tubechallenge.com

Following on from the politics thread.

My personal view is that it needs to be built and the sooner the better. Just a couple of things I dont quite like about the current plans.

1. The Chilterns. I think it has been said that more tunnels will be used, but I'd like to see it before I believe it. Especially as tunnels aren't cheap to build and the cost is a huge factor.

2. Intermeadiate stops. I dont know how many tracks they are going to lay. I would assume it would be 4 along most of the line. This would allow a slow stopping service to operate along the line, or 2 separate 'services' meeting in the middle, one to London and one to B'ham. If it is just a single pair of tracks then that is very short sighted.

3. HS2 has to go further north, ideally all the way to Scotland. I dont know if this is 100% set in stone.

I'd like it to see it built. The UK is very far behind in terms of railway technology compared to Europe and Japan. Though I am slightly biased, trains are great mode of transportation. Very efficient use of energy, can go through built up areas at great speed, good connections etc

Intermediate stations will depend on the route taken, I reckon. The already existing London to Birmingham line can help with intermediate stops?

Also, combining your thoughts on tunnels and the number of tracks. If you do build a two track tunnel you can't add more tracks without building another tunnel.

MylesHSG wrote:1. The Chilterns. I think it has been said that more tunnels will be used, but I'd like to see it before I believe it. Especially as tunnels aren't cheap to build and the cost is a huge factor.

I read in the paper an interview with a woman who lives in Amersham (and, incidentally, owns a pub there). She claimed that now that HS2 would run past Amersham the town was finished - no one would ever go there again (her words - she actually said that).

WTF?! First, there will be no stops on the line anywhere near Amersham, so people won't be deserting Amersham to go to live nearer the line for that. Second, the line is pencilled in to run THREE miles from Amersham. You won't hear it or see it from that distance. And on the issue of SEEING it, the third thing is that the plans indicate that the line will enter a tunnel several miles (about five to seven) from Amersham, and appear above ground several miles the other side of Amersham.

How on earth will Amersham be affected by HS2 if all of the above is the case? Just another case of a NIMBY trying to scare the local population into opposing it. I mean, what if they built a new motorway a few miles from Amersham. Everyone would WELCOME it, because it would take traffic away from Amersham centre. BUT, if there's no traffic then no one will be coming to Amersham, which is what the person interviewed didn't want! I bet she'd back an Amersham bypass like a shot. Talk about irony.

This is the sort of ignorance the railway industry is dealing with. People love roads, but hate railways despite the fact that the former are much more harmful to the environment than the latter. But then, people love cars, and the freedom to go where they like when they like. Railways don't afford them so much freedom on that score, so another victory for roads. We can't have the middle class, Tory-voting snobs being deprived of that freedom, can we?

And yes, the line does need to go to Scotland, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Very true Tubeguru, I'd rather live next to the HS2 than a motorway!

Amersham on A404 anyway its not on a major truck road away! Why would Amersham suffer a loss of business?

The Raven wrote:Very true Tubeguru, I'd rather live next to the HS2 than a motorway!

Amersham on A404 anyway its not on a major truck road away! Why would Amersham suffer a loss of business?

Amersham lost a stable business when it was discovered Chesham was a better start for a tube Challenge for a while but might come back in as a finishing point rest perhaps!regards to which pub please let us kno then we can get nice service next time im there and hs2 well im all for it amersham is a dead end town anyway split in two

They may suffer some inconvenience during construction, but even that's going to minimal, no?

I'd suggest that Britain doesn't need to be "like" other European countries and "need" high speed railways. This is because Britain is far smaller and more densely populated. We simply don't have cities spread out far enough to warrant it. Journey time savings simply aren't going to be enough, I feel. I'd like to be proved wrong, though.

Starkey7 wrote:I'd suggest that Britain doesn't need to be "like" other European countries and "need" high speed railways. This is because Britain is far smaller and more densely populated. We simply don't have cities spread out far enough to warrant it. Journey time savings simply aren't going to be enough, I feel. I'd like to be proved wrong, though.

The thing is though, HS2 isn't being built for the sake of it. The West Coast mainline is almost at capacity - they can't fit any more trains on it, and passenger numbers are increasing. So for those people who are travelling between London and Birmingham/Manchester/Scotland/wherever it offers relief to those routes.

As we know, by some accident of railway history, Birmingham ended up not being on the main WCML, but on a loop off it. Given the chance to start again with an almost blank sheet of paper, why is Birmingham planned to end up on a branch off the main London - Machester / Leeds - Glasgow / Newcastle / Edinburgh high speed railway?

I thought it was being served reasonably effectively by a short spur off the main line, with a triangle junction. Having to build a high speed line through the built up part of the West Midlands would be a nightmare!