yet unknown link north of the border is hardly an exciting prospect.
In the meantime, the other flaws as mentioned above still remain.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HS2 v. Airliner
I'm interested in the comparative environmental effect of HS2 from London to Scotland versus an airliner. The construction of the rail line will cut a swathe through some attractive and currently peaceful countryside, with associated noise and a small amount of direct (and a larger amount of indirect) pollution as the train passes carrying c. 200 passengers. Those same areas of countryside are crossed by airliners carrying c. 200 passengers hundreds of times a day now, with little immediate environmental impact on those areas. Who doubts that by 2036 airliners will be even quieter and less polluting than they are now? Who doubts that in fifty or more years airliners will be using alternative, less polluting fuels? Yet the HS2 line will remain a scar on the landscape and its noise is unlikely to be reduced.
I'm also interested in the travel time and the fares. I can fly from LHR, LGW or LCY with BA to Edinburgh in 75 minutes whilst the HS2 should do it in 175 minutes. OK, add the check-in and surface transport times and HS2 will be a little quicker (although that depends where you're going - how many of the HS2 passengers will actually be travelling to LHR or wherever London's hub airport will be by then?). It costs as little as £96 return, all in to fly with BA. I wonder how much the HS2 return fare will be?
Of course, the HS2 will bring economic benefits to some places along the way; but I wonder whether investment in airports might have a similar and less permanently damaging effect?
I'm also interested in the travel time and the fares. I can fly from LHR, LGW or LCY with BA to Edinburgh in 75 minutes whilst the HS2 should do it in 175 minutes. OK, add the check-in and surface transport times and HS2 will be a little quicker (although that depends where you're going - how many of the HS2 passengers will actually be travelling to LHR or wherever London's hub airport will be by then?). It costs as little as £96 return, all in to fly with BA. I wonder how much the HS2 return fare will be?
Of course, the HS2 will bring economic benefits to some places along the way; but I wonder whether investment in airports might have a similar and less permanently damaging effect?
Last edited by Barling Magna; 28th Jan 2013 at 08:31.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If its all about point 2 point speed then that means fewer station, so why stop at all? in which case flying will always be quicker on LON to Scotland routes, no one flies between BHX & LON and with HS2 fewer will between LON & MAN
I'm open minded about HS2 i quite like trains and 400KPH is going some, but the cost is mind boggling and who is going to pay v who is going to benefit ??
In national terms i think the London Hub question is a higher priority and the answer to that question will likely effect the rail route question.
I see the published route does indeed go directly under EMA in twin tunnels, i don't think it should stop at EMA a large underground station would add massively to construction costs, however an additional parallel line along side from Taton (new East Midlands parkway) terminating under EMA with direct air port access would make sense, it wouldn't need a station as such, just make it a free service from Taton and build a very large car park there, it wouldn't need to be a heavy train a mono rail type train (driver less) covering the 3 miles or so every 5 minutes would be much less expensive to build and run?
I'm open minded about HS2 i quite like trains and 400KPH is going some, but the cost is mind boggling and who is going to pay v who is going to benefit ??
In national terms i think the London Hub question is a higher priority and the answer to that question will likely effect the rail route question.
I see the published route does indeed go directly under EMA in twin tunnels, i don't think it should stop at EMA a large underground station would add massively to construction costs, however an additional parallel line along side from Taton (new East Midlands parkway) terminating under EMA with direct air port access would make sense, it wouldn't need a station as such, just make it a free service from Taton and build a very large car park there, it wouldn't need to be a heavy train a mono rail type train (driver less) covering the 3 miles or so every 5 minutes would be much less expensive to build and run?