|
|
Post by nickf on Jan 12, 2012 17:08:36 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 This is indeed genius! But why stop with the M40? Every motorway should have a railway planted on top of it. A neat reversal from those pathetic suggestions years ago when people thought that railways should be turned into roads. |
|
|
|
Post by rationalplan on Jan 12, 2012 20:17:48 GMT
They did not follow the M40 because it is quite twisty in places and runs close to several urban areas east of Oxford.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jan 13, 2012 10:13:04 GMT
There's nothing to stop them using the M25 around Heathrow to Iver and from Purfleet to Stansted.
Maybe not double decking, due to the height restrictions around Heathrow's flight paths, but there is still a wide, green margin along the motorway.
They really should be linking the airports together and bringing them into the picture as transport hubs.
|
|
|
|
Post by iansergeant on Jan 14, 2012 15:01:34 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. I'm not sure what space is available underground, but it would at least plan for the future if the HS2 platforms, and two others for local trains, were built underground. Also, taking the approach of following the same route but staying in a tunnel as far as Euston, you avoid the controversy of the demolitions in Camden and reduce the work necessary on the station. Not sure if this would break even, but it may do. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Jan 15, 2012 12:55:20 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. I'm not sure what space is available underground, but it would at least plan for the future if the HS2 platforms, and two others for local trains, were built underground. Also, taking the approach of following the same route but staying in a tunnel as far as Euston, you avoid the controversy of the demolitions in Camden and reduce the work necessary on the station. Not sure if this would break even, but it may do. One thing to consider, with regards to putting new platforms lower down, is how to get the trains there. There is already a steep up gradient heading north from Euston to Camden up Camden Bank, in order to pass over the Grand Union Canal. So to get WCML trains to a lower level will need expensive tunneling from a point further north, to get the tracks underneath the canal and into the station without a severe gradient being needed. Remember that the current platforms at Euston are already below ground, in a cutting, with the station concourse being at ground level. Past plans to take the DC lines to a low level terminal loop would have been easier, as the DC lines are already at a lower level at the southern end of the Primrose Hill tunnels. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jan 15, 2012 13:01:38 GMT
I'm not sure what space is available underground, but it would at least plan for the future if the HS2 platforms, and two others for local trains, were built underground. Also, taking the approach of following the same route but staying in a tunnel as far as Euston, . One thing to consider, with regards to putting new platforms lower down, is how to get the trains there. ..... So to get WCML trains to a lower level will need expensive tunneling from a point further north, to get the tracks underneath the canal and into the station without a severe gradient being needed. But HS2 will be in tunnel - the propsal was to continue the tunnel all the way to the terminus. For that matter, that would mean the terminus could be somewhere else - under St Pancras for example. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Jan 15, 2012 13:55:12 GMT
One thing to consider, with regards to putting new platforms lower down, is how to get the trains there. ..... So to get WCML trains to a lower level will need expensive tunneling from a point further north, to get the tracks underneath the canal and into the station without a severe gradient being needed. But HS2 will be in tunnel - the propsal was to continue the tunnel all the way to the terminus. For that matter, that would mean the terminus could be somewhere else - under St Pancras for example. But the HS2 tunnel won't help the WCML, for which half of the platforms were mentioned. There will be little point in sending the HS2 trains south of Euston via any possible tunnel to Waterloo and beyond, as they won't really be suitable for suburban services. And the point still stands that Euston is already at a lower level than the surrounding ground, so any HS2 tunnel can come out into the open at the station approach much more cheaply than building a new station throat underground. To get the HS2 line to St. Pancras would be more difficult than Euston, as there are a lot more LU lines and buildings with deep foundations around St. Pancras. |
|
|
|
Post by rhubarbrhubarb on Jan 15, 2012 20:47:34 GMT
I may have missed something .... but looking at the plans I do wonder what happens to the DC lines into Euston and the DC / freight link round to Camden Road.
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Jan 15, 2012 21:45:42 GMT
I may have missed something .... but looking at the plans I do wonder what happens to the DC lines into Euston and the DC / freight link round to Camden Road. The plan was that the DC lines were to be diverted to the North London Line at Camden Road, via the link and would no longer run to Euston. This may also be tied into the re-extension of the Bakerloo to Watford Junction. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jan 16, 2012 16:21:14 GMT
Gah, the whole thing is so frustrating. There's a dozen other places they could have put a new terminus, rather than a contender for London's least overcrowded station. Somewhere around Battersea, perhaps, or Kew Bridge.
[EDIT]
Oh, and I read Luton airport is set for expansion now. Why couldn't they have run the HS2 up the East Coast instead and put a stop at Luton? It's not like they can expand Heathrow anymore, and unless they double the size of aircraft or allow night flights, the footfall at Heathrow is going to be easily predictable for the next 50 years - the same as now! The infrastructure is already designed to cope with that, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by iansergeant on Jan 22, 2012 0:46:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Jan 22, 2012 2:02:09 GMT
Just a quick point from your blog: This is a severe under estimate of the numbers of people that 7 peak hour trains would take. Remember that most peak services are 8 cars or 12 cars (the latter especially in the morning peak with Euston arrivals from 08.00 to 09.00). As one four car class 350/2 has a capacity of 243 standard and 24 first class seats, you will already take over half of your quoted capacity in a single 12 car formation and your 1,400 or 1,750 should really be more like 5,000 - 7,000 for the existing peak services from Milton Keynes, Bletchley and Tring. |
|
|
|
Post by iansergeant on Jan 22, 2012 2:55:54 GMT
Thanks, the use of four car trains did feel low, but Wikipedia isn't helping here by not saying the trains run as multiple sets. It needs to be averaged over the whole three hours of the morning peak where I suspect there are less than 21 trains (19?), as the numbers for everything will be higher for 8-9. Quite happy to amend the blog if someone can provide the correct figures, but I suspect it doesn't change the basic argument I am making.
To make the numbers break even to the 3350 figure in 2026, the trains without any standing on a 267 loading for four cars would have to average 8 cars in the three hours of the morning peak assuming 19 trains. Is this the case? And if it was 5000, that would be an average of 11.8 cars per peak train assuming 19 in the period, which feels high.
My mistake granted, but I woyld be interested in some real figures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 22, 2012 9:55:12 GMT
Gah, the whole thing is so frustrating. There's a dozen other places they could have put a new terminus, rather than a contender for London's least overcrowded station. Somewhere around Battersea, perhaps, or Kew Bridge. [EDIT] Oh, and I read Luton airport is set for expansion now. Why couldn't they have run the HS2 up the East Coast instead and put a stop at Luton? It's not like they can expand Heathrow anymore, and unless they double the size of aircraft or allow night flights, the footfall at Heathrow is going to be easily predictable for the next 50 years - the same as now! The infrastructure is already designed to cope with that, isn't it? New termini I'd say tend not to work. Euston has connections. Kew Bridge? Nah. It's going to have a spur to Heathrow for all the traffic that comes from other cities. Relieving some of the pressure on the Victoria line would be easier if the Chelney Line (or Crossrail 2) is built. I don't care where it goes, just so long it's mainline gauge and has a section Victoria - Euston and St Pancras via TCR. Ian, are you saying we should build a Euston - TCR - Waterloo tunnel, send 10tph of LM services down there and onwards? Apart from the South coast not being the Midlands, that's a great idea. I think you are also saying send all HS2 services there to, to 6 extra terminus platforms at Waterloo. Once again, woo! |
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 811
|
Post by castlebar on Jan 22, 2012 10:50:31 GMT
As l have said on these threads before, political decisions are made, then the public are "consulted" later, but in reality what is going to happen has already been decided. . Only in rare cases when electoral suicide becomes obvious, will there be any re-think. . . "Public consultation" in this country is farcical. "We know what is good for you and what you will get. Don't get in the way of it"
Just look at what has happened over the last few months and look at the support for projects that has sometimes come from unexpected quarters. . . This is an example. . . HS2 will eventually end up on Boris Island.
|
|
