|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 3, 2012 0:04:17 GMT
Just how do they get into Waterloo International platforms if they're tunneling from the north..?
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenc on Jan 3, 2012 0:07:36 GMT
Not sure if that was addressed to me, but I'm arguing for OOC-Waterloo, not via Euston. The tunnel runs OOC to Nine Elms, so access to Waterloo International is from the South.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 3, 2012 0:55:03 GMT
Me gets now. Gracias. Be even better if they built extra dedicated High-speed lines, but I dunno if there's space for that.
OOC - STI and OOC to Waterloo seems good.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenc on Jan 6, 2012 0:00:36 GMT
BTW, I think there may be an alternative to building OOC-STI for international services. (Remember that Stratford is a monumental failure of transport planning, as Stratford Intl and Stratford Regional are not a single integrated station)
Consider extending the OOC tunnel to the east Bickley area (or perhaps west Bromley). The aim would be for that tunnel to be 80% used by South Eastern fast services from Victoria to Sevenoaks/Maidstone/Chatham, freeing up the two track suburban lines for suburban services. The remaining 20% of capacity would be for through HS services to the continent.
So, Nine Elms has two tunnel portals - one to allow OOC to Waterloo, and one to allow South Eastern to Victoria, with the ability to run through from OOC to South Eastern (and thus to HS1).
Note that a shorter tunnel may be possible, but it wouldn't have the same benefit to relieving the London suburbs, which is the big problem in that area. Plus, it would allow an Orpington/Bromley to OOC/Heathrow service, strengthening HS access.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 6, 2012 0:21:43 GMT
A two-track tunnel then? I'd prefer four lines, or maybe just three, to keep the high-speed trains at high speed.
Of course, I still stick with going to Stratford, but a relief tunnel for Southeastern from OOC - Victoria and onwards. would still be beneficial,
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jan 10, 2012 13:40:16 GMT
I've just checked the HS2 documents located here: assets.dft.gov.uk/hs2-maps-20120110.htmwhich includes the proposed new Euston station. Wow. This is a massive change (to what is there now). From what I can make out, the bus depot goes, as does the old surface building for the underground, and loads of warehouses, offices, a petrol station, several blocks of flats... Views, comments? |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jan 10, 2012 15:51:48 GMT
Euston still looks much the same as the plan was beforehand. Would like to have seen 2 or 4 underground WCML platforms with a view for a future link onwards to Waterloo though.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jan 10, 2012 15:53:17 GMT
Looking at assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-maps-20120110/hs2arp00drrw05012issue3.pdf I can see they are making use of some of the abandoned alignment around Quainton, which was part of the Metropolitan line IIRC. Yes, I agree with you about some WCML platforms being underground, maybe stacking some of the platforms on top of each other. The positions of the Met/H&C/Circle, Northern and Victoria lines on the diagrams would have been a useful guide to what they can and can't do there. It seems they're going to be excavating an awful lot that is very close to Coburg Street too... The cost of the viaduct around Harefield is going to be enormous with all that water to cross, and the swampy land around there. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 3,624
|
Post by Ben on Jan 10, 2012 17:42:55 GMT
'Fraid not! The alignment joins just north of Quainton and uses some of the GC alignment. On that .pdf, the Met line up to Verney is the 'dismantled railway' route that takes a 90deg turn just before HS2 joins, and exits to the top of the page.
Brings up very interesting questions though. Should Chiltern ever end up going north of Aylesbury will it likely be the Met route to Verney they follow, as there won't be room along the existing GC alignment? Whether Chiltern wants to go north of Aylesbury is an open question, but by taking over the Bicester branch, surely they are hoping to bid eventually for the whole East West line?
Long overdue. I'd be interested to see it superimposed on a map of the former railways of the area.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 10, 2012 19:07:40 GMT
One of the Sunday broadsheets said the trains would have restaurants on board. If East Coast, Virgin and First Great Western couldn't make these pay on journey times of 3 or 4 hours, they're hardly going to be viable on a 40-odd minute trip!
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jan 10, 2012 20:06:24 GMT
Brings up very interesting questions though. Should Chiltern ever end up going north of Aylesbury will it likely be the Met route to Verney they follow, as there won't be room along the existing GC alignment? Whether Chiltern wants to go north of Aylesbury is an open question, but by taking over the Bicester branch, surely they are hoping to bid eventually for the whole East West line? It depends I guess. I'd have thought that the old Met route would have been preferable if the objective was Milton Keynes...but of course, the frequent curves might actually work out slower than two straight lines and a curve at Calvert instead. I'd like to see Chiltern reach Buckingham though...or preferably Banbury with a curve onto the old route near (or preferably serving) Brackley. (...or of course, that M6 parkway at Rugby!) |
|
|
|
Post by rationalplan on Jan 11, 2012 0:26:46 GMT
There was a very long drawn out examination of 12 potential sites on the edge of zone 1. Euston came out best for obvious reasons. Apart from being on a site that is relatively easy to redevelop compared to other historical stations. It has the advantage of being the existing terminal for the west coast and not far from the other two northern terminals.
Waterloos other platforms are needed for more long distance services. there is no advantage for routing trains to a more tightly constrained site that requires a much more expensive tunnel and awkward approach from the wrong direction.
There will be plenty of capacity at Euston. The crossrail line will be quicker for a big chunk of travelers, that combined with the reduction of commuter trains into Euston will be enough for stage one at least. By the time stage 2 comes in, then we may need Crossrail 2 to cope, but that is 25 years away.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenc on Jan 11, 2012 11:19:48 GMT
I think Euston is more of a missed opportunity than a disaster. For all those in South London, Sussex, Surrey and west Kent the problem is getting to Euston. It involves crossing London on the tube with luggage, has never been ideal, and bungs up the tube with passengers who don't want or need to be there. Running HS2 to Waterloo would simplify rail access to the North for a vast number of people.
For example, from the Gatwick area, I used to take the train to Waterloo (via CJ) to catch Eurostar. When E* moved, I drove to Ebbsfleet instead (and almost missed a train due to traffic as a result). I'm simply arguing that many more people are affected by domestic travel to the North, and thus many more would benefit from switching HS2 to Waterloo - its simply much more accessible to the South.
The immediate concern for London and South London in particular is that HS2 is sucking up the major investment fund into the 2030s, leaving nothing for new tube/Crossrail lines. It seems to me that Londoners are going to have to pickup the bills themselves to get anything new built. (All current projects in London end in about 2019 - and there are no detailed plans for anything beyond that yet)
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jan 11, 2012 11:29:41 GMT
Well, I suppose if they intended to bring a high speed line through to central London, then they would have to find somewhere for the terminus, though they closed Waterloo International due to a lack of economic viability according to Wikipedia.
I can't understand why they don't branch the HS1 line at Purfleet and run a line to Brentwood and Harlow following the M25, Stansted, Cambridge, Peterborough, Lincoln, Doncaster, York, and on through Middlesborough, Gateshead, Berwick and Edinburgh. This would regenerate the East Coast where land is cheaper and allow the population to spread more evenly. Or they could have gone from Marden, through Royal Tunbridge Wells, East Grinstead, Three Bridges, Gatwick, Leatherhead, Byfleet, Chertsey, Staines, Heathrow, Iver and Uxbridge to connect to the existing planned route. There are plenty of places to connect for services into London along that route, and an infrastructure boost along those existing radial arteries would benefit many more commuters than just the long distance travellers any HS line would bring in. The commuters are the bread and butter of the rail network, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by scary on Jan 11, 2012 20:29:43 GMT
This is either a genius idea or a very stupid suggestion, however this seems the best place for it..
To avoid all the problems with building HS2 on a new route up the country, why don't they utilise an existing one - The M40 for example. It's already been carved through the countryside to the West Midlands, it doesn't have any sharp turns and it's reasonably flat.
It can either be built both alongside or above the road on a second level depending on available space. Tunnels/cuttings/viaducts can be used for any parts where the gradients are too steep
|
|
