The map above shows the course of HS2 passing Brackley on a 15m high viaduct. Predictably, the inhabitants of Brackley are up in arms. However, it is not all the NIMBYism you might expect. A few residents have realised that, were Brackley given a station on the new line, everyone in the town would benefit by a rise in property values that is not just due to the bubble.
Of course Brackley used to have a station, and the building still survives, but for some reason the DfT have decided not to follow the route of the old Great Central Railway (visible curving along the edge of Brackey in the map above) in favour of the 15m high viaduct mentioned earlier. The Green Party suspects this is gold plating by the DfT and I for one would not be surprised.
Perhaps, with the financial squeeze on all government departments, the DfT might be persuaded to look at cheaper alternatives, like reusing more of the railway lines we already have, be they in use or disused.
Monday 23 August 2010
More on HS2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I still don't think the old curve could handle a train doing 200 mph.
And sure, having a new station halfway between Birmingham and London would be fantastic for Bracklet, but would reduce the 35 minute time saving for everybody wanting to travel straight from B to L, thus partially defeating the object.
Leaving to one side the NIMBYism - the vibration on the structure of a train doing 200mph? Of what is the structure built and what is the 'wear & tear' factor from vibration? What are the risk factors of an accident and the train derailing - one has to bear in mind Network Rails 'track' record?
Just asking............
Mark, one it would not reduce the journey time by much, as the new electric trains can accelerate much faster than the old diesels and two, not all trains would stop at Brackley. You could have said the same about Ashford station on HS1. Yes, even 1 mile radius curves would slow the trains down a little, but straightening the old GCR here and there has got to be cheaper than building a new line and the odd curve like the one a Brackley wouldn't make that much difference.
Still don't understand all the fuss about a line to Birmingham.Is n't there supposed to be a range of options.Greengauge 21 has one half of its two track system from Edinburgh down through Yorkshire,Nottingham and Cambridge. Seems more sensible or as sensible.
It would be a pity if the cuts were to scupper the plan.Austerity did for Maplin/ Foulness airport idea which would have got a London airport nearer the best site.( The Marinair site since you ask)
Maplin airport? You're showing your age again DBC!
I must admit, if there is going to be any kind of 'Keynsian' government spending stimulus I prefer major infrastructure (airports, Severn barrage, high speed rail etc) to rises in tax credits and yet more 'schools n 'ospitals'.
Mark very much hits the nail on the head. There is also the issue of that section of line already being extremely tight on capacity without adding local services, thanks to the decision to add a north-east branch to a two-track line. The best Brackley can hope for is the addition of a third track alongside the high-speed alignment and the extension of a few trains from Aylesbury Vale Parkway.
"but would reduce the 35 minute time saving for everybody wanting to travel straight from B to L, thus partially defeating the object."
I'm sure the DfT have done their cost benefit analyses, but are there really going to be enough people saved that 35 mins to warrant the huge expenditure of a completely new rail line, or is this really just international keeping-up-with-the-Joneses.
HST is / will be a massive misallocation of capital. Simple test. Has any private company wanted to build and operate the line without any public subsidy? If no, then don't build it.
And, yes, the alignment of the old Great Central Railway may be well be too tight a radius for a HST.
"Has any private company wanted to build and operate the line without any public subsidy? "
Well, there was a company interested in rebuilding the old Great Central, but mainly for freight, I think. They've had a pretty chilly reception at the DfT, AFAICS. Don't forget that the owners of Canary Wharf offered to fund the building of the DLR and were turned down - HMG moves in mysterious ways, its blunders to perform.
And yes, 1 mile min radius curves might well be too tight for 250mph, but is that target max speed really justified given the additional expense to achieve it.
There are rumblings on the 'net that HS2 is simply an exercise in keeping the DfT and a whole raft of consultants and lawyers busy before it is dropped as a cost-cutting measure once billions of taxpayers' finest has been spent. From a designer's point of view, the best jobs are the ones that are never built, because they can never fail or go wrong.
L, I'm against subsidies in general, but with public transport (road or rail or airports) different rules apply - hardly any railway has ever run at a profit in itself, but the gains to landowners (minus compensation) are absolutely massive and usually more than enough to cover the capital cost.
The Canary Wharf/Jubilee Line example which B mentions is one of those many tales that land value taxers like to discuss around the camp fire.
That said, the value of HS2 is fairly easy to calculate - it's all the economic activity that would otherwise not take place; crudely speaking, it's number of passengers using it x time saved x the value of their time per hour.
Somebody somewhere must know these figures (although I admit I don't).
The various reports on HS2 include this B/CA calculation. Here's the most recent DfT one - see p6-8 of chapter 1.
I'm not sure how anyone capable of writing a coherent sentence could possibly make Lola's mistake of failing to account for positive externalities. Simply bizarre...
That said, rumours from government transport financing types suggest that - despite the fact that both projects have a large positive B/CR - the government is unlikely to be willing to fund both Crossrail and HS2 (given its position of pretending the UK's debt situation is a serious problem, borrowing gbp20bn for infrastructure projects might give the game away a little. Even though finding the capital would be the easiest thing in the world), and that HS2 will therefore be shelved until Crossrail spending is complete at the end of the decade.
JB, ta, but they could have been a bit more detailed on total time saving and value per hour of time saved and so on.
Your point about borrowing is a bit daft - if HS2 is a good deal, it is always worth borrowing a bit more to do it, else not.
I hope you mean "the government's attitude to borrowing is a bit daft" - I agree completely with you that if it's worth doing it is, and if it's not it isn't.
JB, you deride the Tories for worrying about the national debt. Perhaps they do exaggerate it a bit, but Labour failed to take it seriously at all.
I'm with the Tories on this one. As you say, that does not stop a good investment being a good investment - but - our rather high debt burden pushes up the interest rate we have to pay, thus making HS2 less likely to be a good investment.
I've been thinking about this a little - is there any reason that the government shouldn't be forced to run at a surplus and fully fund all future commitment?
It'd be a very good break on inflation (if the government is sitting on piles of cash, they're not going to want to decrease it's value) and would ensure that all spending is properly evaluated before being approved - if there's a limited pot of cash to dole out each year, they're going to be careful with it rather than pissing it all up the wall like the last government did.
Not that we actually have any way of binding government, anyway, but there's been talk of a constitution being drafted recently - I'm wondering if there are any good arguments not to put something like this on it...
The (to me) obvious way to get a high-speed rail network at minimal cost is to build the bulk of the track along the fast lanes of existing motorways. The advantages of this are numerous: -
There would be no environmental damage. (The centre of a motorway can, surely, not be damaged.)
The motorways follow routes where there is a demand to travel. Therefore no need for expensive inquiries as to the best routes. (Cost reduction)
The surveying has already been done. (Cost reduction)
The bulk of the groundwork has been done. (Cost reduction)
Planning permission would not be needed, as there would be no change of use, giving a huge reduction in time taken. (Cost reduction)
One of the government's requirements of the network is that it encourages motorists to switch to rail travel. (Being overtaken by a train travelling at over 200mph should do this.)
If the track were to be built 1.5-2 metres above the road it would render accidents involving lorries crossing the centre reservation a thing of the past.
With the switch over of goods and passengers to the new high-speed rail network the rail track would make good use of the land released by the under used motorways.
BA, worth considering, but two questions:
1. Is the motorway straight enough for a 225 mph train?
2. Do you know how wide two railway tracks are compared to two fast lanes and a centre reservation?
May have to slow down (to 150 mph)in a few places. A small price for the speed and ease of building the railway.
Twin TGV tracks need 33ft. width, two lanes and central reservation supply 36ft.
Bill Adam - Underused motorways??? are you nuts?
Slight flaw in your admitadly novel plan (I am allways pleased to see some lateral thinking, genuine compliment for that!) would this not need the closing of said motorways to build the new railway in the middle, and how long would that take? the country would grind to a halt! Not that it isnot allready?
Rather than high speed rail, why is not more research into CHEAP rail being done, bugger journey times of 35 min if it cost £10 to get from London to Birmingham huge numbers would switch from car to train. I suspect the cost of the eventual tickets will be astronomical.
If you want to get locals on side put in stations - if it is on a slip road (sorry dont know the terack/train term) it wont effect trains not stopping there eg using the old brackley line in addition to the planned new one so stopping trains turn off the main line stop in brackley and then rejoin ghte main line? (yes i live in Brackley and would like a station to be able to travel to london easily)
Just my rant
Hi Jez,
Not nuts, if the plan fulfills its objectives then traffic will be moving off road onto the railways
and the motorways will become underused.
The track is built on a raised base(5ft high). The middle and fast lanes are closed while the base is built all sections at the same time (technique used when the GWR from London to Bristol was reduced from 6ft to standard guage in one weekend). That should only take a week, the rest of the construction can be done along the new track leaving the two lane motorway to run as normal. You can put in as many "sliproads"/(sidetracks?) as the locals want.
Bill Adam
Post a Comment