HS2 rail route and EMA [Archive]

arfortune

25th Jan 2013, 16:40

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:
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 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:
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 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:

The first question is why it is not joined up to HS1 ?
It will be.
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.

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.

Fairdealfrank

25th Jan 2013, 16:56

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.

jabird

25th Jan 2013, 23:28

A return to the drawing board is the best idea for HS2.

I agree - and the idea that people who are critical of this scheme are just trying to spread scare stories is, in itself, a paranoid scare tactic.

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.

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.

The routes published have taken years of optimisation to ensure they offer the best value, benefit, minimise environmental impact and access to HS2

Well you said it not me - minimise access to HS2, which is exactly what it is doing by failing to serve the city centres of Coventry, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield - if the latest reports are verified on the release of the Ph2 route.

the additional infrastructure needed considerably slows down the services

Not necessarily as the French have been building stations for decades with fast through tracks. These cost a lot more, but they enable more stations to be built. Your problem then becomes a question of headway rather than speed reduction as fast trains will still catch up with others which are slowing down / accelerating.

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

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.

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!

Fairdealfrank

26th Jan 2013, 11:58

anothertyke

26th Jan 2013, 13:48

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.

Suzeman

26th Jan 2013, 14:09

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fairdealfrank

26th Jan 2013, 14:16

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.

anothertyke

26th Jan 2013, 16:57

@ 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.

RedhillPhil

26th Jan 2013, 20:29

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.

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.

Fairdealfrank

26th Jan 2013, 22:35

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.

ATNotts

27th Jan 2013, 10:13

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!).

arfortune

27th Jan 2013, 13:25

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.

They do a lousy job of presenting their case, because there isn't one.
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.
This is a long term project costing several billions,
Yes and the benefits derived from it will be even more billions, hence it is beneficial for the country.
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.
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.

"You'd think there would be joined up thinking, but there are no plans for a HS2 station at East Midlands Airport.

previous posts by jabird and Suzeman answer this well.

"Stupid railway
The whole HS2 thing is very poorly planned and I would support it if there was any joined up thinking."
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 .
Well anyone who refers to HS1 as a "network" when it is just a single route, finds themselves losing credibility fast.
Semantics now – any transport route can be described as a network, but this isn’t really important
Whichever way you look at it, the HS2-HS1 connection is a botched job
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.

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?"
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 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.

Most people have to travel to reach existing central stations to connect. If this is done by rail than yes, it’s far simpler to be in the same location, but 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.

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?
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.

London-Birmingham is really too short for the benefits of high speed rail.
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.
"The project is not a slam dunk gimme. Nor is it a basket case."
It is much much more than a basket case - not optimal as nothing ever is but the best it can be.
Much cheaper to develop LHR and some complementary domestic air services to co-exist
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.
Old Oak is fine as an interchange stop, but not as a terminal as suggested in an earlier thread
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!

jabird

27th Jan 2013, 14:22

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!

leads me to assume that you are a leading member of one of the myriad of NIMBY groups

Leads me to assume you are running desperately short of arguments. Perhaps you could assume that people like myself, living in Coventry, which isn't even on the line, are nimbys too? If anything, we are imbys - we ask why billions are being spent on this route, but it brings us few benefits.

If high speed rail works (and you absolutely cannot deny that it does)

Err, so it is absolutely 100% certain that all AVE routes in Spain are 100% occupied 100% of the time? What a ridiculous statement!

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

I've signed up to the "why can't we have what they have in Europe" argument for donkeys years. I don't see HS2 as comparable to such systems, especially when it comes to serving city centres rather than remote parkway locations.

Semantics now – any transport route can be described as a network, but this isn’t really important

No it cannot, a network is a series of interconnecting routes, not a single route. You might just about argue that "SE Highspeed" is a network, as it serves other places away from HS1, but HS1 on its own is most certainly not.

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

Assuming occupancy rates are as high as air routes, which is currently not the case. Also, BHX-BRU is a strict ptp service, whereas a properly thought through rail route would also call somewhere in London, then perhaps at Ashford & Lille before reaching Midi.

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

We could for the "captive" trains, thus providing more capacity from less train paths, thus making it easier to insert more stops.

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

Sorry, but that is a terrible cop out, and it also shows how HS2 is going completely against the 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.

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.

Sorry, but it just isn't - far more expensive than ANY comparable European project (even the over-budget ones like Florence-Bologna), yet it delivers far less, creates rivalry between places which are on the route and those which are not, and it increases car dependency, instead of reducing it.

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?

arfortune

27th Jan 2013, 15:29

if we stick within this forum's remit of "airlines, airports and routes"
we shouldn't discuss HS2 at all!

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!
I totally agree with the original quote - putting aside whther you are for or against the scheme; if you had to say which side had done a better job at communicating their views, then it would be the anti HS2 groups. And in some cases they have used inaccurate information - the Telegraph's Cheryl Gillan article is full of incorrect information.
In terms of mode split; Manchester - London Rail has about 2/3 of the market.
Network
We're focussing on the wrong think really - network or route, for the sake of this issue the basic point is the same.
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.
Politicians and government always talk about integrated transport but do very little to actually implement this.

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.
I believe I said central stations were preferred, however, in terms of 'parkway' type stations, unfortunately most journeys in the UK are made by car, and for them, out of centre locations are attractive.

wider than the UK and the reason we can’t have double deck trains
I apologise if it caused confusion - I was referring to the exisiting, classic network.

In what way does this constitute best can be?
This has to be considered for the UK as a whole, rather than just the places with stations. Its the current political systme we have where cities and regions have to compete with each other for investments etc, and unless we become a communist system this won't change.
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.

jabird

27th Jan 2013, 15:50

we shouldn't discuss HS2 at all!

I think we should, question is more whether in here, or in JB, where there have been threads before.

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.

I've heard it claimed 96% of news is "bad" news, and I'd also go on a formula of about 7 complaints to one positive report for any planning issue.

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

Not if you compare daily flight rotations with train capacity, when a single high density high speed coach could take same numbers as a Q400 or E195.

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.

We're not dealing with "most journeys", but with the feeder journeys to an onward train journey. Naturally, at present, these do actually tend to have a higher proportion of feed from other rail, metro and bus and also from walking + cycling.

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.

That is a good question. Of course there will always be the nimby argument. If that was the only opposition to HS2, it could be reasonably easily dismissed.

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.

Barling Magna

28th Jan 2013, 08:30

Facelookbovvered

28th Jan 2013, 09:05

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?

RedhillPhil

28th Jan 2013, 09:22

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.

You can't get out of the fact that any building works will cause disruption be it a road, rail or air(port) connected. Airliners will become quieter as they have been for some years (compare a 1965 1-11 with a 2005 737) but trains too are getting quieter. Standing by the line when a Eurostar set whips past at 300 k is a quieter experience than a class 50 hauling ten mark II coaches. I live about six miles from Gatwick and frequently hear aircraft (rarely disturbingly so) yet less than a mile from the Brighton main line I never hear trains. As for cutting a swathe through the countryside the visual impact is far far less than six lanes of a motorway. Any one driving along the M6 at is threads it's way along the Lune Valley cannot fail to notice the comparative width of the motorway against the width of the west Coast main line. Google earth will show another comparison where HS1 runs alongside the M20 in Kent. The Eurostar experience has shown that people will in the main prefer the lesser hassle and better views of rail travel.

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?

The railways cottoned on to airline fare structures after privatisation. Book some time ahead and you can go to Newcastle from Kings Cross for £25. Turn up and travel on the next available and it'll be probably be north of £200. I've no doubt it'll be the same on HS2.

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 don't and shouldn't think so. Each has it's own merits but in the long run I believe that rail has the brighter future, it's certainly proving so in Europe and rail ridership here has never been so high which is why this line needs to be built.

Barling Magna

28th Jan 2013, 09:42

But is rail use increasing partly because airport expansion is being prevented? Probably only a minimal effect, I agree. However I'll bet I won't be able to travel to Edinburgh and back for much under £250 on HS2. So I won't go. Nor will many other normal folk. We'll take the longer journey by Airbus A419 or Bombardier C series and save money. But we'll have to fly from LTN or STN or SEN because LHR and LGW will have frozen out or be forbidden to have domestic flights.

RedhillPhil

28th Jan 2013, 09:50

Well I suppose that market forces will prevail which of course translates as "we'll charge as much as people are willing to pay". I rather suspect that HS2 will have a premium, how much or little depends on what "they" think people wil pay. One of the plus points when the Inter-City 125s were launched is that there was no fare increase, the price remained the same even though the journey time improved quite significantly.
The objection(s) to HS2 will eventually come down to pricing unless someone in HS2 land suddenly sees a real opportunity.

Barling Magna

28th Jan 2013, 10:01

Daza

28th Jan 2013, 10:32

Why isnt the "Birmingham Interchange" going to be called Birmingham Airport? Manchester Airport is getting a station, why not Birmingham?
It will be like the ridiculously labelled Birmingham International........another missed opportunity for Birmingham Airport. :ugh:
Daza

RedhillPhil

28th Jan 2013, 10:44

Too true. I'm not anti-rail. I lived in Swindon for many years and the 125 High Speed Train screamed past my kitchen window - most impressive in those far off days. Of course that was a diesel and the HS2 will be much quieter, but I've experienced the noise and air effects of the TGV - they won't be able to get rid of that "whooooooosh" I'll bet.

That's a good example of rail noise improving that you've just mentioned. The 125s were originally engined with a Paxman "Valenta" V-12. which made a real screaming sound thanks to it's enormous turbo-supercharger. Now that they've been re-engined with an MTU engine they're much quieter.

jabird

28th Jan 2013, 10:58

Well they've clearly retained MOL as a consultant, but instead of using him to keep costs under control (they've got Bob Crow for that), they've used him to advise on the "optimum" location for the 6 Ryanstations on the route, namely:

*Old Oak fails to connect with Central Line London East
*Birmingham Coventry Ryanair Parkway no direct rail connections, shuttle to the airport Central
*Birmingham Still 10 minutes from New St
* Nottingham Toton Sidings are where trains sit, not where passengers want to be
* Sheffield Meadowhall as discussed on relevant thread
* Leeds still 400m short of the main city station

Businesstraveller

28th Jan 2013, 11:49

Daza - the first HS2 stop will be Birmingham Airport. As all services will pass through here and then either carry on to Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds, this means that Birmingham Airport becomes a defacto interchange.

jabird

28th Jan 2013, 12:09

Why isnt the "Birmingham Interchange" going to be called Birmingham Airport?

Because it is 2k away from Birmingham Airport, International formerly known as. So Birmingham "International" station is the one that needs a name re-think!

As all services will pass through here and then either carry on to Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds, this means that Birmingham Airport becomes a defacto interchange.

Not really. Why would you want to change from HS2 to another HS2 service? Also, many trains will just charge straight down the centre tracks and not stop.

So there will be a people mover to transfer between airport and remote railway station - allow 10 mins for journey itself + wait time and so on, so the idea of a 30 minute-to-London airport is somewhat optimistic.

Other local rail connections will also still need to use the people mover, unless some form of shuttle connector is build from M42 Ryanair Parkway to Coventry. Yet even this means back-tracking to reverse onwards to London. Why bother? Maybe it will be useful for going north, but would there be enough volume to justify putting on a train for that market?

If they brought a spur from HS2 and on to the WCML for continuation to Reading and perhaps MK, then it could serve Coventry in the process.

In the meantime, the proposals as of the HS1 consultation, which didn't include tram or bus in the mix, and which failed to provide any sort of local walking / cycling connectivity, do very little to warrant the "interchange" tag.

Burnie5204

28th Jan 2013, 12:25

Well it looks like this 'under EMA' plan is the one they're going for. Runs past my parents house alongside the M42 at the Measham VRP then turns, crosses the M42 then runs under the airport across to Toton

Walnut

28th Jan 2013, 15:17

The battle now starts with land owners & others who will be affected.
Has anyone in authority in the UK looked at how the French built their TGV network. The protests were much muted because the govt offered full compensation plus 25%, people actually asked for the route to come near them. This would be a much cheaper overall than all the public enquiries.

Businesstraveller

28th Jan 2013, 15:27

Not really. Why would you want to change from HS2 to another HS2 service?

It's reasonable to assume that the scheme developers intend for some interchanging to take place. After all, it's them who have called it an 'interchange'.

This being the case, the only likely interchanging is for someone coming from Birmingham city centre wishing to travel to Leeds (say). As for the point of the Birmingham Airport stop not being within the curtilage of airport, this would be the case for the Manchester Airport stop - if that element actually happens.

All that being said however, it could well also be referring to an 'interchange' in modes of transport. Shuttle to/from the nearby airport, car to/from homes in Coventry/South Birmingham/North Warwickshire.

Overall it would seem reasonable to conclude that proportionately not much interchanging will actually take place. Hopefully they'll drop the 'interchange' and remove some undoubted confusion for future passengers.

Fairdealfrank

28th Jan 2013, 18:40

Quote: “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!).”

Wrong again ATNotts, can’t let you get away with this!

Do you know what NIMBY stands for?

Thought not, it's "Not In My Back Yard".

Am in favour of Heathrow expansion and live in Middlesex under the flightpath, that's hardly NIMBYism. "In Middlesex under the flightpath", is also nowhere near the HS2 route, so NIMBYism doesn't even apply!

If you'd bothered to read my posts properly you would realise that NIMBYism isn't my objection. My objection is to the slap-dash penny-pinching approach. As so much public money is being spent, the government owes it to the public to present common-sense proposals that are properly thought through.

Creating an "FR-of-the-rails", with stations in the middle of nowhere does not cut it. Nor does the current routing. Why does it need to go through BrumBrum is not on the way to Leeds or Manchester, and too close to London to benefit from HS rail. If it has to go to Brum for political reasons, do it as a spur.

Check my posts on this and other threads, have consistently argued for transport choice: a good road, rail, and domestic air provision, so am obviously not against the extension of choice, and a properly designed HS2 could be part of that.

As for joined up thinking, just because it's never been the case, should it not happen now, and in future? That's not very constructive is it?

There's only ever been 2 parallel east-west rwys at Heathrow, doesn't mean this should always be the case, indeed it shouldn't have been for 20 years.

We are going to have change, so let's make it change for the better, not for the sake of it.

Hope this helps.

ManUtd1999

28th Jan 2013, 19:45

As usual in this country, none of our transport plans seem to link up. We're going to have a HS2 which doesn't link with HS1, neither of which link with either Crossrail or Heathrow. :ugh: Surely it would be better to route HS2 out of west London via a station at Heathrow (& connection with Crossrail/Tube). An extra stop wouldn't add too much to journey times and rail travel to our main hub airport would be a lot easier.

On another note, this project is taking over 20 years to complete - is there really no way of speeding it up? Couldn't we start building several sections of line at once or something?

Tableview

28th Jan 2013, 19:50

I listened to the scripted speech of some government bod at lunchtime, and was not really paying full attention, but I thought I heard him say that there would be an interchange at Old Oak Common where HS1, HS2, and the Heathrow Express would all interline.

That seems to make sense .......... so I have probably misunderstood as the day a government minister proposes something that makes sense will be a rare day indeed.

RedhillPhil

28th Jan 2013, 21:32

HS2 will up with HS1. A (largely) tunnelled spur will link it from Old Oak Common to a point just north of Chalk Farm where a realigned curve will enable it to join the present HS1.

RedhillPhil

28th Jan 2013, 21:33

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

29th Jan 2013, 19:32

Just a thought but if HS2 is going to link the Smoke (from near as dammit the centre) with Elmdon and Ringway, then some of the lomg haul load could be taken off Stanstead, Gatwick and Heathrow. That said, please God let us not have London (Birmingham) like London (Oxford)!

egnxema

29th Jan 2013, 21:31

Have you looked at the detailed maps and drawings online for the HS2 route? Someone has clearly taken time and detail to show where the tunnel entrances will be SW and NE of EMA. It is clearly marked as a Cut and Cover tunnel. That is not a bored tunnel, but a dig a huge trench, lay a long concrete tube and then cover it over with earth again.

Who on earth drew that over EMA and didn't think it physically impossible unless you close the runway for 2 years???

onyxcrowle

29th Jan 2013, 21:32

What happened to the so called government scheme to speed up planning and major projects.
This needs to be spade ready in five years not twenty !.
And what of linking Scotland, Wales and the West Coutry ?. Perhaps this ought to be farmed out to private enterprises in the same vein as the Victorians started.
Or perhaps they should re-open most of tge Beeching cuts that provided bypass and parallel routes.
This might enable the East and West coast routes to be upgraded to accept 250mph trains.

jabird

29th Jan 2013, 22:25

That seems to make sense .......... so I have probably misunderstood as the day a government minister proposes something that makes sense will be a rare day indeed.

No, in fairness, it is the one aspect of HS2 that really is quite commendable. Having said that, it still misses out on numerous other lines that pass near that point, so let's give it 6/10.

Virtually everywhere else HS2 goes, it takes the Ryanoption - BHX East Parkway, not New St, Nottingham-Derby, Meadowhall and still not Leeds proper.

On the other side, is Crewe getting HS2 proper (ie link to N and S?) - consult was ambiguous on that, Manchester "Airport" is other side of the M56 and subject to deal being done, and finally - Piccadilly is in right place (but continuation a la Vic-Picc even better).

So overall, HS2 isn't all bad, but it is far from ideal, and delivers little value for such a cost.

Who on earth drew that over EMA and didn't think it physically impossible unless you close the runway for 2 years???

Maybe that is the plan. What is the total cost of this tunnel? What is the "saving" by using c&c rather than boring it - assuming the line would be deep enough under the runway at the intersection point.

Let's say disrupt is actually only 1 year, and saving is £100m. EMA handles ~4m pax pax pa + freight and so on - let's say the equivalent of 10m pax pa. There's ample capacity at BHX and the runway would be long enough by then for most ops.

If you were MAG, would you take £10 per pax (or eqv) to do nothing, rather than say £6 psc + whatever else at the tills, from which you have to pay staff, order supplies and so on?

w231

29th Jan 2013, 22:29

HS2 began life as an excuse not to extend Heathrow. Build HS2 to Heathrow and you don't need the runway. No houses get bulldozed and trains are green too.

Well it didn't take long to figure that was rubbish - people flying from Manchester to Hong Kong want to go to the airport and people flying from Glasgow to London don't, so Heathrow has been steadily marginalised.

The French built their LGVs between cities, so you come off the old line outside Paris and join it again to go into the centre of Lyon. Far cheaper than blasting tunnels through the middle of Manchester and great for connections, but unlike France our classic lines are Victorian in their dimensions and cannot take things like the double deck trains which HS2 needs to get its numbers to work.

The government published the HS2 economic case - 65% existing rail, 24% new trips, 8% from car and 3% from air.

So as the green arguments have largely been trashed as well, we are on to capacity and regeneration, both dubious, the latter in particular politicians flying in the face of all of the evidence, purely for their own aggrandisement.

Burnie5204

30th Jan 2013, 01:13

Well its certainly 1 way to get us the new terminal we want :P

Sober Lark

30th Jan 2013, 06:47

Amazed it will take as long as 20 years to build this system.

High Speed Rail needs high passenger traffic density and you don't get that by building in unnecessary stops. If you look at the Paris-Lyon-Marseille line it is approx 774km long and the average passenger journey is around 600km. Their TGV east line is approx 300km long and the average passenger distance travelled is 270km.

An EMA stop just wouldn't fit in with the high speed philosophy and even in 20 years time I doubt EMA would have sufficient traffic density to justify one.

jabird

30th Jan 2013, 08:09

High Speed Rail needs high passenger traffic density and you don't get that by building in unnecessary stops. If you look at the Paris-Lyon-Marseille line it is approx 774km long and the average passenger journey is around 600km.

But that density also depends on being able to pick up passengers from the places you do pass through on the way.

Like for likes are never easy, but let's compare the more recently opened (and relevant) Lyon-Marseille stretch with HS2 Ph2 BHX-Leeds:

TGV - 4 stations, average 55 miles apart.
HS2 - 3 stations, average 40 miles apart.

Yet that doesn't tell the whole story. France is over twice the size of the UK for a similar population. That LGV does not pass through a particularly dense area, and every major town has a stop, if on the edge, rather than the centre. TGV trains can pass through Lyon, they can terminate there, or they can scoot round calling at the airport. Perhap's that's your EMA comparison - wonderful piece of sculpture, white elephant building, but no other station in close proximity, so it works as a parkway too.

By the time you weigh in the UK's density - or even take just England which is half as dense again as UK as a whole, you see that the HS2 stops are actually spaced quite a bit further in "real" terms.

However, I still don't think you can create a case for EMA Airport, unless you had a significant traffic boost AND moved the terminal to meet the line. Is the market really going that way?

However, as for Wakefield, that's a different question.

Jonty

30th Jan 2013, 08:54

EGNXEMA: Have you looked at the detailed maps and drawings online for the HS2 route? Someone has clearly taken time and detail to show where the tunnel entrances will be SW and NE of EMA. It is clearly marked as a Cut and Cover tunnel. That is not a bored tunnel, but a dig a huge trench, lay a long concrete tube and then cover it over with earth again.

Who on earth drew that over EMA and didn't think it physically impossible unless you close the runway for 2 years???

Only the first 135m and the last 200m are cut and cover. The actual tunnel (1585m) from one side of the airport boundary to the other is bored.

Sober Lark

30th Jan 2013, 10:46

jabird and on that TGV line you mention, I don't think the station at LYS attracts enough business to justify trains stopping off to drop off / pick up passengers so most trains go straight through. As you say youself, lovely station smack in the middle of an airport but even the trains don't use it that much.

The pattern of population distribution in that part of England is incredibly dense and a non stop service between large cities is what people want.

Jonty

30th Jan 2013, 10:51

You are all missing the vital point. EMA dont want a station on HS2 for passengers (although that would be nice) they want it for cargo. EMA is one of, if not the, busiest cargo airport in the UK. Having a link to HS2 would make it even more so.

Sober Lark

30th Jan 2013, 13:15

Are you sure HS2 is for mixed use? I thought HS2 was for passengers and freight would benefit from increased capacity on existing lines not that freight would use the new HS2 line. I could be wrong though?

jabird

30th Jan 2013, 14:41

EMA is one of, if not the, busiest cargo airport in the UK. Having a link to HS2 would make it even more so.

Where exactly have they said that?

No doubt another architect next week will say "EMA as the new global UK super hub solution" (don't think Silver reads this thread). Only an hour from London?

Better than NRT and numerous others?

All a fallacy, just like same for BHX & Foster Island as even at AMS or OSL train can only account for ~50% of market. You can't build an airport on £300 taxi fares.

And no - SL is spot on, this line isn't being built for freight. France Poste have very limited mail service by HST, HS2 trains will be fast asleep and tucked in by about 11:30!

Honeybuzzard

30th Jan 2013, 14:42

jabird

30th Jan 2013, 14:51

The Great Central from Sheffield to London.

And in places it is now a great cycle track.

There are reasons for not bringing it back, I think main problem is south of Buckingham. Look at tracks through the infamous Gerrard's Cross Tesco tunnel. Space for two down the middle, but not enough separation for HSR.

I wish we could let Chiltern sort the mess out - reasonable value, reliable, nice trains, but unfortunately for me I now live in Coventry not Leamington!

They are now looking at a re-open to Rugby, Rugby M1 Parkway and perhaps even Leicester - but I think the new 56 minute Rugby LM service probably makes it difficult to justify.

So better to complete that cycle track then (ducks for cover or asks mods to move to JB) :ok:

odogo2

30th Jan 2013, 15:29

It seems that many of the subscribers on here do not realise that along with massive disruption to EMA this careful piece of planning ,wnen leaving its tunnel under the EMA then slices through a proposed huge Rail freight terminal which was to be linked to the Cargo facility at the Airport providing some 7000 jobs.After some years,his terminal is in the late stages of planning,and approx £1,5 million has been spent preparing the plans.The co.ordinator of the Rail plan phoned the Council chief of Derby City Council to explain the set up and till the Derby Chief informed him of the freight hub it seems he was unaware of it,I suggest that the Circus at Westminster let the jugglers do the planning and take it away from the clowns.:{

Suzeman

30th Jan 2013, 21:15

It seems that many of the subscribers on here do not realise that along with massive disruption to EMA

And what massive disruption would that be at EMA??

ZOOKER

30th Jan 2013, 21:42

Suzeman,
You've obviously never had to tunnel through the Keuper Marl, sorry, Mercia Mudstones then.

Suzeman

30th Jan 2013, 21:51

You've obviously never had to tunnel through the Keuper Marl, sorry, Mercia Mudstones then.

No - and I suspect that neither have a lot of people on this board.

Have you and if so please explain what the problem is and how this will cause "massive disruption" at EMA?

RedhillPhil

30th Jan 2013, 22:10

The first purpose built high speed railway in the world was built in the UK 115 years ago. The Great Central from Sheffield to London. No gradients, no curves (M1 runs alongside for some miles), no level crossings and it was built with the continental loading gauge (it was designed to link up with the channel tunnel and could have accommodated the taller and wider European trains)
Closed in the late 60's- another own goal for the UK.
HS2 is a mess, spend the money on track and signaling updates.

Sorry friend but you're wrong on virtually all of those points.
The G.C. was not built to what is often referred to as the Continental loading gauge as what is now the Berne Gauge wasn't agreed on until well after the G.C., was built.
It had plenty of gradients and curves. There were level crossing - but not many I'll grant you. The reason it was closed is because there was no traffic for it. It ran from Manchester ( L.N.W.R. to Euston) to Marylebone via Sheffield (M.R. to St. Pancras) principal stations being Nottingham (M.R. to St.. Pancras), Leicester(L.N.W.R.) to Euston, Rugby (L.N.W.R.) to Euston). It's main income was coal traffic but the clean air act and demise of steam locomotives killed that. It simply duplicated what was already there and it's fares in G.C. days were higher than anyone else's.

"Spend the money on track and signalling updates".
It's already been done. The W.C.M.L. has had huuuuge sums of money spent in the last ten years and it's now as straight as it can be made yet still requires tilting trains to achieve 125 mph. (The reason that it's so curvy is because of landowners objecting to a railway being built across their land in the 19th century - sounds familiar?) The signalling system has been renewed as has the power supply. New grade separated junctions have been installed and overbridges have been moved or demolished. Given the present growth of traffic, saturation point is approaching. This new line is needed to take account of traffic needs and freeing space on the present line for "ordinary" commuter trains and freight - especially container traffic. If your'e going to build a new line you build a modern high speed line in much the same way that when you build a new road you build a dual carriageway.

ZOOKER

30th Jan 2013, 22:27

Suzeman,
Graduated in Geology/Physical Geography,
not far from the end of the EMA HS2 tunnel. Commercially sensitive information, therefore my lips are, (unfortunately). sealed. :E

Suzeman

30th Jan 2013, 22:37

Graduated in Geology/Physical Geography,
not far from the end of the EMA HS2 tunnel. Commercially sensitive information, therefore my lips are, (unfortunately). sealed.

Great cop out that one. :}

So if you unable to back up your statement, perhaps odogo2 who first used the phrase might be able to answer my question - "what disruption?".

Always nice to have a few facts rather than vacuous statements to back up any assertion like this. But then this is the internet :ooh:

Dawdler

30th Jan 2013, 23:20

With regard to the HS1/HS2 link up this surely has to take place for the plan to make any sense at all. When the Channel tunnel was being built, plans were announced to run trains from the midlands direct to Brussells or Paris. One stop on the supposed route was Rugby, which had the benefit of already having platforms of sufficient ength to accommodate the full length of a Eurostar train. This plan was dropped at a fairly early stage (much to the disappointment of Rugbeans).

The farce which followed gives an indication of the lack of thought given to these sort of projects. Someone somewhere, decided that the platforms at Rugby were now "too long" and should be shortened when they rebuilt the station at a cost of several millons of pounds. They were halfway through this shortening when it was announced that Virgin were being required to operate longer trains to increase capacity on the West Coast route. Everyone about turn and start to rebuild that which you have just destroyed!

That we in the UK develop a high speed railway, I think is vital. It is a pity that the Central line built for what was the L.N.E.R. is no more because with it's slow gradients and gradual bends, it would have been if not ideal, a suitable alternative to starting again. This scheme which is vital for the long term industrial benefit of this country, needs a lot more thought. The likes of Brindley and Telford who built the canals of England and Wales had difficulties of their own to deal with, but had they not succeeded, the industrial revolution would not have happened when it did.

ZOOKER

31st Jan 2013, 00:43

Suzeman,
I wouldn't want to be on the night-shift in the EGNX VCR when the twin TBMS' thrust under 09/27.
A real jelly-wobbler. :E

almost professional

31st Jan 2013, 09:08

no need to wait, anything over 25knots already has that affect!

RedhillPhil

31st Jan 2013, 09:21

With regard to the HS1/HS2 link up this surely has to take place for the plan to make any sense at all. When the Channel tunnel was being built, plans were announced to run trains from the midlands direct to Brussells or Paris. One stop on the supposed route was Rugby, which had the benefit of already having platforms of sufficient ength to accommodate the full length of a Eurostar train. This plan was dropped at a fairly early stage (much to the disappointment of Rugbeans).

That was a combination of politics and practicalities. Politics was getting regional M.P.s on side when it came to passing the channel tunnel rail bill, practicalities was the enormous length of time to thread a train across the cross London line down from Willesden, Kensington, Battersea and on to the S.E. main line. No-one was going to take a train from Birmingham to Paris that was going to take four and a half hours or Glasgow that was going to take seven and a half hours.

The farce which followed gives an indication of the lack of thought given to these sort of projects. Someone somewhere, decided that the platforms at Rugby were now "too long" and should be shortened when they rebuilt the station at a cost of several millons of pounds. They were halfway through this shortening when it was announced that Virgin were being required to operate longer trains to increase capacity on the West Coast route. Everyone about turn and start to rebuild that which you have just destroyed!

That we in the UK develop a high speed railway, I think is vital. It is a pity that the Central line built for what was the L.N.E.R. is no more because with it's slow gradients and gradual bends, it would have been if not ideal, a suitable alternative to starting again. This scheme which is vital for the long term industrial benefit of this country, needs a lot more thought. The likes of Brindley and Telford who built the canals of England and Wales had difficulties of their own to deal with, but had they not succeeded, the industrial revolution would not have happened when it did.

My post 57 refers (it was actually built by the G.C. which became a constituent part of the L.N.E.R. upon the Parliamentary grouping of 1923.

...........................................

odogo2

31st Jan 2013, 09:30

Suzeman
First,are you aware of the geographical position of EMA?Well it lies next to the M1 and connects to the A42,the roads leading to the M1 and the A42 are single lane roads,as is the road through Castle Donington Village,through which traffic runs to connect to the A50.In the event of an accident these roads are immediatly log jammed,this also happens on race days at Donington park which lies beside the Airport.The Oxford dictionary describes "Disruption" as Quote"Interupt the flow or continuity of"In this instance I refer to traffic,accessing the Airport and its surrounds.Moving millions of cubic metres of earth will need a huge amount of heavy vehicles on these roads you will agree that will cause "disruption" on no small scale.Or perhaps you know of a different method of moving all this earth?Oh silly me!! You are perhaps going to use the same crafty way as the prisoners in the German war prison camp, when they dug a tunnel,you are going to get the workmen to tuck thier trousers into their socks and fill their trousers with soil and then walk ound scattering it so to cause no "disruption":D

Suzeman

31st Jan 2013, 11:44

Suzeman,
I wouldn't want to be on the night-shift in the EGNX VCR when the twin TBMS' thrust under 09/27.
A real jelly-wobbler.

Well at least it will keep you awake in between all those freighter movements :) Would imagine the tunnel borers will be going H24, so will have the same effect in quieter daytime periods

no need to wait, anything over 25knots already has that affect!

So you'll be suffering from the wobblies today then?? :eek:
EGNX 310820Z 23021G34KT 9999 5000S -SHRA SCT030 08/03 Q1004=

First,are you aware of the geographical position of EMA?Well it lies next to the M1 and connects to the A42,the roads leading to the M1 and the A42 are single lane roads,as is the road through Castle Donington Village,through which traffic runs to connect to the A50.

Thank you odogo2 - I'm well aware of the location of EMA - I used to visit there quite frequently until a few years ago and I am well aware of the road situation especially when there is something going on at Donington Park. I'm also aware of the definition of disruption....

Moving millions of cubic metres of earth will need a huge amount of heavy vehicles on these roads you will agree that will cause "disruption" on no small scale.

Having worked on several large scale infrastructure projects over many years I am quite well aware that moving spoil is a major factor. So have you seen a method statement as to where the spoil is going and how it is going to be moved? Of course not; the project is still in its initial preferred routing stage.

It may be that some of the spoil can be moved within the construction site itself without impinging on the road network - especially at the Northern end of the tunnel where embankments are required after the M1 crossing. Depending on where the spoil is going you can create project only haul roads which minimise the use of the normal public roads. Construction traffic can be prohibited from using some local roads and I'm quite sure that will be the case here. Different segments of the construction can be phased which also minimises disruption. I'm sure this sort of thing will be put into the detailed engineering specification. Also in there will be mitigation measures to ensure that disruption is minimised and access maintained to the airport - and I'm sure that the airport will be fully involved in this process.

It looks like a very complex exercise with all the different roads in the area as well as Donington Park and the airport. It will be interesting to see what comes out of it. In the meanwhile ,whilst all the professionals will be working to sort this out, I'll leave you to corner the market in trousers in case all fails.